HomeMy WebLinkAboutP & D CONSULTANTS - 2002DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
PROPOSED GRAND AVENUE WIDENING
SCH NO. 1998051068
Prepared For:
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Public Works Agency M-21
P.O. Box 1988
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Contact: David Biondolillo, Project Manager
(714) 647-5603
Prepared By:
P&D CONSULTANTS, INC.
999 Town and Country Road, Suite 400
Orange, CA 92868
Contact: Christine Huard -Spencer
(714) 835-4447
MAY 2002
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS....................................................................................................................G-1
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.........................................................................................................................ES-1
ES.1
Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report ...........................................
................ I...................... ES -1
ES.2
Description of the Proposed Project.................................................................................................
ES -1
ES.3
Summary of Environmental Impacts................................................................................................
ES -1
ESA
Summary of Impacts Found Not to be Significant.........................................................................
ES -12
ES.5
Environmentally Superior Alternative...........................................................................................
ES -14
ES.6
Project Objectives...........................................................................................................................ES-17
Related Projects....................................................................................................................1-15
ES.7
Preferred Alternative......................................................................................................................ES-18
Objectives..............................................................................................................................1-15
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROJECT OBJECTIVES....................................................1-1
1.1 Proposed Project..................................................................................................................................
1-1
1.1.1
Overview................................................................................................................................
1-1
1,1.2
Description of Build Alternative 1.........................................................................................1-1
2-2
1.1.3
Description of Build Alternative 2........................................................................................1-12
LIIProperty
Acquisition............................................................................................................1-13
2-3
1.1.5
Alternatives ...................................... ....................................................................................
1-13
1.1.6
Related Projects....................................................................................................................1-15
1.2 Project
Objectives..............................................................................................................................1-15
1.3 CEQA Process...................................................................................................................................1-17
Energy and Mineral Resources Impacts Found Not to be Significant................................................2-6.
1.3.1
California Environmental Quality Act............... ................ ...................................
............... 1-17
1.3.2
Initial Study and Notice of Preparation .......................................... .....................................
1-17
1.3.3
Scoping Meeting..................................................................................................................1-17
Utilities and Service Systems Impacts Found Not to be Significant..................................................2-8
1.3.4
Format of the EIR................................................................................................................1-18
Aesthetics hnpacts Found Not to be Significant.................................................................................2-8
1.3.5
Certification of the Final EIR..............................................................................................1-21
Cultural Resources Impacts Found Not to be Significant...................................................................2-9
1.3.6
Other Approvals and Permits ................... ............................................................................
1-21
1.3.7
Opportunities for Public Input and the EIR Process............................................................1-21
1.3.8
Incorporation by Reference.................................................................................................1-22
1.3.9
Areas of Controversy/Issues to Be Resolved......................................................................1-22
2.0 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT BASED ON THE
2.1
INITIALSTUDY...............................................................................................................................2-1
Overview.............................................................................................................................................2-1
2.2
Land Use Impacts Found Not to be Significant. ............................... .....................................
. .......... 2-1
2.3
Population and Housing Impacts Found Not to be Significant... ........................................................
2-2
2.4
Geology Impacts Found Not to be Significant....................................................................................2-2
2.5
Water Impacts Found Not to be Significant ....... .................................................................................
2-3
2.6
Air Quality Impacts Found Not to be Significant...............................................................................2-4
2.7
Transportation Impacts Found Not to be Significant..........................................................................2-5
2.8
Biological Resources Impacts Found Not to be Significant...............................................................2-6
2.9
Energy and Mineral Resources Impacts Found Not to be Significant................................................2-6.
2.10
Hazards Impacts Found Not to be Significant....................................................................................2-6
2.11
Public Services Impacts Found Not to be Significant.........................................................................2-7
2.12
Utilities and Service Systems Impacts Found Not to be Significant..................................................2-8
2.13
Aesthetics hnpacts Found Not to be Significant.................................................................................2-8
2.14
Cultural Resources Impacts Found Not to be Significant...................................................................2-9
2.15
Recreation hnpacts Found Not to be Significant................................................................................
2-9
F:IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - Grandl=doc TOC -1
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS, IMPACTS AND MPITGATION MEASURES.............................3-1
3.1
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................3.1-1
3.2
Land
Use and Planning..............................................................................:......................................3.2-1
3.2.1
Existing Setting Related to Land Use and Planning...........................................................3.2-1
3.2.2
Thresholds of Significance Related to Land Use and Planning.........................................3.2-2
3.2.3
Methodology Related to Land Use and Planning...............................................................3.2-3
3.2.4
Impacts Related to Land Use and Planning........................................................................3.2-3
3.2.5
Mitigation Related to Land Use and Planning ......................... .........................................
3.2-26
3.2.6
Level of Significance After Mitigation Related to Land Use and Planning ....................3.2-27
3.3
Population and Housing...................................................................................................................3.3-1
3.3.1
Existing Setting Related to Population and Housing...... ....................................................
3.3-1
3.3.2
Thresholds of Significance Related to Population and Housing........................................3.3-1
3.3.3
Methodology Related to Population and Housing..............................................................3.3-1
3.3.4
Impacts Related to Population and Housing.......................................................................3.3-2
3.3.5
Mitigation Related to Population and Housing..................................................................3.3-3
3.3.6
Level of Significance After Mitigation Related to Population and Housing ....................3.3-3
3.4
Air Quality
........................................................................................................................................3.4-1
3.4.1
Existing Setting Related to Air Quality ............. ..................................................................
3.4-1
3.4.2
Thresholds of Significance Related to Air Quality............................................................3.4-7
3.4.3
Methodology Related to Air Quality..................................................................................3.4-8
3.4.4
hnpacts Related to Air Quality...........................................................................................3.4-9
3.4.5
Mitigation Related to Air Quality.....................................................................................3.4-14
3.4.6
Level of Significance After Mitigation Related to Air Quality........................................3.4-15
3.5
Transportation...................................................................................................................................3.5-1
3.5.1
Existing Setting Related to Transportation ..................................... ....................................
3.5-1
3.5.2
Thresholds of Significance Related to Transportation.......................................................3.5-7
3.5.3
Methodology Related to Transportation.............................................................................3.5-7
3.5.4
Impacts Related to Transportation ...... ................................................................................
3.5-9
3.5.5
Impacts Related to Access During Construction..............................................................3.5-22
3.5.6
Mitigation Related to Transportation................................................................................3.5-22
3.5.7
Mitigation Related to Access .......................... ..................................................................
3.5-23
3.5.8
Level of Significance After Mitigation Related to Transportation and Access ...............3.5-23
3.6
Noise
.................................................................................................................................................3.6-1
3.6.1
Existing Setting Related to Noise.......................................................................................3.6-1
3.6.2
Thresholds of Significance Related to Noise....................................................................3.6-16
3.6.3
Methodology Related to Noise .............................................. ...........................................
3.6-18
3.6.4
Impacts Related to Noise..................................................................................................3.6-21
3.6.5
Mitigation Related to Noise .................... .................................................. ........................
3.6-37
3.6.6
Level of Significance After Mitigation Related to Noise.................................................3.6-44
3.7
Cultural Resources............................................................................................................................3.7-1
3.7.1
Existing Setting Related to Cultural Resources..................................................................3.7-1
3.7.2
Thresholds of Significance Related to Cultural Resources ..................... .............................
3.7-7
3.7.3
Methodology Related to Cultural Resources.............................................................
......... 3.7-7
3.7.4
Impacts Related to Cultural Resources..................................................... ..........................
3.7-9
3.7.5
Mitigation Related to Cultural Resources.........................................................................3.7-10
3.7.6
Level of Significance After Mitigation Related to Cultural Resources...........................3.7-12
4.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS.......................................................................................4-1
4.1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 (b) ........................................ ................................. .... ... .................. 4-1
4.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Related to Land Use and Planning....................................................4-1
4.3 Unavoidable Adverse h apacts Related to Population and Housing...................................................4-1
4.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Related to Transportation..................................................................4-2
F: IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - GrandITOCdoc TOC -2
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report
Table of Contents
8.2
4.5
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Related to Noise.................................................................................4-2
8.3
4.6
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Related to Cultural Resources...........................................................4-2
8.4
5.0
IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES..................5-1
6.0
GROWTH INDUCING AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE
8-2
8.6
PROPOSEDPROJECT...................................................................................................................6-1
8-3
6.1
Growth Inducing Impacts....................................................................................................................6-1
8-3
6.2
Cumulative Impacts ............ :................................................................................................................
6-3
8.9
6.2.1 Definition of Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................6-3
8-5
9.0
6.2.2 Cumulative Projects.............................................................................................................6-3
9.1
City of Santa Ana ....... .................................................. .......................................................................
6.2.3 Cumulative Impacts Related to Land Use and Planning .....................................................611
9.2
P&D Consultants, Inc. ........................................................................................................................
6.2.4 Cumulative Impacts Related to Population and Housing...................................................6-5
9.3
Cultural Resources ......................................... ......................................................................................
6.2.5 Cumulative Impacts Related to Geological Problems......................................................6-10
9.3.1 Discovery Works...................................................................................................................9-1
6.2.6 Cumulative Impacts Related to Water..............................................................................6-11,
9.3.2 Science Applications International Corporation.................................... ................................
6.2.7 Cumulative Impacts Related to Air Quality......................................................................6-11
9.4
Mestre Greve Associates.....................................................................................................................9-1
6.2.8 Cumulative Impacts Related to Transportation.................................................................6-12
9.5
BridgeNet Consulting Services International......................................................................................9-2
6.2.9 Cumulative Impacts Related to Biological Resources .......................... ............................
6-12
6.2.10 Cumulative Impacts Related to Energy and Mineral Resources......................................6-13
6.2.11 Cumulative Impacts Related to Hazards...........................................................................6-13
6.2.12 Cumulative Impacts Related to Noise...............................................................................6-14
6.2.13 Cumulative Impacts Related to Public Services...............................................................6-14
6.2.14 Cumulative Impacts Related to Utilities and Service Systems.........................................6-15
6.2.15 Cumulative Impacts Related to Aesthetics........................................................................6-15
6.2.16 Cumulative Impacts Related to Cultural Resources..........................................................6-16
6.2.17 Cumulative Impacts Related to Recreation ........... ............................................................
6-16
7.0
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM...............................................................................7-1
7.1
Purpose................................................................................................................................................7-1
7.2
Development of the MMP...................................................................................................................7-1
7.3
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Proposed Grand Avenue Widening.....................................7-1
8.0 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE .... ................................................................................................ R-1
8.1
Description of the No Project Alternative...........................................................................................8-1
8.2
Impacts of the No Project Alternative Related to Land Use and Planning.........................................8-1
8.3
Impacts of the No Project Alternative Related to Population and Housing ................ .......................
8-2
8.4
hnpacts of the No Project Alternative Related to Air Quality............................................................
8-2
8.5
Impacts of the No Project Alternative Related to Transportation, ......................................................
8-2
8.6
Impacts of the No Project Alternative Related to Noise.....................................................................
8-3
8.7
Impacts of the No Project Alternative Related to Cultural Resources .............. ..................................
8-3
8.8
Impacts of the No Project Alternative Related to Other Environmental Parameters .........................8-3
8.9
Project Objectives .................................... ............................................................................................
8-5
9.0
LIST OF PREPARERS....................................................................................................................9-1
9.1
City of Santa Ana ....... .................................................. .......................................................................
9-1
9.2
P&D Consultants, Inc. ........................................................................................................................
9-1
9.3
Cultural Resources ......................................... ......................................................................................
9-1
9.3.1 Discovery Works...................................................................................................................9-1
9.3.2 Science Applications International Corporation.................................... ................................
9-1
9.4
Mestre Greve Associates.....................................................................................................................9-1
9.5
BridgeNet Consulting Services International......................................................................................9-2
F.- PROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - GrandlTOC doc TOC -3
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
10.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................10-1
APPENDICES
A. Initial Study and Notice of Preparation
B. Notice of Preparation Distribution List
C. Responses to the Notice of Preparation
D. Scoping Meeting
E. Air Quality Assessment
F. Traffic Study
G. Noise Technical Reports
H. Cultural Resources Assessment
I. City of Santa Ana Handbook on Acquisition
F: WROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - Gran&TOCdoc TOC -4
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Pale
1-1 Grand Avenue Location Map..............................................................................................................1-2
1-2 Alternative 1 (100' ProposedRight-of-Way)......................................................................................1-3
1-3 Alternative 2 (120' Proposed Right-of-Way)......................................................................................1-7
3.2-1
Alternative 1 Right -of -Way Impacts................................................................................................3.2-4
3.2-2
Alternative 2 Right -of -Way Impacts..............................................................................................3.2-22
3.4-1
CALINE4 CO Modeling Receptor Locations..................................................................................3.4-6
3.5-1
Existing Setting.................................................................................................................................3.5-2
3.5-2
2001 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes..............................................................................................3.5-3
3.5-3
Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes.:..................................................................................................3.5-5
3.54
Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes....................................................................................................3.5-6
3.5-5
Assumed 2020 (Build Alternative) Intersection Geometry ............................................ ...............
3.5-11
3.5-6
2020 Daily Traffic Volumes...........................................................................................................3.5-13
3.5-7
2020 AM Peak Hour Volumes.......................................................................................................3.5-14
3.5-8
2020 PM Peak Hour Volumes........................................................................................................3.5-15
3.6-1
Locations of Noise Monitoring Positions.........................................................................................3.6-5
3.6-2
Existing Noise Contours on Grand Avenue from Seventeenth Street to Fourteenth Street ..........
3.6-10
3.6-3
Existing Noise Contours on Grand Avenue from Fourteenth Street to Santa Ana Boulevard ...... 3.6-11
3.6.4
Existing Noise Contours on Grand Avenue from Santa Ana Boulevard to Fourth Street
NorthHalf....................................................................................:..................................................3.6-12
3.6.5
Existing Noise Contours on Grand Avenue from Santa Ana Boulevard to Fourth Street
SouthHalf.......................................................................................................................................3.6-13
3.6.6
Existing Noise Contours on Grand Avenue from Fourth Street to First Street.............................3.6-14
3.6-7
Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines..............................................................................3.6-17
3.6-8
Typical CNEL Noise Levels..........................................................................................................3.6-20
3.6-9
Typical Construction Noise Levels at 50 Feet...............................................................................3.6-22
3.6-10
Future No Project Noise Contours - Seventeenth Street to Fourteenth Street..............................3.6-26
3.6-11
Future No Project Noise Contours - Fourteenth Street to Santa Ana Boulevard..........................3.6-27
3.6-12
Future No Project Noise Contours - Santa Ana Boulevard to Fourth Street North Half..............3.6-28
3.6-13
Future No Project Noise Contours - Santa Ana Boulevard to Fourth Street South Half..............3.6-29
3.6-14
Future No Project Noise Contours - Fourth Street to First Street ......................................... ........
3.6-30
3.6-15
Future With Project Noise Contours - Seventeenth Street to Fourteenth Street...........................3.6-31
3.6-16
Future With Project Noise Contours - Fourteenth Street to Santa Ana Boulevard .......................3.6-32
3.6-17
Future With Project Noise Contours - Santa Ana Boulevard to Fourth Street North Half ...........
3.6-33
3.6-18
Future With Project Noise Contours - Santa Ana Boulevard to Fourth Street South Half ...........
3.6-34
3.6-19
Future With Project Noise Contours - Fourth Street to First Street..............................................3.6-35
F: IPRO.I-ENVIGrand eirlNew Text- GrandlTOCdoc TOC -5
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
ES -1
Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Level of Significance After Mitigation ............... ES -2
ES -2
Summary of Right -of -Way Takes..................................................................................................
ES -10
ES -3
Environmentally Superior Alternative...........................................................................................
ES -15
1-1
Project Objectives...................................................................................................................:..........1-16
1-1
Summary of Comments in Response to the Notice of Preparation..................................................1-18
1-3
Summary of Comments from the Scoping Meeting.........................................................................1-19
3.2-1
Potential Right -of -Way Impacts.......................................................................................................3.2-7
3.2-2
Summary of Right -of -Way Takes..................................................................................................3.2-12
3.2-3
Consistency with SCAG Land Use Related Policies.....................................................................3.2-15
3.3-1
Summary of Residential Displacements..........................................................................................3.3-2
3.4-1
Existing Air Quality Levels Measured at the Source Receptor Area 17
AirQuality Monitoring Station ......................... ..........................................................................
.... .3.4-4
3.4-2
Existing Carbon Monoxide Concentrations.....................................................................................3.4-7
3.4-3
Worst Case Projections of Carbon Monoxide Concentrations for 2020 .......................................3.4-12
3.4-4
Consistency with SCAG Air Quality Related Policies..................................................................3.4-13
3.5-1
Road Level of Service Summary for Existing Conditions...............................................................3.5-4
3.5-2
Intersection Level of Service Summary for Existing Conditions....................................................3.5-4
3.5-3
Maximum Average Daily Traffic for Arterial Roads .......................... ............................................
3.5-8
3.5-4
Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections.....................................................................3.5-9
3.5.5
2020 Road Level of Service Summary..........................................................................................3.5-12
3.5-6
2020 Intersection Level of Service Summary ................................................................................3.5-12
3.5-7
Consistency with the SCAG Transportation Policies....................................................................3.5-17
3.6-1
Typical A -Weighted Noise Levels...................................................................................................3.6-2
3.6-2
Locations of Noise Monitoring Positions .... .....................................................................................
3.6-6
3.6-3
Existing Noise Measurements..........................................................................................................3.6-7
3.64
Distances to Existing Noise Contours............................................................................................3.6-15
3.6-5
Projected Unmitigated Railroad Noise Levels ................................................... ............................
3.6-16
3.6-6
Distances to 2020 No Project Noise Contours...............................................................................3.6-25
3.6-7
Distances to 2020 With Project Noise Contours .......................... ..................................................
3.6-25
3.6-8
Noise Levels at 50 Feet from Road Centerline and Changes in Noise Levels in the Future .........
3.6-36
3.6-9
Distances to the 65 dB CNEL Noise Contour for the 2020 With Project Case.............................3.6-39
3.6-10
Projected Noise Levels at Residential Lots Under Alternative 1 ...................................................3.6-41
3.6-11
Projected Noise Levels at Residential Lots Under Alternative 2 ...................................................3.6-42
3.6-12
Noise Barrier Calculations for Residential Lots on Grand Avenue Between Seventeenth
Streetand Santa Ana Boulevard.....................................................................................................3.6-43
3.6-13
Noise Barrier Calculations for Residential Lots on Grand Avenue Between Santa Ana
Boulevardand Fourth Street...........................................................................................................3.6-43
3.6-14
Noise Barrier Calculations for Residential Lots on Grand Avenue Between Fourth
andFirst Streets..............................................................................................................................3.6-44
3.7-1
Potentially Historic Structures on Grand Avenue Between First and
SeventeenthStreets ........ ...................................................................................................................
3.7-5
6-1
Summary of Land Use Element Policies Related to Population and Housing...................................6-7
6-2
Summary of Housing Element Policies Related to Population and Housing.....................................6-7
6-3
Summary of Housing Stock by Type Unit in the City of Santa Ana for 1990 and 2000 ...................6-8
6-4
Summary of Take of Residential Units and Parcels..........................................................................6-10
F:IPROJ--ENMGrand eirWew Text- GrandITOC.doc TOC -6
Grand Avenue 11 zdening Project Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
7-1 Mitigation Monitoring Program ................................................... ....................................................... 7-3
8-1 Distances to Noise Contours...............................................................................................................8-4
F. PROD-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - GrandITOC.doc TOC -7
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Glossary of Acronyms
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
AAQS
Ambient air quality standard/standards
ADT
Average daily traffic
ANSI
American National Standards Institute
AQMD
South Coast Air Quality Management District
AQMP
Air Quality Management Plan
BF At building face
CAA
Federal Clean Air Act
CARB
California Air Resources Board
CCAA
California Clean Air Act
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL
Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO
Carbon monoxide
dB Decibel
MA A -weighted decibel
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
F Fahrenheit
ft feet
HOV High occupancy vehicle
HRI California State Historic Resources Inventory
Hz Hertz
I-5
1-5
ICU
Intersection Capacity Utilization
IS
Initial Study
Leq
Equivalent noise level
Lmax
Maximum noise level
Linin
Minimum noise level
LOS
Level of service
MCC Mortgage Credit Certificate
MMP Mitigation Monitoring Program
MPAH Master Plan of Arterial Highways
MPSH Master Plan of Streets and Highways
NO2
Nitrogen dioxide
NOP
Notice of Preparation
NOx
Nitrogen oxides
F: IPROJ-ENMGrandeirWew Text - Gran ftlossary.doc Page G-1
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Glossary of Acronyms
03 Ozone
PL
At property line
PM10
Particulates ten microns or less in diameter
ppm
parts per million
ROG Reactive organic gases
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCC
South Central Coastal Information Center
SCRRA
Southern California Regional Rail Authority
SHPO
State Historic Preservation Officer
SO2
Sulfur dioxide
Sox
Sulfur oxides
TDM Transportation Demand Management
USGS United State Geological Survey
V/C volume/capacity
Vphpl 'Vehicles per hour per lane
vpd Vehicles per day
F: WROJ-ENM Grand eirWew Text - Gran&glossary.doe Page G-2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The City of Santa Ana is proposing to widen the segment of Grand Avenue between Seventeenth
Street on the north and First Street on the south, to the General Plan Circulation Element
designation of Major Arterial. This Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) documents the
analysis conducted by the City to assess the potential for the widening alternatives to result in
significant adverse environmental impacts. The City of Santa Ana is the lead agency under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for this EIR for the Grand Avenue widening
project.
ES.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The location of the project segment of Grand Avenue is shown later on Figure 1-1. The City of
Santa Ana developed two build alternatives for the project segment of Grand Avenue. Alternatives
1 and 2, which assume cross sections of 100 and 120 feet on the project segment of Grand Avenue,
respectively, are shown later on Figures 1-2 and 1-3. Typical cross sections on Grand Avenue
under these alternatives are also shown on Figures 1-2 and 1-3. The City also identified a no build
or No Project Alternative. Alternatives 1 and 2 and the No Project Alternative are evaluated in this
Focused EIR.
ES.3 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Section 3.0 (Existing Conditions, Impacts and Mitigation Measures) of this EIR documents the
technical analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project related to land use and planning,
population and housing, air quality, transportation, noise and cultural resources. Section 4.0
(Unavoidable Adverse Impacts) summarizes the potentially significant adverse impacts of the
proposed Grand Avenue widening which cannot be avoided or mitigated to below a level of
significance. Section 6.0 (Growth Inducing and Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Project)
describes the potential for the proposed. project to result in growth inducing and cumulative impacts.
In summary, the potential for the proposed Grand Avenue widening to result in adverse impacts
related to these environmental parameters is described below and is summarized in Table ES -1.
Land Use and Planning: As summarized in Table ES -2 and described later in Section 3.2 (Land Use
and Planning), the proposed Grand Avenue widening will require the acquisition of property to
accommodate the widened road section under Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitigation measures LP -2 to
LP -5, provided later in Section 3.2.5 (Mitigation Related to Land Use), will substantially mitigate
these impacts under Alternatives I and 2, to below a level of significance. There will be a
significant impact on an established community due to community disruption caused by the
removal of existing structures under Alternatives 1 and 2. Also Alternative 1 is inconsistent with
the City's Bikeway Master Plan and Policy 3.3 of the Circulation Element. Mitigation measure
LP -1, which applies only to Alternative 1, would mitigate this inconsistency to below a level of
significance.
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlExecutive Summary-new.doc Page ES -I
W
w
N
W
by
a
d
U
� q
U .py
�
W
O
m�
y �
ani
a> 5b
b g Q y bA U
a q O p a+ y N 0
0 m
'-?Wy
4 "9bo��"
b � T � H
� N fd l0 � � � (�
� � � p p •'�ypiy
N
o
a
v to
o ��
.q oA�
orb ao
�tp3wo Fl
vo,•.44 •'op
N
wo
� � a
•H.r
O4W
a
0-q,7 9
71
;� H aUO❑❑+
Pr
U o xpF"
,dU
od•�
o�
ob
aw
N b[
7
b O
¢'
N
W U
G H
W
d �
N ^�
O
O
O
�
v
O
q p
N
W
by
a
V
F
OV
0
0
0
ro
0.1 N
P1 y
pa y
O
29
_
Y
o•� y
-,a
w a T
� tib
3a
2.o
wap
�O°a��g
N
o
w p, o .p
0
cT
n ,n w
v o N
'a
ro -; t
F;
'S � W
m�
•�
� �C.� E�9 °' ani °
b
v
o 'y W o
O
v �
.�.q
0pA N
mw
a
7+
J b
° v -cj v
U
.0 A O pio � aNi
a�°i
y
abi
p, o 00
Yp •�tl
W to 0
U
y"O N
O •'� N.i N
cd
N O
N b U yN
eN+
a
y
q
A
o
h �YUtl ii
"ro
•L+
.i�y
.4y p
•o
a o
Pi
..�q
C
.O
N
v� o
3
nn
m cn
o
q�
cn
° 4c
3
O
OU N O
O N
.0 o N
cacns
�
y °�.�
0
o
Y Q
U
N N
O o
w a Q O
° 'tt •oZIw
>
°O
0
r
qac i
W
0
rt1 O .../
.� q 1y
N
G�rlo
N O
O N
Z C
x+$V7Q�J
VO]..q P,Q
V]�r°i, Pa .0
W
al
61
6
w
bo
U
q
U
Cd
0
O
O
p
p
V1
p�>j U��
d U
•N U❑
eR
� U
q
H
CG N
P7 N
lYl N
0.1 v,
CQ w
bppA y U N q O Oq
0� q N
G q ,� O
p p
°�
A q Y
Q W
� •�
q
p m 6
bo O N
a��i u .�
N
b "'' 5 ons •a ° m
ao .n w
o
-d Ur
3 o�bo'5ow
oo
q
N
y ti N 0 P, 0. U.s�1 a y
w ;� y U
tNd
� 'dC 0 wo Y , y.r °p FA" p
GAS y V o
14`O' b y ai p v v
o
° q.'
v 0. p°
°q�
5 ami
q
.- o m
q � gyp' y3 •+'i °�
Li 3
'.q p 'vl
o
d
,y
q A .°� U
.03 q
o � �
(n
C5
'.�� ,�
g
OU
0pp
O°
N gpi
G>o
CC
q .
po
U
U
ri
° F+ o U� 3
0 ?9
0
0
p.N b o°
�o
0 40V)
N
W�bN9
0? p s U U 'd N. N .�°. U
'4'+ •.p .� +°+ O y
O? p .0 O
•n0 .�'
..q
:p
F' U�Ro�ad���"3
z
z
FIS 5 o m °a 3 ° H
FIU P Id��
H°
a�
0
O
U
N
j0
t3 ti d>i PL
zO
zs�ac�bFs�a
v
v�
q
p ,-• vi
� •C a
�p
C4 OR
a
' �
0
�
,d .'� (off
�
�
boy i00y
Qi
z �
fi N 11 q
z C7QC7 bH.S?
Fi iC y LG
P,
Yo
w
bo
W
I
tl
d
O
w
LF
I
I
t{UgJ q
.q 'i�C N
w
G•
�
S�
° ou
N '� °+
O
� q �
° �+
'G
m^ FO
.-Ji
'�r+. ^moi .� � •a�
U
a+ GfiL
:44, kk
A.
U
CJD O
�b
q
,,y °
N
.y.
ry
bb W O
•� 'moo°,
o
G
°p > J
aro°
a,
dj'N
"qaD 0 > v o
y
JO
U O
6L o3
ro y
.°
.4w
q❑
O
e4
b
•NJ
b0
rTq.
JLo -pqy ti
+a("<>
ro
N
A
.
p F+
+�
CD
J f�
ti
v.w
o
yyaa
a b
J ^° p
'Z
q
o •q q o
'p o
q
Sod
vJl
aro
�
J
'� �
OC y
w bu ,a d°
° •�
J
&ti Ur
l�
� 'U3
J,�
� � +�°
C�
N °
VJ �
.0 � O �
F'
� O
b➢ �
J tl
'c-� Nv,
'p .'""i. U��°
°
.R � J
ro❑
_L
q(y f87
r"y
(n J
Q J
.� b4
N Q
y ^°
y J N
fV� idA J .�
3 H •�3
2I C7 E+
0
y
g
m
q
q
NO
� b o
�❑' O ?
fC iI'
rl
J J
mg
i
U J J
y
bb61UDl
VJ N yq
ti
O
b
N q
J
GL
U) m
Cl) m �°
I
I
I=
•YI
Q
U
C
O
O
AA
a
W •y
O N W y N w
�bb
A
Ry YO �gCd Q
M°
•+Vl-I
ZI
Oi
U 'F y 'r/�
p
a V!
41
fd
qq
vNjj fL
pTp
,7
w H a m
b
P. C
o
w
w O [6
p❑q
U •:n N O. O q
w
_
A
�i
q
O�
N ttl s+ y
NN+ U q W L•
i3
�'
V]
y
A A
W
~?
eU y4aj
u' N 7 'a •n O .y. '0 '
a >.,
'O b
ro p
m
.-. U
N .U+
W
Ou FL
v p
w.yq
� wP'u
m •q
A .d
.� U
.c`5v
d,
792
c:
v-�
3
P,Q
0
O
p
QUI
r°q
A w w 9 o
.Y y
R
noo awl
b y
O
P1
U
G0.2
W
W
pp
Ow
V � p❑❑d rC�
[f+ y
t
tq
R
M x V w0 (�❑�1
H
.p
iii III
.
zvp
NO
�.p r¢p'u�UJ
ti
p w
N p O
U
�
86
E
Y
te.
a
p
wooT
N b
a
❑❑�yy
H W
bH
t�
N
R7 A O
tl
Y � O
Y O
y N
.-i .0
0 � gp rya
y
� m
0b
C
d
H
U
q
O
U1
O
U
a U
O
N
N
a
w •�
° .t
i
Z
O
y bqq4 ,.0
U q Dy
iJ
.'t% y
'r�
.� `�' •"q- O N
Yv°i
-48
18
.10'
`.
0
o
o
gyp° o
w qa
�
bb
� �
to
�
92
°�
00
�
5I
o
to
la A&
W ..R
O a
O
.qA
°o �
G
$b>
N
�."�
v
o
vq0o
N
A..
rTy
p
U
.-
`s Y
n
y N n
ro
bq
o
Hq
.0
Z
'401
b°
a
oar
y y
�ao�ro�ro>
o
a>
.�. ,o
-O°
o
q
GOb �U
o 1E,
° ° by
p
°
Uqy„
A.« ..
a.�
o
[V N
o? ti �'3 _p
o
9
y
o
°,
o wg b0 N 0
.0 ro
U
N RI
QO '� N
.,Y
2 U O
. O
Yyy
R
n
VJ
Y ro
o
v
aC ro
aO'
v�
� w
w
o�aU
°Naw
w
'OW
F
N
MWy
Noo
�--�
a U U
;��,Fy''
��
p15
•�
+���+'i
�
iMU
��TT„
{'j✓Oy
S'
V
W
U�
U P
Y
U
ftl U
•••
�� H W H
V
U
V
y
O
y
GO
P—g ro❑ U
cc'q���SSS
69 - cd
O
W
rOn
„O U N
00.
N
O
U ro
O O
O
W O O U
y 0 U
°
N
00
U
ro
q > A °
q n
w
U�
W42 �FaDShyy�°oo
b s
v
�goauann
p�
by F� �y P 'p O �
�?
N b� O '�
a� N •�
OD
°
N
�a �p a
UU1
N
P
N
�Uy q0
Q�',� d
8 O ,VN N 0 .m+ 0
M 4l N M
O> 0 O {,0,,
0.5 4�4
O
W 4J p
p p qq• O k+
0.
�
'� U�
'O ? Ea
q
O
� ti b
N � O N � � •N lG
iI^i�+'
� d � �
�
q
U � a � ��J
N 'B; p ra 7 U
O ��. '& i
W
N
U ," ❑i O
U
CC
M
,�O
N
'+
U❑ wO 5 z
"pd O
ti
A N U
O N N a0+ N
° m
O 'b.°
°
N NU'° NC.i •N.
m` P3
p ,a
�.d N ° N
U .� N
00
' o gijp
'Ell
i„ C�
go 0U
A w°
04
'pDpyq'.��N'
a��agvEr.°°��a
q
U d
d U
''G R7 Uy
vi U i4 > O N O.'
Q., U F O
++
w
U .0 w
73
P� > oro
U
,a;
ao �
.cd
K 0
O N
N rT d
ro�
4.1
llfwOOO
� �
•� �
N
id
Y
q b
0 N
W W sU. Q a0.
Ol
W
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
TABLE ES -2
SUMMARY OF RIGHT-OF-WAY TADS
Type of Parcel
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Full
Takes
Partial
Takes
Full
Takes
Partial
Takes
Single Family Residential Units
20
0
23[3]
0
Multiple Family Residential Units [ 1]
41
0
41
0
Multiple Family Residential Parcels [21
5
0
5
0
Commercial
20
16
29
16
Public/Other [4]
0
4
0
4
Office
0
0
1
0
Total Takes (Parcels)
45
20
56
20
Total Takes (Residential Units)
61
0
64
0
[1] Estimated number of affected individual housing units.
[2] These are individual parcels occupied by two or more multiple family residential units. For example, the 5
multiple family parcels identified as full takes under Alternative 1 contain an estimated total of 41 multiple
family residential uses.
[3] This includes the parcel with map reference No. 44 that has three single family units on one parcel.
[4] This includes public uses, church use and church parking lot.
Population and Housing: As described later in Section 3.3.4 (Impacts Related to Population and
Housing), Alternatives 1 and 2 will require the acquisition of single and multiple family dwelling
units, with Alternative 1 displacing approximately 264 residents and Alternative 2 displacing
approximately 277 residents. Mitigation measures LP -2 to LP -5, provided later in Section 3.2.5,
would substantially reduce the potential impacts of the proposed widening of Grand Avenue under
Alternatives 1 and 2 related to population and housing. However, based on the demand for
affordable and moderately priced housing and the available housing stock, the cumulative loss of
residential units in the City of Santa Ana cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance.
Therefore, Alternatives 1 and 2 would contribute to a cumulative significant adverse impact related
to population and housing which cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance.
Air Onali : As described later in Section 3.4 (Air Quality), the proposed Grand Avenue widening
will not result in significant short term adverse air quality impacts after mitigation. The Grand
Avenue widening will not result in long term adverse air quality impacts.
Transportation: As described later in Section 3.5 (Transportation), the proposed Grand Avenue
widening will not result in significant short or long term adverse impacts related to transportation
and circulation with the exception of the intersection of Grand Avenue and Santa Ana Boulevard in
the PM peak hour in 2020. To accommodate the additional through lane for Grand Avenue, the
existing southbound dual right turn lanes would be converted to a through lane and an exclusive
right tum lane. This conversion does not allow the same level of tum movements as the current
configuration. The projected operation for this intersection for PM peak hour in 2020 is level of
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - GrandlExecutive Summary -new. doe Page ES -10
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
service F. This cannot be mitigated because there is no available right-of-way under the I-5 bridge
to add an additional turn lane. Therefore, this would be an unavoidable adverse impact of the
proposed project under either Alternative I or 2.
Noise: As described later .in Section 3.6.4 (hnpacts Related to Noise), the construction of
Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in temporary, short term significant adverse noise impacts. These
potential short term noise impacts under Alternatives 1 and 2 would be substantially mitigated based
on implementation of mitigation measure N-1. However, the anticipated noise levels of
construction equipment and construction activities cannot be mitigated to below a level of
significance, because of the proximity of the proposed widening project to adjacent noise sensitive
land uses. Therefore, in the short term, the construction of the proposed Grand Avenue widening
under Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in temporary significant adverse noise impacts which
cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance.
The long term noise impacts of the proposed Grand Avenue widening under Alternatives 1 and 2
will result in adverse noise impacts on sensitive land uses adjacent to Grand Avenue. Mitigation
measure N-2, provided later in Section 3.6.5 (Mitigation Related to Noise), will substantially reduce
these noise impacts, to within City standards and, therefore, to below a level of significance.
Cultural Resources: As described later in Section 3.7 (Cultural Resources), the proposed Grand
Avenue widening under Alternatives 1 and 2 will not result in significant adverse impacts related to
archeological resources.
As described later in Section 3.7.4 (Impacts Related to Cultural Resources), Alternatives 1 and 2
will result in significant adverse impacts on residences at 702 and 714 North Grand Avenue
which appear to be eligible for listing on the Santa Ana Register of Historic Property. Mitigation
measure CR -7 would potentially avoid or partially reduce these impacts. In the event that the
City cannot avoid acquisition of these properties, the impacts of Alternatives 1 and 2 on these
resources, even with implementation of mitigation measure CR -7, would be significant, adverse
and unavoidable.
Alternatives I and 2 could result in adverse impacts on previously unknown buried archeological
resources. These impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance based on
implementation of measures CR -1 to CR -6.
Growth Inducing hnnacts: As described in detail later in Section 6.1 (Growth Inducing Impacts), the
proposed Grand Avenue widening would not be considered growth inducing because it will not
meet any of the following criteria identified in the CEQA Guidelines:
Grand Avenue is an existing arterial in a largely developed area. Public services, including
streets, are already provided in this area. The existing cross section of Grand Avenue is not
considered an impediment to development and the proposed widening would not provide new
access to any area.
The proposed widening will require the acquisition of privately owned right-of-way.
Remainder parcels are anticipated to be combined and redeveloped in new uses. Those uses
F.•IPROJ-ENP1Grand eirWew Text - GrandlExecutive Summary-new.doc Page ES -II
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
would be required to be consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning designations for
these areas and would be expected to be similar to the existing uses on Grand Avenue.
Therefore, the proposed project will not itself result in economic expansion or growth.
■ The proposed widening is consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element and, therefore,
is not a precedent setting action.
■ The proposed project would widen an existing segment of Grand Avenue in an area already
largely developed in urban and suburban uses.
Cumulative Impacts: As described in detail later in Section 6.2 (Cumulative Impacts), Alternatives 1
and 2 will contribute to cumulatively significant adverse impacts related to population and housing.
Alternatives 1 and 2 will not contribute to cumulatively significant adverse impacts related to land
use and planning, geology and seismicity, water, air quality, transportation and circulation,
biological resources, energy and mineral resources, hazards, noise, utilities and service systems,
aesthetics, cultural resources and recreation.
ESA SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Based on the Initial Study Checklist, included in Appendix A of this EER, the proposed Grand
Avenue widening was determined to not result in a significant adverse impact or to result in an
adverse impact which would be mitigated to below a level of significance for the following
environmental parameters:
Land Use: The proposed Grand Avenue widening will not result in adverse impacts related to
consistency with the Circulation Element of the City of Santa Ana General Plan; compliance with
the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Santa Ana environmental
guidelines; and agricultural operations and agricultural soils.
Population and Housing: The proposed Grand Avenue widening will not result in adverse impacts
related to consistency with the General Plan Circulation Element of the City of Santa Ana and the
existing and forecasted needs for transportation capacity in the area based on existing and planned
land uses; the location, distribution; density and growth rate of the population; the generation of
jobs; and the inducement of substantial growth in the area.
Geology: The proposed Grand Avenue widening will not result in adverse impacts related to faults,
earthquakes, ground shaking/lurching, ground failure or similar seismic hazards; soil expansion,
liquefaction and subsidence; seiches, tsunamis and volcanoes; landslides and mudflows;
topographic features; short term wind and water erosion of soils during construction; and unique
geological or physical features on or adjacent to the project segment of Grand Avenue.
Water: The proposed Grand Avenue widening will not result in adverse impacts related to changes
in absorption, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff; the exposure of people or
property to flooding; the quality and quantity of surface waters; changes to river or stream channels
or currents; changes to surface water bodies; changes in the flow or direction of groundwater, the
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlExecutive Summary-new.doc Page ES -12
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
quality and quantity of groundwater, or groundwater recharge; or the use of groundwater supplies
for public water uses.
Air Onali : The proposed Grand Avenue widening will not result in adverse impacts related to the
alteration of air movements, moisture, climate or temperature in the area; and objectionable odors.
Transportation: The proposed Grand Avenue widening will not result in adverse impacts related to
consistency with the City's standards for Major Arterials, the Americans with Disabilities Act
guidelines and adopted policies supporting alternative transportation; compatibility with adjacent
land uses; impacts during construction related to design hazards and emergency access; and rail,
waterborne or traffic services or facilities.
Biological Resources: The proposed Grand Avenue widening will not result in adverse impacts
related to endangered, threatened or rare species, locally designated species and natural
communities, wetland habitats, or wildlife dispersal or migration corridors.
Energy and Mineral Resources: The proposed Grand Avenue widening will not result in adverse
impacts related to adopted energy conservation plans or mineral resources.
Hazards: The proposed Grand Avenue widening will not result in adverse impacts related to
vehicles carrying hazardous substances; risks associated with explosions or release of hazardous
substances; emergency and evacuation plans; hazardous materials sites and other health hazards;
asbestos containing building materials; lead based paint and increased fire risk.
Public Services: The proposed widening of Grand Avenue will not result in adverse impacts related
to the demand for police and fire protection services and facilities; school facilities or school
attendance; road maintenance costs for the City, and transit services.
Utilities and Service Systems: The proposed Grand Avenue widening will not result in adverse
impacts related to existing electric, natural gas, telephone and cable communication lines, facilities
and services; local or regional water treatment and/or distribution facilities; sewage treatment
facilities; domestic water pipelines, sewer lines and stormwater collection facilities; and solid waste
disposal.
Aesthetics: The proposed Grand Avenue widening will not result in adverse impacts related to
scenic vistas, scenic highways, light and glare.
Cultural Resources: The proposed Grand Avenue widening will not result in adverse impacts related
to paleontological resources and unique ethnic cultural values.
Recreation: The proposed Grand Avenue widening will not result in adverse impacts related to
recreational facilities.
F. IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - GrandlExecutive Summary-new.doc Page ES -13
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
ES.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Table ES -3 summarizes the potential environmental impacts associated with Alternatives 1 and 2
and the No Project Alternative, based on detailed analyses provided later in Sections 2.0 (Impacts
Found Not To Be Significant Based on the Initial Study), 3.0 (Existing Conditions, Impacts and
Mitigation Measures) and 8.0 (No Project Alternative). Table ES -3 provides a qualitative ranking
of Alternatives 1 and 2 and the No Project Alternative. This ranking is a qualitative summary of
the detailed technical analysis of the potential environmental impacts of Alternatives 1 and 2 and
the No Project Alternative which were summarized in Table ES -1 and which are provided in
detail in Section 3.0 (Existing Conditions, Impacts and Mitigation Measures). Refer to the
following specific sections in Section 3.0 for those detailed discussions of the impacts of each of
these Alternatives:
Section 3.2:
Land Use and Planning
Section 3.3:
Population and Housing
Section 3.4:
Air Quality
Section 3.5:
Transportation.
Section 3.6:
Noise
Section 3.7:
Cultural Resources
The purpose of the ranking system is to provide a method for assessing which alternative is
environmentally superior when comparing environmental parameters and impacts. A ranking of
1 for an environmental parameter indicates the environmentally superior alternative for that
parameter. Rankings of 2 and 3 indicate the second and third best performing alternatives,
respectively, for that particular parameter, in terms of environmental superiority. An "*" indicates
that the alternatives would result in similar impacts, with no alternative clearly superior to the
others, or would result in no significant impacts. These rankings are not cumulative and should not
be summed for a "grand total" to identify the environmentally superior alternative. This is because
the ranking only assesses each alternative for a specific parameter; it does not consider the
importance or weighting of any given parameter compared to another parameter. Therefore, a
"grand total" does not accurately reflect which alternative is environmentally superior.
As shown in Table ES -3, there is no environmentally superior alternative for a number of the
environmental parameters including geology, biological resources, energy, hazards, public services,
utilities, aesthetics, cultural resources and recreation.
The No Project Alternative is environmentally superior to Alternatives I and 2 related to the
following parameters:
■ Land Use: The No Project Alternative would not require the acquisition of any property.
■ Population and Housing_ The No Project Alternative would not result in any displacements.
■
Geology: The No Project Alternative would not require any construction and would not result in
any potential for erosion.
F. IPROJ-EWGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlExecutive Summary-new.doc Page ES -14
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
TABLE ES -3
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
F.• IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlExecutive Summary-new.doc Page ES -15
Ranking
Environmental
Parameter
Alternative
Alternative 2
No Project
1
(120 feet wide)
Alternative
(100 feet
wide
Land Use Consistency with Plans
2
1
3
Land Use Property Acquisition
2
3
1
Land Use Impact Established Community
2
2
1
Population/Housing Induced growth
Consistency with Projections
Displacements
2
3
1
Geology Seisnric and soils
* .
Erosion
2
2
1
Water
Air Quality Odors
Construction impacts
2
2
1
Long term impacts
1
1
2
Changes in temperature
Transportation Traffic volumes
1
1
2
Hazards/access
Bicycle
2
1
3
Watercourses/rail
Biological Resources
Energy Plans
Mineral resources
Hazards Hazardous materials
Emergency evaluation
Public Services
Utilities
Aesthetics
1
1
2
Cultural Resources Paleontological
Archeological
Historic
Recreation
Noise Construction
2
2
1
Operations
1
1
2
F.• IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlExecutive Summary-new.doc Page ES -15
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
■ Air Quality The No Project Alternative would not require any construction and would not result
in any short term construction air quality impacts.
■ Noise: The No Project Alternative would not require any construction and would not result in
any short term construction noise. impacts.
Alternative 1 is environmentally superior to the No Project Alternative and/or Alternative 2, as
noted, related to the following parameters:
■ Air Quality: The improved traffic operating conditions under Alternative 1 would result in slight
long term air quality benefits compared to the No Project Alternative, similar to the benefits that
would occur under Alternative 2.
■ Land Use: Alternative 1 is environmentally superior to Alternative 2 because it would result in
less property acquisition than Alternative 2.
■ Population and Housing: Alternative 1 is environmentally superior to Alternative 2 because it
would result in fewer displacements than Alternative 2.
■ Noise: Alternative 1 is environmentally superior to the No Project Alternative related to long
term traffic noise because Alternative 1 includes mitigation of traffic related noise which would
not be mitigated under the No Project Alternative.
■ Traffic: Alternative 1 is environmentally superior to the No Project Alternative because it
improves the project segment of Grand Avenue consistent with the General Plan and Master
Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) designation for this road segment and with existing and
forecasted demand.
■ Aesthetics: Alternative 1 is environmental superior.to the No Project Alternative related to
aesthetics because it includes implementation of landscaped medians on the project segment
of Grand Avenue.
Alternative 2 is environmentally superior to the No Project Alternative and Alternative 1, as noted,
related to the following parameters:
■ Land Use: Alternative 2 is the only alternative that is consistent with the City's Bikeway Master
Plan of the Circulation Element.
■ Air Quality The improved traffic operating conditions under Alternative 2 would result in slight
long term air quality benefits compared to the No Project Alternative, similar to the benefits that
would occur under Alternative 1.
■ Aesthetics: Alternative 2 is environmentally superior to the No Project Alternative related to
aesthetics because it includes implementation of landscaped medians on the project segment
of Grand Avenue, similar to the benefits that would occur under Alternative 1.
F: IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - GrandMecutive Summary-new.doc Page ES -16
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
■ Traffic: Alternative 2 is environmentally superior to the No Project Alternative because it
improves the project segment of Grand Avenue consistent with the General Plan and MPAH
designation for this road segment and with existing and forecasted demand, similar to the
benefits that would occur under Alternative 1.
■ Noise: Alternative 2 is environmentally superior to the No Project Alternative related to long
term traffic noise because Alternative 2 includes mitigation of traffic related noise which would
not be mitigated under the No Proj ect Alternative.
Based on the qualitative summary in Table ES -3, the No Project Alternative is the environmentally
superior alternative because it does not result in the property acquisition and displacement, erosion,
short term air quality and short term noise impacts which would occur under Alternatives 1 and 2.
However, the No Project Alternative is not consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element
and would not provide the increased traffic capacity needed on the project segment of Grand
Avenue. The No Project Alternative would also not provide the on street bike lane designated in the
City's Bikeway Master Plan.
Table ES -1, provided earlier, summarizes the unavoidable significant adverse impacts under
Alternatives 1 and 2. As shown in Tables ES -1 and ES -3, Alternative 1 would be environmentally
superior to the No Project Alternative because it would be consistent with the General Plan
Circulation Element Major Arterial designation and it would result in beneficial long term effects
related to air quality, noise and traffic compared to the No Project Alternative. Alternative 1 would
be environmentally superior to Alternative 2 because it results in the acquisition of fewer parcels
and the displacement of substantially fewer residents. However, Alternative 1 would not be
consistent with the General Plan Bikeway Master Plan.
Alternative 2 would also be environmentally superior to the No Project Alternative because it would
be consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element Major Arterial designation and the City of
Santa Ana Bikeway Master Plan, and it would result in beneficial long term effects related to air
quality, noise and traffic compared to the No Project Alternative. Alternative 2 would not be
environmentally superior to Alternative 1 related to land use, population and housing because
Alternative 2 would result in the acquisition of more parcels and the displacement of more
residents than Alternative 1. For the remaining unavoidable adverse impacts, Alternatives 1 and 2
are essentially the same, with neither being environmentally superior to the other.
In summary, the No Project Alternative would not be environmentally superior because it does not
meet defined project goals to implement the Circulation Element Major Arterial designation and the
City's Bikeway Master Plan for the project segment of Grand Avenue. Alternatives 1 and 2 would
be superior to the No Project Alternative because they would meet the project goal to implement the
Circulation Element Major Arterial designation and would meet the other defined project goals.
ES.6 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
As discussed in detail in Section 1.2 (Project Objectives), the objectives of the proposed Grand
Avenue are to:
F.•IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - GrandlExecutive Summary-new.doc Page ES -17
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
Improve the segment of Grand Avenue between Seventeenth Street on the north and First
Street on the south to the City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element and the
Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways designations of Major Arterial for this
road segment.
2. Improve the flow of traffic on this segment of Grand Avenue in the City of Santa Ana,
consistent with existing and forecasted traffic demand.
3. Provide bike lanes on this segment of Grand Avenue, consistent with the adopted City of
Santa Ana Bikeway Master Plan and the Orange County Master Plan of Bikeways.
4. Provide a cross section on the project segment of Grand Avenue compatible with the
existing cross sections on Grand Avenue north and south of the project segment.
Provide a cross section on the project segment of Grand Avenue compatible with recent
improvements at local intersections with Grand Avenue and the recent improvements to I-5.
As described in Section 1.2 and as described in detail in Table 1-1, Alternative 2 meets all the
defined project objectives. Alternative I meets objectives numbers 1, 2, 4 and 5 but does not meet
objective number 3. The No Project Alternative meets only objectives 4 and 5.
ES.7 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The City has identified Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative for the proposed widening of Grand
Avenue. Alternative 2 meets all five of the defined project objectives and the majority of the
significant adverse environmental impacts under this Alternative can be mitigated to below a level
of significance.
F: WROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GrandExecutive Summary-new.doc Page ES -18
Section 1.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AND PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0
SECTION 1.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROJECT OBJECTIVES
1.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
1.1.1 OVERVIEW
The City of Santa Ana is proposing to widen the segment of Grand Avenue between Seventeenth
Street on the north and First Street on the south, to the General Plan Circulation Element
designation of Major Arterial. As defined in the Circulation Element, a Major Arterial includes six
through travel lanes and enhanced features at intersections, including dedicated right and left turn
lanes, to maintain the operating capacity of the road. The City of Santa Ana is the lead agency
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for this E1R for the Grand Avenue
widening project. The City is also the lead agency for the proposed Grand Avenue widening
project. The City may need an encroachment permit from Caltrans for construction and traffic
control measures on Grand Avenue within Caltrans right-of-way for Interstate 5 (I-5) at its
interchange with Grand Avenue.
The location of the project segment of Grand Avenue is shown in Figure 1-1. The City of Santa
Ana developed two build alternatives for the project segment of Grand Avenue. Alternatives 1 and
2, which assume cross sections of 100 and 120 feet on the project segment of Grand Avenue,
respectively, are shown in Figures 1-2 and 1-3. Typical cross sections on Grand Avenue under
these alternatives are also shown in Figures 1-2 and 1-3. In addition, the City has identified a no
build or No Project Alternative. Alternatives 1 and 2 and the No Project Alternative are evaluated
in this Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR). These alternatives are described in the
following sections.
Since the release of the Notice of Preparation, the centerlines for both Alternatives 1 and 2 have
been shifted to reduce the extent of takes on the east side of Grand Avenue. In addition, a
westbound right turn only lane from southbound Grand Avenue to westbound First Street; a right
turn pocket from westbound First Street to northbound Grand Avenue; and a right turn pocket from
westbound Seventeenth Street to northbound Grand Avenue have been added to both Alternatives 1
and 2. Also, Alternative 1 no longer includes a bicycle lane. Alternative 2 includes an on -street
bicycle trail which is five feet wide in each travel direction.
1.1.2 DESCRIPTION OF BUILD ALTERNATIVE 1
Alternative 1 assumes the project segment of Grand Avenue would be widened from the existing
four lanes in a cross section that varies from approximately 80 to 110 feet wide, to six lanes in a 100
foot wide cross section, with a landscaped median. The addition of the landscaped, center median
would remove the opportunity for some left turns across this segment of Grand Avenue. No existing
driveway access would be removed. Under this Alternative, the widening, including the acquisition
of right-of-way, would occur intermittently on both the east and west sides of Grand Avenue.
Alternative 1 is anticipated to result in the acquisition of a total of 479,239 square feet of right-of-
way, in a total of 20 partial takes and 45 full takes of existing parcels along the project segment of
Grand Avenue. The existing edge of right-of-way for Grand Avenue, and the proposed edge of
right-of-way under Alternative 1, are shown on Figure 1-2. Table 3-1, provided later in this
F.•IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 1.0-new.doc Page 1-1
ORANGE
r'• I.
I
f—
I
Pith St.
I
� y
C7 �
First St. "' US T
INI
SANTA
ANA
4k,VOTTOSCALE
GRAND AVENUE LOCATION MAP
78DEnsGRAND AVE NUE WIDENING EIR
O
7
i
.44
0.
p.
F17:
I it
1
It
4;�
ZY
It «
4 .... ..... ... .....
�bl
it
7
i
0.
p.
F17:
1I
It «
�bl
7
i
I
rg
W
0
z
z
O
z
W
z
a!
I: Jim
14
1,0 _4
WFI,
T 1
._
_iJ
I
rg
W
0
z
z
O
z
W
z
a!
1,0 _4
WFI,
T 1
._
I
rg
W
0
z
z
O
z
W
z
a!
Xi
As
As
N
O
n
+
N�
tl,
gkR
I
se 5" mo
A. 8
la
In
C14E
W
Q�
N
se
-_
y
H
sem' ^
aV'
.•G554Yx
fA
�N
�
e
�S
G
� m
v
W
0
o
a
ZZ
-
-z
e
N
y
�
Xi
As
s�
Z
0
w
CA
O
cc -
T
W
co
40, �
O
4
o
L
P
ccz
Q
q
0
Z
Z
W
G
W
z
W
4
O
Z
a
m
0
N�
gkR
I
se 5" mo
A. 8
la
se
-_
y
s�
Z
0
w
CA
O
cc -
T
W
co
40, �
O
4
o
L
P
ccz
Q
q
0
Z
Z
W
G
W
z
W
4
O
Z
a
m
0
a
W
a
z
z
W
G
Z
0
fm
J5] 15Y ] C 2
:12 vismil mo
i �' lfiq
C
� 4
��I
s
a
• 1,�
I �,
•)>3' I
q I
_
a
.J
•
�
I�
) i
h
psi
.n �.4nY iL'. NA•' F:
W $
y ' Y �
{
ry �I
_ 1
M1
I wYE
Y
i
LL
•, �;
.� C
•0a
.li 1.
tll.
I
...
t4--.
LhlttYlYayf
...y
i �
n•
..'.
.,., ....:::...
.n rM..
'i
OIIrvC Z3 NIM I.
t ;v['•�+
�—'�":l:!
� )
g4
I
i
Z 'pl 1]3X5 9R W.0
Y1Y ]NIl�Ig1M
-lIg1Y 1Aa5Y - Po•Y2 YJf ]MIt NAM
Z
0
BE
K
L
@4
A f
R e g5
.9
om
s. N
2�� I m.r.
_A6 No Qg zm- n8g I Qe Zs d
r + L1,r
L-�5 eeg x W
p?c e2 N �, hRR tai ee ��.
;3 xa _51
Z
Is
to
4egied
w�A�tl
�
�5
N
_
N
tlQ
a
F�
m
e
5599
RRB
Ari
e
g I
lQ
.p5 ^fie
Op
zC yON
�N
NO
Oln
_s
oa CO
d
etg
I
>
�gm
oil
OF
�
@
qs-Ea
g
SF
O0
lCb
Z
o
Z.
Nm
i
eek
fA
V'
Oi
NN
�""e
-
�
t
0
z
6
W
�5
_
N
tlQ
a
F�
m
5599
RRB
Ari
�
-61
.p5 ^fie
Op
zC yON
35
_s
oa CO
d
�gm
oil
OF
�
@
qs-Ea
SF
9^
Z
=
fA
z
6
W
N
tlQ
a
F�
5599
_ �Cg
V
m
�gm
eR
HC
OF
�
9C
9^
Z
z
6
W
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0
EIR, identifies the fall and partial takes under Alternative 1, for each of the affected parcels along
this segment of Grand Avenue.
The resulting cross section would be consistent with the Major Arterial designation for this segment
of Grand Avenue in the City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element. This cross section
would not include a bike lane which is not consistent with the adopted City of Santa Ana Bikeway
Master Plan or Policy 3.3 of the Circulation Element. This Alternative would include landscaping
in the median. The estimated cost for this Alternative, including final design, right-of-way
acquisition, demolition and construction, is $29.27 million.
As discussed above, Alternative 1 will require the acquisition of property to accommodate the
widened road cross section. Because not all the property acquired will be used for the construction
of Alternative 1, there will be remainder or remnant parcels left after the completion of construction.
The City anticipates the majority of the remainder parcels would be combined into larger,
developable parcels and sold to private parties for development. However, it is possible that some
remainder parcels, even when combined with other remainder parcels, may not meet the City's
minimum lot size requirements. In that event, the City would probably sell those remainder
parcels to adjacent property owners.
These parcels along the Grand Avenue corridor are designated for commercial or residential uses in
the City's General Plan Land Use Element. The commercial designation applies to all the parcels on
the west side of Grand Avenue for the entire project length from Seventeenth Street to First Street.
The width of the commercial designation varies on both the east and west sides of Grand Avenue
and is adjacent to areas designated low density residential. The commercial designation applies to
the east side of Grand Avenue for the entire project length except for a small segment between 14`h
and 15`h Streets that is designated low density residential.
The EIR for the General Plan Land Use Element addressed potential impacts of commercial and
residential uses on this segment of Grand Avenue at a program or planning level. As part of the
future development process for these remainder parcels, any proposed commercial or residential
uses would be subject to independent environmental review. That independent review would assess
whether the potential impacts of proposed uses were addressed in the Land Use Element EIR or will
require additional, separate environmental review prior to approval of the proposed uses by the City.
It is anticipated that the widening of Grand Avenue under Alternative 1 will be constructed in
phases, based on available funding. For example, as funding becomes available, the intersections
could be improved, followed later by the widening of Grand Avenue on the segments between the
intersections. Therefore, the construction period for the widening under Alternative 1 would not
occur in one continuous time period. Construction activities could occur intermittently over a
period of several years before construction of the entire widening project is complete.
Alternative 1 also includes the mitigation measures identified in this EIR. Mitigation measure N-2,
described later in Section 3.6 (Noise) indicates that Alternative 1 will require noise barriers adjacent
to several properties on the project segment of Grand Avenue, to reduce project related noise to
below the City of Santa Ana noise standards. The noise barriers at these properties are included as
F.IPROJ-ENMGrand eir.Wew Text- GranMection 1.0-new.doc Page 1-11
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0
part of Alternative 1. The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) described in detail later in
Section 8.0 (Mitigation Monitoring Program) is incorporated in the description of Alternative 1.
1.1.3 DESCRIPTION OF BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2
Alternative 2 assumes the project segment of Grand Avenue would be widened from the existing
four lanes in a cross section that varies from 80 to 110 feet wide, to six lanes in a 120 foot wide
cross section, with a landscaped median. The addition of the landscaped, center median would
remove the opportunity for some left turns across this segment of Grand Avenue. Existing
driveway accesses would be retained. Under this Alternative, the widening, including the
acquisition of right-of-way, would occur intermittently on both the east and west sides of Grand
Avenue. Alternative 2 is anticipated to result in the acquisition of a total of 654,318 square feet of
right-of-way, in a total of 20 partial takes and 56 full takes of existing parcels along this segment of
Grand Avenue. The existing edge of right-of-way for Grand Avenue, and the proposed edge of
right-of-way under Alternative 2, are shown on Figure 1-3. Table 3-1, provided later in this EIR,
identifies the full and partial takes under Alternative 2, for each of the affected parcels along this
segment of Grand Avenue.
The resulting cross section would be consistent with the Major Arterial designation for this segment
of Grand Avenue in the City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element. This cross section
would include a five-foot wide, on -street, Class II Bikeway as shown on Grand Avenue as shown in
the adopted City of Santa Ana Bikeway Master Plan. This Alternative would also include a
landscaped median. The estimated cost for this Alternative, including final design, right-of-way
acquisition, demolition and construction, is $39.89 million.
As discussed above, Alternative 2 will require the acquisition of property to accommodate the
widened road. Because not all the property acquired will be used for the construction of Alternative
2, there will be remainder or remnant parcels left after the completion of construction. The City
anticipates the majority of these remainder parcels would be combined into larger, developable
parcels and sold to private parties for development. However, it is possible that some remainder
parcels, even when combined with other remainder parcels, may not meet the City's minimum
lot size requirements. In that event, the City would probably sell those remainder parcels to
adjacent property owners.
These parcels along the Grand Avenue corridor are designated for commercial or residential uses in
the City's General Plan Land Use Element. The commercial designation applies to all the parcels on
the west side of Grand Avenue for the entire project length from Seventeenth Street to First Street.
The width of the commercial designation varies on both the east and west sides of Grand Avenue
and is adjacent to areas designated low density residential. The commercial designation applies to
the east side of Grand Avenue for the entire project length except for a small segment between 10
and 15th Streets that is designated low density residential.
The EIR for the General Plan Land Use Element addressed potential impacts of commercial and
residential uses on this segment of Grand Avenue at a program or planning level. As part of the
future development process for these remainder parcels, any proposed commercial or residential
uses would be subject to independent environmental review. That independent review will assess
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 1.0-new.doc Page 1-12
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0
whether the potential impacts of proposed uses were addressed in the Land Use Element EIR or will
require additional, separate environmental review prior to approval of the proposed uses by the City.
It is anticipated that the widening of Grand Avenue under Alternative 2 will be constructed in
phases, based on available funding. For example, as funding becomes available, the intersections
could be improved, followed later by the widening of Grand Avenue on the segments between the
intersections. Therefore, the construction period for the widening under Alternative 2 would not
occur in one continuous time period. Construction activities could occur intennittently over a
period of severalyears before construction of the entire widening project is complete.
Alternative 2 also includes the mitigation measures identified in this EIR. Mitigation measure N-2,
described later in Section 3.6 (Noise) indicates that Alternative 2 will require noise barriers adjacent
to several properties on the project segment of Grand Avenue, to reduce project related noise to
below the City of Santa Ana noise standards. The noise barriers at these properties are included as
part of Alternative 2. The MMP described in detail later in Section 8.0 is incorporated in the
description of Alternative 2.
The City has identified Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative for the proposed widening of Grand
Avenue. Alternative 2 meets all five of the defined project objectives and the majority of the
significant adverse environmental impacts under this Alternative can be mitigated to below a level
of significance.
1.1.4 PROPERTY ACQUISITION
Both Alternatives 1 and 2 will involve acquisition of privately owned property to provide adequate
right of way for the road widening and setbacks from the new curb of Grand Avenue consistent with
City requirements. This process will involve precise surveys of the area to be acquired, property
appraisals, negotiation with each of the property owner(s) on compensation, and finally City
Council approval of the acquisition agreements. There may be instances where only a part of the
property would be necessary to accommodate the road widening. In these instances it is possible
that an existing building could be physically retrofitted to accommodate the setback from the new
property line. The issue of full or partial acquisition will be negotiated with each property owner
pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
as implemented by the City of Santa Ana. Much of this process is described in a question and
answer format in the City of Santa Ana Handbook on Acquisition which is included as Appendix I
in this EIR. This issue of properties that will be affected under both alternatives is further discussed
in Section 3.2 (Land Use).
1.1.5 ALTERNATIVES
Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to consider a reasonable range of
alternatives to the project or the location of a project which would feasibly attain most of the project
objectives but which would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant adverse impacts of
the project. This Section of the CEQA Guidelines specifically requires that a No Project Alternative
be assessed in the EIR.
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - GranMection 1.0-new.doc Page 1-13
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0
In compliance with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR assesses the potential
environmental impacts of Alternatives 1 and 2, described earlier, and the No Project Alternative.
The assessment of the potential impacts of Alternatives I and 2 is provided in Sections 2.0 (Impacts
Found Not to Be Significant Based on the Initial Study) and 3.0 (Existing Conditions, Impacts and
Mitigation Measures) in this EIR. The No Project Alternative is described briefly in the following
section. The assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the No Project Alternative is
provided later in Section 8.0 (No Project Alternative). hi addition, the City considered alternatives
with all the widening on either the east or west side of Grand Avenue, as described later in this
section. However, because these alternatives would not function effectively for traffic operations
and would result in offset intersections at the north and south ends of the project segment of Grand
Avenue, these alternatives were rejected from further consideration and are not assessed in detail in
this EIR.
Description of the No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative assumes the project segment of Grand Avenue would retain the existing
four lanes in a cross section that varies in width from 80 to 110 feet wide and that no widening, bike
lanes or other physical improvements would be constructed. Under this Alternative, existing
conditions on the project segment of Grand Avenue would continue. The resulting cross section
would not be consistent with the Major Arterial designation for this segment of Grand Avenue in
the City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element or with the adopted Bikeway Master Plan.
Alternatives Considered and Rejected
Alternatives 1 and 2 were developed based on existing constraints and fired points along the
existing segment of Grand Avenue. These constraints and fixed points are related to existing road
improvements and existing land uses in this area. For example, the alignment and location of Grand
Avenue under the I-5 overcrossing are constrained by the locations of the piers and supports for the
I-5 freeway structure. Other major fixed points include the location and layout of the intersections
of Grand Avenue at Seventeenth Street and at First Street. The location of the Orange County
Register and a large church on the east side of Grand Avenue were also considered as constraints to
the widening of Grand Avenue in these areas. Based on these fixed points and constraints, it was
not possible to reasonably consider an alternative which would result in the widening occurring
entirely on either the east or west side of the street. This type of alternative would substantially shift
the centerline of Grand Avenue, either east or west, and would have required substantial
reconstruction of the 1-5 overcrossing and the intersections of Grand Avenue with Seventeenth and
First Streets. Alternatives with the widening all on either the east or west side of Grand Avenue
could also result in the intersections at the north and south ends of the project segment offset from
the segment of Grand Avenue to the immediate north and south, respectively. From a traffic
operations perspective, this would result in poor operating conditions because offset intersections
are not as effective in accommodating vehicle movements. Similarly, aligning Grand Avenue to
have equal right-of-way takes on the' east and west side of the street would not provide a cross
section which most effectively accommodated the existing fixed points and constraints described
above.
Therefore, these alternatives were not considered in the detailed analysis in this Focused EIR.
F.- PROJ-ENVAGrand eirWew Text - GranWection 1.0-new.doc Page 1-14
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0
1.1.6 RELATED PROJECTS
In addition to the proposed widening on Grand Avenue, several other local projects have recently
been completed in the vicinity of the project segment of Grand Avenue:
The reconstruction of Fourth Street and the undergrounding of existing utilities between
Interstate 5 (I-5) and Minter Street, in an 80 foot wide right-of-way.
■ The addition of a right turn lane on westbound Fourth Street, to northbound Grand Avenue.
■ Construction of a sanitary sewer line in Grand Avenue between Fourth and Fruit Streets.
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the proposed Grand Avenue widening project are to:
Improve the segment of Grand Avenue between Seventeenth Street on the north and First
Street on the south to the City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element and the
Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways designations of Major Arterial for this
road segment.
2. hnprove the flow of traffic on this segment of Grand Avenue in the City of Santa Ana,
consistent with existing and forecasted traffic demand.
3. Provide bike lanes on this segment of Grand Avenue, consistent with the adopted City of
Santa Ana Bikeway Master Plan and the Orange County Master Plan of Bikeways.
4. Provide a cross section on the project segment of Grand Avenue compatible with the
existing cross sections on Grand Avenue north and south of the project segment.
5. Provide a cross section on the project segment of Grand Avenue compatible with recent
improvements at local intersections with Grand Avenue and the recent improvements to I-5.
An important component of evaluating alternatives is assessing the ability of each alternative to
satisfy the objectives for the project. Table 1-1 summarizes the project objectives and the ability of
Alternatives 1 and 2 and the No Project Alternative to meet these objectives. As shown, Alternative
2 meets all the defined project objectives. Alternative 1 meets all but one of the project objectives.
The No Project Alternative meets only two of the project objectives.
F.-MW-ENMGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 1.0-new.doc Page 1-15
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0
TABLE 1-1
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
F- PROJ-EIVWrand eirWew Text - GrandWection 1.0-new.doc Page 1-16
Does Alternative Meet Objective?
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
No Project Alternative
Objective
Improve the segment of Grand Avenue
Yes; Alternative 1 would
Yes; Alternative 2 would
No; the No Project Alternative
between Seventeenth Street on the north
improve the project
improve the project segment
would not improve the project
and First Street on the south to the City of
segment of Grand
of Grand Avenue to the
segment of Grand Avenue to
Santa Ana General Plan Circulation
Avenue to the Major
Major Arterial designation.
the Major Arterial
Element and the Orange County Master
Arterial designation.
designation.
Plan of Arterial Highways designations of
Major Arterial for this road segment.
Improve the flow of traffic on this segment
Yes; Alternative 1 would
Yes; Alternative 2 would
No; the No Project Alternative
of Grand Avenue in the City of Santa Ana,
improve the flow of
improve the flow of traffic
would not improve the flow of
consistent with existing and forecasted
traffic on this segment of
on this segment of Grand
traffic on this segment of
traffic demand.
Grand Avenue,
Avenue, consistent with
Grand Avenue, consistent
consistent with existing
existing and forecasted
with existing and forecasted
and forecasted traffic
traffic demand.
traffic demand.
demand.
Provide bilce lanes on this segment of
No; Alternative 1 would
Yes; Alternative 2 would
No; the No Project Alternative
Grand Avenue, consistent with the adopted
not be consistent with the
provide bilce lanes on this
would not provide bike lanes
City of Santa Ana Bikeway Master Plan
adopted City of Santa
segment of Grand Avenue,
on this segment of Grand
and the Orange County Master Plan of
Ana Bikeway Master
consistent with the adopted
Avenue.
Bikeways.
Plan and the Orange
City of Santa Ana Bikeway
County Master Plan of
Master Plan and the Orange
Bikeways for this
County Master Plan of
segment of Grand
Bikeways.
Avenue because it would
not provide bike lanes on
this segment of Grand
Avenue.
Provide a cross section on the project
Yes; Alternative 1 would
Yes; Alternative 2 would
Yes; the existing cross section
segment of Grand Avenue compatible with
provide a. cross section
provide a cross section on
under the No Project
the existing cross sections on Grand
on the project segment of
the project segment of Grand
Alternative provides a cross
Avenue north and south of the project
Grand Avenue
Avenue compatible with the
section on the project segment
segment.
compatible with the
existing cross sections on
of Grand Avenue compatible
existing cross sections on
Grand Avenue north and
with the existing cross
Grand Avenue north and
south of the project segment.
sections on Grand Avenue
south of the project
north and south of the project
segment.
segment.
Provide a cross section on the project
Yes; Alternative 1 would
Yes; Alternative 2 would
Yes; the existing cross section
segment of Grand Avenue compatible with
provide a cross section
provide a cross section on
under the No Project
recent improvements at local intersections
on the project segment of
the project segment of Grand
Alternative provides a cross
with Grand Avenue and the recent
Grand Avenue
Avenue compatible with
section on the project segment
improvements to I-5.
compatible with recent
recent improvements at local
of Grand Avenue compatible
improvements at local
intersections with Grand
with recent improvements at
intersections with Grand
Avenue and the recent
local intersections with Grand
Avenue and the recent
improvements to I-5.
Avenue and the recent
improvements to I-5.
1
improvements to I-5.
F- PROJ-EIVWrand eirWew Text - GrandWection 1.0-new.doc Page 1-16
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0
1.3 CEQA PROCESS
1.3.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
This Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared pursuant to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000
et seq.). This Focused EIR assesses the potential impacts associated with the proposed widening of
Grand Avenue between Seventeenth and First Streets in the City of Santa Ana.
The City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency for the proposed Grand Avenue widening. The City has
the authority to adopt and implement proposed street improvements, consistent with the City of
Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element. The City is also the Lead Agency responsible for the
environmental review for the proposed widening project.
1.3.2 INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The City of Santa Ana distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR and an Initial Study (IS)
for the proposed Grand Avenue widening project on May 13, 1998. The NOP/IS was distributed to
the State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research, public agencies, utility and service
providers, and homeowners' associations in the project area. A copy of the NOP/IS is provided in
Appendix A of this EIR. The distribution list for the NOP/IS is provided in Appendix B.
The City of Santa Ana received ten written responses to the NOP. Copies of these comment letters
are provided in Appendix C. Table 1-2 summarizes the responses and indicates where in the IS
and/or the EIR each specific environmental topic raised in these comment letters is located.
1.3.3 SCOPING MEETING
The City of Santa Ana conducted a scoping meeting for the proposed Grand Avenue widening
project on June 3, 1998. The meeting was held from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM, in the Hoiles Auditorium
at the Orange County Register, at 625 North Grand Avenue, in the project area. The scoping notice
was sent to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the Grand Avenue right-of-way. The
distribution list for the scoping meeting is mi cluded in Appendix D. The scoping notice was
provided in both English and Spanish. A copy of the scoping notice is provided in Appendix D.
The attendees at the scoping meeting were invited to sign in and were provided a short handout
describing the project and a comment card if they wished to provide written comments. A Spanish
language translator was available. Approximately 50 attendees signed in; there were an estimated
75 to 85 people in attendance. The attendance list is provided in Appendix D.
F.-IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 1.0 -new. doe . Page 1-17
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0
TABLE 1-2
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS IN REPSONSE TO
THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Agency
Comment
IS/EIR Sections Where Comment is
Addressed
City of Tustin Public
No Comment
Works/Engineering
City of Garden Grove Planning
No impact on the City of Garden Grove.
Department
The Gas Company, Orange Coast
• Comments on the presence of gas facilities
• Initial Study pages 3-30 to 3-32.
Region
in the project area and gas service to the
project.
Planning and Development Services
No comment.
_
Department County of Orange
Southern California Association of
• Consistency with growth policies.
• EIR Section 3.2 (Land Use and
Governments
• Consistency with Regional Mobility
Planning)
Element policies.
• BIR Section 3.4 (Air Quality)
• EIR Section 3.5 (Transportation and
Circulation
South Coast Air Quality
• Identify air quality impacts and provide
• EIR Section 3.4 (Air Quality)
Management District
mitigation measures.
Orange County Transportation
No comment.
_
Authority
California Department of
No comment.
Transportation
Santa Ana Unified School District
• Coordinate student pedestrian routes with
• Initial Study pages 3-28 to 3-30.
Remington Elementary and Siena
Intermediate schools prior to and during
construction.
County Sanitation Districts of
• Protect existing sewer line in place;
• Initial Study pages 3-30 to 3-35.
Orange County, California
coordinate changes in manhole cover
elevations and any proposed relocation of
sewer with the Districts.
The format of the scoping meeting was an informal open house. Maps of the project alternatives,
showing the expected property acquisition needs, and aerial photographs of the project area were
available for review. City staff and consultants to the City were available to explain the project
alternatives and answer questions. Because of the number of attendees, it was helpful to provide a
general overview of the proposed project, followed by general questions and answers.
Several attendees provided written comments at the scoping meeting. In addition, verbal comments
provided at the meeting were noted by staff and the consultants. Table 1-3 summarizes the written
and verbal comments provided by the meeting attendees and indicates where in the IS and/or the
EIR each specific environmental topic raised in these comments letters is located.
1.3.4 FORMAT OF THE EIR
As noted above, this EIR focuses on the analysis of those environmental parameters which may
experience significant adverse impacts as a result of the proposed • Grand Avenue widening
alternatives. This analysis is documented in this Focused EIR as follows:
F.IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirlNew Text- GrandlSection 1.0-new.doc page I-18
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0
TABLE 1-3
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM THE SCOPING MEETING
F: IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 1.0-new.doc Page 1-19
Comment
IS/EIR Sections Where Comment is Addressed
•
Loss of on site parking.
+
EIR Section 3.2 Land Use and Planning).
•
Non -conforming land uses after property takes.
•
EIR Section 3.2 Land Use and Planning).
•
Loss of business signing at the street edge.
•
This is not an environmental issue under CEQA.
•
Adverse effects on business operations short and long
•
EIR Section 3.2 (Land Use and Planning).
term.
.
EIR Section 3.5 (Transportation and Circulation).
•
EIR Section 3,6 (Noise).
•
Loss of left turns as a result of the proposed median.
•
EIR Section 3.5 (Transportation and Circulation).
•
Noise.
•
EIR Section 3.6 (Noise).
•
Impacts on access during construction.
•
SIR Section 3.5 (Transportation and Circulation).
•
Compensation for property acquisition.
•
EIR Section 3.2 Land Use and Planning).
•
Consider shifting widening so all property takes are on
•
EIR Section 1.1 (Proposed Project).
either the east or the west side of Grand Avenue.
•
Will signals be installed at Grand Avenue and 14 Street?
•
The proposed widening of Grand Avenue does not
include a signal at the intersection of Grand Avenue and
141h Street.
•
Will signals be installed at Grand Avenue and 15t1 Street?
•
The proposed widening of Grand Avenue does not
include a signal at the intersection of Grand Avenue and
1511 Street.
•
Will W Street be open to through traffic in, the future?
•
The proposed widening of Grand Avenue does not
include reopening of 141 Street to through traffic. This
issue could potentially be considered by the City at some
time in the future.
•
Will I5`h Street be open to through traffic in the future?
•
The proposed widening of Grand Avenue does not
include reopening of 15` Street to through traffic. This
issue could potentially be considered by the City at some
time in the future.
•
Will existing commercial buildings on Grand Avenue be
•
The proposed widening of Grand Avenue does not
extended further west after property is taken for the
include any proposal to extend existing commercial
widening?
structures further west from Grand Avenue. If, after the
widening is completed, a property owner decides to either
relocate or expand and existing structure, that building
relocation/expansion would be subject to the existing City
of Santa Ana requirements for setbacks, including
setbacks from existing residential uses.
•
Request for a copy of the aerial map used at the scoping
•
The aerial map was provided at the scoping meeting as an
meeting.
information display. It is not available in reproducible
form It is available for review at the City during regular
business hours and will be available at other public
hearings for the proposed Grand Avenue project.
•
Request for a copy of the project alternatives maps used
•
Figures 1-2 and 1.3 in the SIR.
at the seeping meeting.
•
Request for a copy of the NOP/IS.
.
A copy of the NOPAS was sent as requested in mid
June, 1998.
•
Questions regarding relocation benefits for affected
•
EIR Sections 3.2 (Land Use and Planning) and 3.3
residents.
(Population and Housing).
•
Concern regarding the impacts of a partial take on the
•
EIR Section 3.2 (Land Use and Planning).
Iglesia Bautista Vida Etema (church) at 702 North Grand.
•
Note: As of April 2002, this church is no longer located
at this address.
•
Are driveways on Grand Avenue going to be removed?
EIR Section 1.1 (Proposed Project).
•
Why not make a Specific Plan out of the area from
•
The formation of a Specific Plan area is outside the scope
approximately the train station to First Street?
of the proposed project.
•
Concerned regarding the aesthetic effect of removing
•
Initial Study page 3-36 (Environmental Evaluation
mature trees.
Related to Aesthetics).
•
Impacts on EopSLy values.
.
This is not an environmental issue under CEQA.
F: IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 1.0-new.doc Page 1-19
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0
TABLE 1-3
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM THE SCOPING MEETING
Comment
IS/EIR Sections Where Comment Is Addressed
• Audience was not told they have 30 days to submit
• The 30 day comment period is associated with the NOP
comments.
issued by the City on May 13, 1998. Attendees at the
scoping meeting may submit comments at any time prior
to the completion of the draft EIR. In addition, many.
attendees were told, in conversations with the City and
consultant staff, that there would be additional hearing on
the proposed project and that they would be notified of
those opportunities to comment on the project.
• Does not want the project segment of Grand Avenue
• EIR Section 1.1.4 (Description of the No Project
widened.
Alternative).
• Compensation for business impacts.
• EIR Section 3.2 Land Use and Planning).
• Concerned regarding the loss of business signing at the
• This is not an environmental issue under CEQA. It will
street edge.
be addressed by the City during the property acquisition
haseofthe ro osed project.
• Concerned regarding the potential effect of the proposed
• This is not an environmental issue under CEQA.
widening on property values.
• Concerned regarding potentia] effects on a long term
• This is not an environmental issue under CEQA. If
lease currently being negotiated by a property owner.
appropriate, it will be addressed by the City during the
roperty ac uisition hase of the proposed project.
Executive Summary. This section summarizes the project alternatives and the potential
environmental impacts of the alternatives.
Section 1.0. This section summarizes the project alternatives, the project objectives and the
CEQA process for the proposed project.
Section 2.0. This section summarizes the environmental impacts found not to be significant
based on the analysis provided in the IS.
Section 3.0. This section describes the existing conditions, the thresholds of significance,
the analytical methodology, the impacts of the widening alternatives, mitigation to reduce or
avoid any significant adverse impacts, and the level of significance of the impacts after
mitigation for the environmental parameters determined in the IS to potentially result in
significant adverse impacts.
Section 4.0. This section summarizes the potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts
of the project alternatives, after mitigation, based on the analysis documented in Section 3.0.
Section 5.0. This section addresses the potential for irretrievable and irreversible
commitment of resources associated with the project alternatives.
Section 6.0. This section addresses the potential for growth inducing and cumulative
impacts associated with the project alternatives.
Section 7.0. This section provides the MMP for the proposed Grand Avenue widening.
F: IPRO.I-ENVIGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 1.0 -new. doe Page 1-20
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0
Section 8.0. This section provides a qualitative analysis of the potential environmental
impacts associated with the No Project Alternative.
Section 9.0. This section lists the City of Santa Ana and consultant personnel responsible
for the preparation of this Focused EIR.
Section 10.0. This section lists the references used in the preparation of this Focused EIR.
Appendices. The Appendices to this EIR include the NOP/IS, the responses to the NOP/IS,
the scoping meeting information and technical reports prepared to analyze the potential
impacts of the project alternatives.
1.3.5 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR
After the circulation of the Draft Focused EIR, the City will prepare responses to all written
comments received on the Draft Focused EIR and will prepare the Final Focused EIR. The Final
Focused EIR will consist of the Draft Focused EIR, revised as appropriate based on comments
received during the public comment period, the EIR Appendices and the Responses to Comments
Report.
The City of Santa Ana City Council will consider the information in the Final Focused EIR prior to
certification of the Final Focused EIR. The City Council will have to certify the Focused EIR for
the proposed Grand Avenue widening project prior to taking action adopting one of the alternatives
for implementation.
1.3.6 OTHER APPROVALS AND PERMITS
The proposed Grand Avenue widening project will not require any subsequent discretionary actions
by the City Council if Alternative 2 is approved. If Alternative 1 is approved, subsequent
amendments to the City's General Plan will be required. The following permits and other approvals
may be required during implementation of the proposed Grand Avenue project:
The City will need an encroachment permit from Caltrans for construction work and
implementation of traffic control measures in the vicinity of the Grand Avenue/Interstate 5 (I-5)
interchange. The City or its construction contractor would apply for this permit from Caltrans
District 12 prior to any work in or immediately adjacent to Caltrans right-of-way.
If Alternative 1 is approved, a General Plan amendment will be processed to remove the project
section of Grand Avenue from the City's Bikeway Master Plan pursuant to Mitigation Measure
LP -1.
1.3.7 OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INPUT AND THE EIR PROCESS
There are several opportunities in the EIR process for public input. These occur during the NOP
and scoping process; during the public review of the draft EIR; and at the public hearing(s) for
the project. As discussed previously, the NOP was circulated in May 1998 and a scoping
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 1.0-new.doc Page 1-21
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0
meeting was held in June 1998. This Draft Focused EIR will be circulated for a period of 45
days and will be available at the City of Santa Ana offices and local libraries.
If comments on the Focused Draft EIR are submitted, they will be responded to in the Responses
to Comments Report. The Responses to Comment Report will be part of the Final EIR and will
be presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council for their consideration of the EIR
and the proposed Grand Avenue widening. The Response to Comments Report will be available
for public review at the City of Santa Ana offices located at 20 Civic Center Plaza in downtown
Santa Ana.
1.3.8 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The following documents were used in the preparation of this Focused EIR and are incorporated by
reference in this Focused EK consistent with Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines:
Final Environmental Impact Report No. 97-02 (EIR 97-02) Final Circulation Element State
Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 97071055 (Parsons Brinkerhoff, January 5, 1998): This EIR
evaluated the potential impacts associated with proposed modifications to the City of Santa
Ana General Plan Circulation Element.
Revised Final Environmental Impact Report No 97-01 (EIR 97-01) Final Land Use
Element SCH No. 97071058 (Parsons Brinkerhoff, January 21, 1998): This EIR evaluated
the potential impacts associated with proposed modifications to the City of Santa Ana
General Plan Land Use Element.
These reports are available for review at the City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency, 20 Civic
Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA, 92701.
Additional technical references used in the preparation of this Focused EIR are listed later in
Section 9.0 (References and Contacts).
1.3.9 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
At this time, there are no specific areas of controversy raised in response to the NOP or
remaining issues to be resolved regarding the proposed widening alternatives or the evaluation of
the potential impacts of those alternatives. It is possible that previously unknown issues or areas
of controversy may be identified during the review of the Draft EIR. As described above,
responses to comments received in response to the Draft Focussed EIR will be provided after the
public review period for the Draft EIR.
F.,WROJ-EWGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 1.0-new.doc Page 1-22
Section 2.0
IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0
SECTION 2.0
IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT BASED
ON THE INITIAL STUDY
2.1 OVERVIEW
The environmental process requires the Lead Agency for a proposed project, in this case the City of
Santa Ana, to prepare an Initial Study (IS) which addresses the potential environmental impacts
which could result from the implementation of a proposed project. An environmental checklist
which defines areas of concern must be completed as part of this process. The results of the IS
determine whether further environmental documentation is required for a proposed project. The
results of the IS for the proposed Grand Avenue widening indicated that a Focused Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) was required to assess certain potential impacts associated with this project.
The IS, which was circulated with the Notice of Preparation (NOP), and the supporting
documentation for the proposed Grand Avenue widening are provided in Appendix A of this EIR.
This Section summarizes those potential impacts of the proposed Grand Avenue widening that were
determined in the IS to be below a level of significance or which could be mitigated to below a level
of significance based on mitigation measures incorporated in the IS.
2.2 LAND USE IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Alternatives 1 and 2 are consistent with the Circulation Element of the City of Santa Ana General
Plan because they propose improvement of the project segment of Grand Avenue to the Major
Arterial Standard as designated in the Circulation Element and the County Master Plan of Arterial
Highways.
Alternative 1 does not includes a bike lane and, therefore, would not be consistent with the City's
Bikeway Master Plan, Policy 3.3 of the City's Circulation Element and the County Master Plan of
Bikeways (now the Orange County Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan). Mitigation measure LU -1
in the Initial Study was proposed to mitigate this adverse impact. The potential adverse impacts of
the deletion of this segment of bike lane from these Master Plans are assessed in Section 3.2 (Land
Use and Planning). Mitigation measure LU -1, described originally in the IS, for Alternative 1 has
been refined and updated with mitigation measure LP -1 that is described in Section 3.2.5.
Alternative 2 includes a five-foot wide, on street, Class lI bike lane consistent with the City's
Bikeway Master Plan and the Orange County Commuter Bikeway Strategic Plan. No mitigation is
required.
Because the IS and this EIR provide a detailed analysis of the potential environmental impacts of
the widening alternatives and the No Project Alternative, the proposed alternatives comply with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the
City of Santa Ana environmental guidelines. No mitigation is required.
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - Gran&Section 2.0-new.doc Page 2-1.
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0
Because there are no agricultural operations and no identified agricultural soils adjacent to the
project segment of Grand Avenue, Alternatives 1 and 2 will not impact agricultural resources or
operations. No mitigation is required.
2.3 POPULATION AND HOUSING IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The widening alternatives for the project segment of Grand Avenue are consistent with the General
Plan Circulation Element of the City of Santa Ana and the existing and forecasted needs for
transportation capacity in the area based on existing and planned land uses because they will not
result in any substantial alteration in the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the
population. Therefore, the proposed widening alternatives will not result in induced growth or
exceed regional or local population projections. No mitigation is required.
The construction of the project will generate short term construction related jobs expected to be
filled from the existing labor pool in Orange County and workers are not anticipated to relocate
from other cities to housing in the City of Santa Ana for the construction of this project. In the long
term, the proposed project will not result in the generation of jobs. Therefore, the proposed project
will not induce substantial growth in the area either in the short or long term. No mitigation is
required.
2.4 GEOLOGY IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
There are no active faults crossing or near the alignment of the project segment of Grand Avenue.
However, earthquakes, ground shaking and lurching, ground failure or similar seismic hazards can
occur in the project area as they could over much of southern California. The soils in the project
area have a very low potential for expansion, liquefaction and subsidence. Because standard road
engineering and design practices will be incorporated during final design to address potential
seismic and geologic conditions in this area, the proposed project will not result in adverse impacts
related to seismicity, geologic conditions and soil conditions. No mitigation is required.
Because there are no large water bodies on or near the project segment of Grand Avenue or active
or inactive volcanoes in the vicinity of the project area, the proposed project will not result in an
adverse impact related to sciches, tsunamis and volcanoes. No mitigation is required.
Because the project area is essentially flat and is not subject to landslides and mudflows, the
proposed project will not result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or
mudflows. No mitigation is required.
The proposed project will not result in adverse impacts related to topographic features because the
project area is currently developed and is primarily flat. The soils in the area are suitable for
construction. No mitigation is required.
There is a potential for short term wind and water erosion of soils during construction. These short
term impacts will be reduced to below a level of significance based on mitigation measures G-1 to
G-4 described later in this Section.
F: IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 2.0-new.doc Page 2-2
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmentallmpact Report Section 2.0
There are no unique geological or physical features on or adjacent to the project segment of Grand
Avenue because this area is basically flat. Therefore, the project will not result in or expose people
to potential impacts involving unique geologic or physical features. No mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure G-1. The project specifications shall require the construction contractor to
place desiltation devices such as sandbags in areas along the project alignment, during any grading
and/or construction during rainy periods, to eliminate discharge of soil laden waters from the
construction area onto other City streets or into storm drains.
Mitigation Measure G-2. Although the area is relatively flat and is expected to be flat after grading
and prior to paving the road, during watering for dust control during construction, the project
specifications shall require the construction contractor to ensure that silt laden water does not run off
the construction area onto City streets, private property or into storm drains. If the temporary
conditions during grading result in flows of water from the construction area, desiltation devices
shall be placed at appropriate areas to eliminate discharge of soil laden waters from the construction
area.
Mitigation Measure G-3. During all grading and construction, the project specifications shall
require the construction contractor to control fugitive dust by regular watering and/or other
appropriate measures to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Rule
403.
Mitigation Measure G-4. The project specifications shall require that, during the period between
grading and paving, the use of graded, unpaved areas by construction vehicles and other traffic be
avoided to the extent feasible. Where avoidance of these areas is not possible, the following
measures shall be incorporated, as appropriate: regular watering, covering of driveway accessways
and other similar measures to avoid unnecessary dust generation.
2.5 WATER IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The proposed widening of the project segment of Grand Avenue will result in an incremental
increase in impervious surfaces in this area and a slight increase in the amount of runoff from the
road surface to the nearest storm drains. However, these increases are not expected to be significant
because the area is already predominantly developed in urban uses. Therefore, the proposed project
is not expected to result in significant changes in absorption, drainage patterns or the rate and
amount of surface runoff. No mitigation is required.
Because the project segment of Grand Avenue is outside the defined 100 and 500 year flood zones,
and the standard project flood (SPF) zone, the proposed widening project is not anticipated to result
in the exposure of people or property to flooding. The widening of Grand Avenue is expected to
incrementally improve existing drainage in the area and, therefore, will reduce the potential for rain
water to extend beyond the road right-of-way during major storm events. Therefore, the proposed
project is not anticipated to result in significant adverse impacts related to flooding. No mitigation
is required.
F.9PROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - GrandiSection 2.0-new.doc Page 2-3
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0
The widening of the project segment of Grand Avenue is anticipated to result in increased numbers
of vehicles on Grand Avenue which would result in small increases in vehicle related pollutants.
During rainstorms, these pollutants may be washed off the road surface and into area storm drains,
resulting in a very small incremental degradation of surface water quality. However, small
increases in vehicle related pollutants are likely to occur on other streets in the area if the project is
not implemented because traffic demand is anticipated to increase with approved development in
the area. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a significant impact related to the quality
of surface waters. No mitigation is required.
Because there are no fresh or marine water bodies on or adjacent to the project segment of Grand
Avenue, the proposed project will not result in changes to river or stream channels or impact
currents. Because the proposed project will not result in substantial increases in storm water flows,
it will not result in adverse impacts related to surface water bodies. No mitigation is required.
Grading activities during construction of the project segment of Grand Avenue will not extend to
the depth of groundwater. Construction of the project will not result in any cuts or excavations
which would extend to aquifers or the groundwater table. The project area does not currently
provide substantial groundwater recharge capability. Therefore, the proposed project will not result
in adverse impacts. on the flow or direction of groundwater, impact the quality and quantity of
groundwater, or impact groundwater recharge. No mitigation is required.
The proposed project will require the use of small amounts of water in the short and long term.
Construction related activities will occur over a short period of time, and will require relatively
small amounts of water for dust control and other construction activities. Water resources will be
required for landscape irrigation in the long term. However, this will not require substantial
amounts of water because the majority of the landscaping is expected to be drought tolerant.
Therefore, the proposed project will not result in adverse impacts related to groundwater supplies
for public water uses. No mitigation is required.
2.6 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The proposed widening project is in an area that is predominantly flat with no substantial
topographic or man made features which could alter air movements, moisture or temperature in the
area. The widened segment of Grand Avenue will be at grade and well below the height of existing
structures in the area. Therefore, this widening project will not alter air movements, moisture or
temperature or cause any change in the climate of the area. No mitigation is required.
The use of asphalt during construction will generate odors in the short tern, which would dissipate
quickly in the air. The proposed project will not result in the creation of objectionable odors
because these odors would only occur for a short period of time. No mitigation is required.
The widening of Grand Avenue will improve traffic flows, which would reduce vehicle idling and,
thereby, decrease odor creating exhaust emissions. As a result, the proposed project will not result
in the creation of objectionable.odors in the long term. No mitigation is required.
r: L1KUJ-CNVIGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 2.0-new.doc page 2-4
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 2 0
2.7 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The proposed project will result in an increased number of vehicles on the project segment of Grand
Avenue and in improved traffic flows on this segment of Grand Avenue. Therefore, the proposed
project is anticipated .to result in a less than significant impact related to traffic congestion. No
mitigation is required.
The widening of the project segment of Grand Avenue will be consistent with the City's standards
for Major Arterials and is considered to be compatible with the adjacent land uses. Therefore, the
proposed project will not result in hazards related to these land uses. No mitigation is required.
The widening of the project segment of Grand Avenue will result in short term lane and driveway
closures, detours and/or traffic delays. The project construction activities will be coordinated with
the City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency (PWA). This coordination will include working with
adjacent land uses to maintain emergency access through the project segment and to adjacent
land uses including the use of temporary driveways as feasible, signing and other features to
protect vehicular and pedestrian traffic through the area during construction. As a result of this
coordination by the PWA, the widening alternatives will not result in significant adverse impacts
during construction related to design hazards and emergency access. No mitigation is required.
Alternative 2 includes a five-foot, on street, bicycle lane, which is consistent with the standard of the
City of Santa Ana Bikeway Master Plan and the Orange County Commuter Bikeways Strategic
Plan (CBSP). Alternative 1 does not include a bike lane on Grand Avenue and, therefore, is not
consistent with the City's Bikeway Master Plan or the CBSP of the Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA). However, as described earlier, since the circulation of the NOP/IS,
Alternative 1 has been further refined to include the deletion of the bike lane on this segment of
Grand Avenue from the City of Santa Ana Bikeway Master Plan and the OCTA's CBSP as part
of the project description for this Alternative. The potential adverse impacts of the deletion of
this segment of bike lane from these Master Plans are assessed in Section 3.2 (Land Use and
Planning). Because the deletion of the bike lane on this segment of Grand Avenue from these
Master Plans is included as part of the description of Alternative 1, refined mitigation measure
LP -1, as described in Section 3.2.5, is necessary to maintain General Plan consistency.
Alternative 2 will result in some benefit related to bicycle safety and accommodation on the project
segment of Grand Avenue. No mitigation is required.
There are currently no bus turnouts on the project segment of Grand Avenue. Alternatives 1 and 2
include bus pads and bus turnouts consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines.
Immediately prior to construction, temporary bus stops will be provided, as needed, and bus detours
will be determined, where appropriate. Therefore, the proposed widening project will not conflict
with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. No mitigation is required.
There are no navigable watercourses or rail lines crossed by or, near the project segment of Grand
Avenue. There are no airports near the project segment of Grand Avenue. Therefore, the proposed
project will not result in impacts on rail, waterborne or air traffic services or facilities. No
mitigation is required.
1": IPROJ-ENPIGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 2.0-new.doc Page 2-5
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0
2.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
There are no endangered, threatened or rare species, locally designated species and natural
communities, wetland habitats, or wildlife dispersal or migration corridors in the project area
Therefore, the proposed Grand Avenue widening will not result in adverse impacts related to
biological resources. No mitigation is required.
2.9 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE
SIGNIFICANT
Because there are no adopted energy related plans relevant to the proposed Grand Avenue widening
alternatives, they will not result in adverse impacts related to energy conservation plans. No
mitigation is required.
Because there are no known mineral resources under or in the immediate vicinity of the project
segment of Grand Avenue, they project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource. No mitigation is 'required.
2.10 HAZARDS IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Alternatives 1 and 2 may result in a minor increase in the number of vehicles carrying hazardous
substances on the project segment of Grand Avenue. Because these trips would occur on area
roads, including Grand Avenue, with or without the proposed widening, the proposed project will
result in a less than significant impact related to risks associated with explosions or release of
hazardous substances. No mitigation is required.
Although the proposed widening project may temporarily impact emergency and evacuation plans
on Grand Avenue during construction, this impact will be substantially mitigated or avoided based
on consultation with the City of Santa Ana PWA, Santa Ana Fire Department (SAFD) and Santa
Ana Police Department (SAPD) prior to and during construction. This consultation will include
identification of through access routes and/or detour routes required for emergency access during
construction; identification of required signing in the construction area; and other requirements of
the SAPD and SAID to ensure that emergency access is provided during construction. In the long
term, the widening of Grand Avenue will beneficially affect emergency and evacuationn plans by
providing increased capacity on this segment of Grand Avenue. Therefore, the proposed project is
not anticipated to result in adverse impacts related to emergency and evacuation plans. No
mitigation is required.
There are no documented hazardous materials sites on the project segment of Grand Avenue.
Therefore, the widening of Grand Avenue is not likely to result in any health hazard in the area. In
the long term; some pesticides are expected to be used in the maintenance of the median
landscaping. However, these materials are expected to be used, handled, stored and transported
consistent with applicable state, federal and local laws. Therefore, the proposed Grand Avenue
widening will not result in a substantial risk related to the creation of hazards to public health. No
mitigation is required.
F: IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 2.0-new.doc Page 2-6
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 2 0
It is possible that privately owned structures to be acquired under Alternatives 1 and 2 could contain
asbestos containing building materials (ACBMs) and/or lead based paint (LBP), or could currently
have some hazardous materials contamination. Prior to the acquisition of privately owned property,
a Phase I hazardous materials investigation would be performed on the properties to be acquired.
Any hazardous materials on those sites would be identified. The responsibility to remove and clean
up any hazardous materials or contamination on privately owned property would be with the
individual property owners, prior to the purchase of the property, consistent with existing federal,
state and local regulations. The exceptions to this would be ACBMs and LBP which the City would
remove prior to the demolition of any acquired structures, consistent with applicable federal, state
and local regulations. No further mitigation is required.
The proposed widening project will not result in increased fire risk because there is no flammable
brush, grass or trees in the project area. No mitigation is required.
2.11 PUBLIC SERVICES IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The proposed widening of Grand Avenue may result in a minor increase in the demand for police
and fire protection services in the area, due to. increased traffic volumes on Grand Avenue.
However, this increase in demand for these services is the result of existing, approved and planned
land uses in the area, and not as a direct result of the widening of Grand Avenue. Because the
existing fire and police stations in the area would be adequate to meet the demand for fire,
emergency and police services arising in this area, with or without the Grand Avenue widening, the
proposed project will not result in the need for additional fire and police service personnel,
equipment or facilities. No mitigation is required.
The proposed widening project will not generate the demand for additional school facilities or
impact school attendance because the project will not generate demand for housing or result in
increased population. The widening project will not result in acquisition of any property from
schools. Therefore, the proposed project will not impact existing schools or result in the need for
new school or modified facilities or services. No mitigation is needed.
The proposed widening of Grand Avenue will result in a minor increase in road maintenance costs
for the City due to increased traffic and the increased road surface area. However, these increases
would be relatively minor and the maintenance responsibility for the City would also be minor.
Therefore, the proposed widening project will not result in adverse impacts related to road
maintenance. No mitigation is required.
The construction of the proposed widening of the project segment of Grand Avenue could result in
temporary delays and/or detours of existing Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
transit services in the area. The short term impacts on these transit services will be substantially
mitigated prior to construction, because the City will coordinate with the OCTA regarding the
possible need for temporary detours and temporary bus stops. Therefore, the proposed widening
would result in a less than significant impact on transit services. No mitigation is required.
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 2.0-new.doc Page 2_7
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0
in scale to the existing land uses and would include light sources similar to existing light sources in
this area. No mitigation is required.
2.14 CULTURAL, RESOURCES IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Because there are no known paleontological resources in the Grand Avenue area, the proposed
widening project will not adversely impact paleontological resources. No mitigation is required.
Because the Grand Avenue area is not known to have any unique ethnic cultural values, the
proposed widening project will not result in impacts related to ethnic cultural values. No mitigation
is required.
2.15 RECREATION IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The proposed widening project will not result in population increases in the area and, therefore, will
not result in any modification or create a demand for additional recreational facilities. There are no
existing or planned public or private parks in the immediate vicinity of the project segment of Grand
Avenue. Therefore, the proposed widening project will not result in impacts on recreational
facilities. No mitigation is required.
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 2.0-new.doc Page 2-9
Section 3.0
EXISTING CONDITIONS, IMPACTS
AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
SECTION 3.0
EXISTING CONDITIONS, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section documents the environmental analysis for those parameters for which the proposed
Grand Avenue widening project may or would result in potentially significant adverse impacts.
These parameters were identified based on the findings of the Initial Study (IS) included in
Appendix A of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
I
I
i
F: IPRO.I-ENVIGrand eirlNew Text- GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.1.doc Page 3.1-1
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
3.2 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Based on the findings of the IS, the proposed Grand Avenue widening may or would result in
potentially significant adverse land use impacts specifically related to the acquisition of right-of-
way and the potential disruption of an established community. The analysis in the following
sections focuses on the existing conditions in the study area, the analysis methodology, thresholds of
significance, the potential land use impacts of the Grand Avenue widening alternatives related to
property acquisition and community disruption, and mitigation as needed.
3.2.1 EXISTING SETTING RELATED TO LAND USE AND PLANNING
The existing land uses in the vicinity of the project segment of Grand Avenue include single and
multiple family residential, commercial and institutional uses. Public land in the area includes
parcels owned by:
• Caltrans, adjacent to Interstate 5 (I-5) for the ramps to and from I-5 at Grand Avenue.
Santa Ana Unified School District, on the east side of Grand Avenue north of Seventeenth
Street and east of Grand Avenue north of Fourth Street.
There is a large Catholic church, Our Lady of Guadalupe, on the east side of Grand Avenue south of
Third Street. Commercial uses in this area include retail establishments, offices, and automobile
parts and services garages. The Orange County Register administrative offices and production
facility are on the east side of Grand Avenue south of Fruit Street.
There are residential uses on both sides of Grand Avenue:
• On the east side of Grand Avenue north of Seventeenth Street; and from north of Fifteenth
Street to south of Fourteenth Street.
• On the west side of Grand Avenue from Stafford Street to Fourth Street.
The majority of the existing single family residences are older, are generally well maintained and
are in good condition. The multiple family residences are not as old but are generally not in as good
of condition as the single family residences. The commercial uses are various ages and vary in
condition.
The City of Santa Ana General Plan designations for this area include:
The General Plan Circulation Element designates the segment of Grand Avenue between
Seventeenth Street and First Street as a Major Arterial.
• The General Plan Land Use Element designations adjacent to the project segment of Grand
Avenue are:
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.2.doc Page 3.2-1
Grana' Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
General Commercial on the west side of Grand Avenue from Seventeenth Street to
First Street.
General Commercial on the east side of Grand Avenue from Seventeenth Street to
Fifleenth Street and from Fourteenth Street to First Street.
Low Density Residential from just north of Fifteenth Street to I-5.
Other Relevant Land Use programs in the General Plan Land Use Element:
Inter -City Commuter Station Redevelopment Plan — This Plan designates segments of Grand
Avenue in the project limits as part of this Redevelopment Plan which involves 525 acres
designed to provide a commuter rail station and supporting uses. (LU Appendix pp. A-7)
• Enterprise Zone — A 7,000 -acre part of the City of Santa Ana was designated by the State as a
California Enterprise Zone which includes almost all of the Grand Avenue project area. This
designation provides tax incentive programs to new businesses within the Enterprise Zone. The
goal of the program is to revitalize the economy by bringing in new businesses through the tax
incentives.
Federal Empowerment Zone - hi 1999, the City of Santa Ana received the only Urban
Empowerment Zone Designation in California. This zone affects the area between First and
Fourth Streets on both sides of Grand Avenue in the study area. The Zone is expected to
enhance the quality of life for the City's residents and businesses within the Zone. This Zone
includes new educational opportunities, job training and skill development, mentoring and
apprenticeship programs, childcare, enhanced recreational opportunities, tax exempt
financing for businesses, and access to other federal programs and services.
3.2.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE RELATED TO LAND USE AND PLANNING
Land use impacts are considered significant if the proposed project will conflict with the adopted
plans and goals of the community as expressed in the City of Santa Ana General Plan. In addition,
the following would be considered significant adverse impacts of the proposed project related to
land use:
• Inconsistency or conflict with an adopted land use designation or intensity and indirect or
secondary environmental impacts are created.
• Substantial or extreme use incompatibility.
• Development or conversion of General Plan designated open space to a more intensive land use.
• Incompatible land uses in an aircraft accident potential area. as defined in an airport land use
plan.
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text- Gran&Section 3 Sp1it&ction 3.2.doc Page 3.2-2
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
Inconsistency or conflict with established recreational, educational, religious our scientific uses
of the area.
3.2.3 METHODOLOGY RELATED TO LAND USE AND PLANNING
The revised preliminary plans for Alternatives 1 and 2 were evaluated to identify the needed right-
of-way to accommodate the widened cross section of Grand Avenue. Assessor's parcel maps were
used to identify the existing parcel boundaries for all potentially affected parcels. The potential
right-of-way takes were identified by the City as full takes based on the following assumptions:
The remainder of the affected parcel totals less than 15,000 square feet for commercial uses or
less than 6,000 square feet for single family residential uses. The required parcel sizes for
multiple family residential uses depend on the number of dwelling units on the site.
• The remainder of the parcel does not meet the required setback of 15 feet from the new edge of
the public right of way to the nearest structure on the site for commercial uses and 20 feet for
residential uses.
Takes that do not exceed these criteria were identified as partial takes. Under a partial take, the City
would acquire only a part of the parcel, which could include landscape areas, parking areas,
driveways and/or part of existing structures. Partial takes have been reviewed for conformance with
the General Plan and Zoning Code site development standards. Parcels that did not conform were
considered full takes.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the metropolitan planning
organization for the greater Los Angeles area, identified a number of land use policies in the growth
management and water quality chapters of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. The
proposed Grand Avenue widening alternatives were evaluated for consistency with these land use
policies as discussed in the next section.
3.2.4 IMPACTS RELATED TO LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impacts of Alternative 1 Related to Land Use and Planning
Impacts of Alternative 1 Related to Property Acquisition
Figure 3.2-1 shows the potential right-of-way impacts and the extent of takes for each property
affected under Alternative 1. A reference number has been assigned to each parcel along the Grand
Avenue study area. Table 3.2-1 summarizes the property acquisition under Alternatives 1 and 2 and
includes the corresponding map reference number. As shown, Alternative 1 would result in the full
take of 45 parcels and the partial take of 20 parcels. Table 3.2-2 summarizes the property takes for
single and multiple family residential dwelling units, commercial and public uses and vacant parcels
under Altemativel.
F.IPROJ-EWGrand eirWew Text- GrandWection 3 SplitlSection 3.2.doc Page 3.2-3
f3
ERNATIVE 1 RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPACTS
IFOR ',,P&DConsultants AND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
6480 STREET
Page 2 of 3
:RNATIVE 1 RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPACTS
0FI P&D Consultants AND AVENUE WIDEN ING EIR
O-WAT
6WR
rage i of 3
°RNAT/VE 1 RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPACTS
1 ®P&DConsultants ND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
5
�c
S%
o zF
x
N
v
N N y
p"
a
d
E
o ZF
X
xx
0
aE
q
a� d
H
�G
DC
>C
X
DC
PCxXXxx
h
d
omvg
Fvgg
C�
z
m
q
A(D
g o
ro
�'
tC
N
l+Q.�4�1
h
y
ro
wwww
w
a
g
q
q
q
q
q
p
C/[�j]
H
V
V
U
U
V
I�♦
V
��♦
V
V
I�\
V
U
V
V
N
VJ
VJ
N
f%
w
aaaaaa
g
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Y
Y
q
g
q
q
q
q
Y>
d<C@d<Cd�Q<C<Crnrn
¢
<Cd
6d�
Qd��d�
>roy
'g�
adz
b
'�
@
icy
v❑❑
yV
ao
id
tlo
id
o
�
v
v❑
id
po
�C
v❑
i1
Y
•-�
Y
"
�
-❑c
�d
rop
vtl
is
v
�
v❑
id
o
cn
�
ro❑
id
W a
T� N
v
�
S
kk.
�
�
�
�
C�JI.CICJCJCJ�C7C7Ur"
`•U
W
U'
UCJ�(7C7
W
z
W
Ur
`���UrU
VC7U
a°1i
VJ
VJ
W.
W.
fA
M.
V]
C/J
Q
z
z
z
z
z
.`z
V
a
O
N
�D
N�
w
O
O
.--�
N
d'
c0
<Ii
N
N
O
:)
O
d'
N
w
O
V,
.0
O
b
w1
01
N
ti
c!t
M
0?
W
s�.A
C4
h��
vMi
mm
M
wm�m
oMo
oMo
oMo
oMor
O
W
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
a z
~
,.y
.y
W
o0
00
00
l
m
C%
ON
M
M
M
00
00
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
a44
py 0 z
—h
L
J.
d
N
ti
v
N
i4 y
F
a
E
whx5S
x
X>C
DCx>CxXx
Xx>CxSS
>C
>C
d
0
V
aF
d
n�
�1
y�
�I
��II
I�
�I
A�
�I
a E
YV
✓Y
✓Y
IY
X
i
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
.�
C7
p
as
3
U�
w
H
w
O
� ,1
aro
o
H
M
U
g
A
AAAA
N
g
gg
db
bio
o
tiINr�
.N.
N
N
.Ki
AA
�i
y❑❑y
C4
Pyr
FG
a/ W
Lp
94
WYi
yy
V
N
q
yN
6'
N
q�
G1
g
V
q
u
q
N
b
N
q�
N
N
�q
IU
❑ p❑
N
C
O
q��
N
�q
N
d
N
�
a>
v.
m
v
V
d
�m1
�a�1
�v1
N
ti
N
O
N
ro
7)
�
.y
ro
�
ro�
�z
roro
ro�
rororororo
�
roro
�
UU�U
�
�
��
m
C7
�
N
i5
V�C7
!'"
(7
V�C7
C7x
UY
C7
kf
W
�p
h
0001
oa
V A
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
�
O
O
O
U
oo
V'�
7
p0
M
M
M
M
M m
M
M
M
.-�
.
0O
0
0w�
a %i
m
m
a\
O\
T
D\
00
O\
W
O\
00
O\
00
4\
00
00
�
OO
Qi
00
01
00
D\
00
0
00
�
00
O\
00
F
00
F
00
D\
D\
Q\
00
Tol
M
M
M
M
m
M
M
M
M
M
M
m
m
m
m
m
M
M
M
M
m
M
M
m
m
-NI
NN
NNNN
NNmMmM
�
O
—
N
M
V
MMMMMM
Ut
b
h
o0
D\
O—
N
Iy
O
C
d
C
tl
CS
o zHN
v
—
—
N e� y
X
DC
CC
X
X
DS
F
iSl
R
q
v
wHxlk
At
x
AtAtSt
At1XII
AtAt
d
oxXx
At
X
5S
xx
At
d �F
L
d
At
xxxxxxx
O
N
�o
q
•�
a
•'
U
c� U
N
S
o
b
Y
bq
U
NNO
O
�� Orr
O
W
gqg
W
❑
ttl
p
ttl
��++
iC
tl
of
O
x
[.C/1
O
p
V
N
m
w
w
CIO
N
N
Pr
id
ctl
O
kli
m
H�
P
A
U
w
M
'49p
£
a
a
:a
pp
U
oo'0
V
•�
0
U
0
V
0
V
0
V
0
U
0
U
V
0
U
0
U
0
U
0
U
0
U
V
0
U
0
U
0
U
0
U
0
V
0
U
0
U
,�
W
v
N
Vj
O
U}
a
U
EJ
4J
y
N
U
U
U
11
a
q�
a�
a
s�i
N
,�
�
b
.�
�
bbbbZ
"V
v+
✓'+
�
i.-
Y
k
'C
]
Q
�tltl
Cepp
b
k
ro���
o
d
����ii
b
d
Z
z
V
lJ
.iy
FU
W
r
Q Q�
d
�i
_N
0O
7
N
C\
N
V]
U5
Q
N
ONN
N
�
0
d'
M
N
'C
M
o0
01
00
h
�O
ti
d'
M
O\
�
S
OOO
OOOOO
OOO'�'�'"�
i0
b
R
py 7
Z
o0
00
00
o0
00
00
r
W
Z
''Mm
a�ao,o,o�
M
M
M
M
M
00
o�aarna+o,
m
C0
M
00
M
m
M
M
.=r
.�
oo
o�rnrn°`„mr°iimo'
m
M
M
M
W
d
N
N
v
N R y
A a
a
w
>C
>C
>S
>C
>S
X
>C
0
.y
p m
x
x
X
>S
>Ck
XX>C
� a F
a
m _
1d F
>C
>C
>C
>C
>C
>�
X
>C
101.
14q
'q
o
A
PL
F�
�
M
rip❑�y
Fsl
�
U
Y
y
�
��+
yU
o
y
b
o
U
b F�
A
o
UUU
Uo
�
F,
H
y
`fid
o
0
o
•w"
v
_
_
�
pf
tp
tp
tp
(p
H
H
❑pH
�p y
❑pU
U
qpH
qpF
H
M
�
ypMy
qpM
U
U
U
�
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
1"1
N
N
N
GJ
4J
UJ
AJ
N
N
N
Qi
q N
q
q
Y
v
Y m
Y
a�
Y �
a�
�-
b
d
vlddddddd
M
M111,511 bbbb❑
1
tl
bbb
��
,5
ddddd
b
bbbb
�
f/ddd•
Qb
bb
y
y
,�,�"�
vb)�v�+�cnm
�.�
�nddd
,�'❑O
bb
FTa
C7
V
CJ
�d
�1
-NE
V
�
V
�tl
l'.J
-fid
V
'Nd
V V
V
+�"+
�zi
z�/-+`�r7-�
�.Z
�i
x+`�+�i
%.v
0
N
o
00
�z
zr�
r`�-•Z"`C'
0
0
0
m
0
0
,�M.�
N
OD\
00
V1
po
,ti
d'�N.-'.MN
ti,�.��M
N.-•
�7
MN
u A
V'f'i
MONr
vMO+
.mNOi
MNO
MNOi
MNO
•N-D�
•N-D-�
0
NO
NO0
N
Np
'N•"D""
P4
�
00
00
00000'ZI,
OON
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
d'
d•
7
d.
tV d z
/a
b
dh
r
tom`
r
r
h
h
oOo
W
W
W
W
oho
ado
oNa
a°Oo
T
ON
N
M
P
b0
§
/
(
Q
/
/
/2)x
xkxx
n
■�
]];
_
m
/2)k
kx*x
m
\))
,
@
7/§
�
,
)
\
/))42
.2
}
\
_
°
K9N
{
o
u)u
m
k
\
/{\\
J
=
l3\
)\
\
§saa{
2A&a
af&»
/
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
TABLE 3.2-2
SUMMARY OF RIGHT-OF-WAY TAKES
Type of Parcel
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Full
Takes
Partial
Takes
Full
Takes
Partial
Takes
Single Family Residential Units
20
0
23[3]
0
Multiple Family Residential Units [1]
41
0
41
0
Multiple Family Residential Parcels [2]
5
0
5
0
Commercial
20
16
29
16
Public/Other [4]
0
4
0
4
Office
0
0
1
0
Total Takes (Parcels)
45
20
56
Total Takes (Residential Units)
61
0
64
EO
[1] Estimated number of affected individual housing units.
[2] These are individual parcels occupied by two or more multiple family residential units. For example, the 5
multiple family parcels identified as full takes under Alternative 1 contain an estimated total of 41 multiple family
residential uses.
[3] This includes the parcel with map reference No. 44 that has three single family units on one parcel.
[4] This includes public uses, church use and church parking lot.
It is expected that the affected residents can be relocated to elsewhere in the City or in the
surrounding cities. However, based on the active housing market and the 2.13 percent vacancy rate
in 2001 (Department of Finance City and County Population and Housing Estimates, January 1,
2001), it may be difficult to quickly relocated all affected residents. As described earlier, the
implementation of the proposed widening of Grand Avenue would be phased, which would include
the phased acquisition of property. This would have the effect of spreading the property acquisition
and subsequent relocation activities over time. This would be expected to somewhat ease the
difficulty in relocating the total number of affected residents in an active housing market with only
limited vacancies. Affected businesses are expected to be able to be relocated to new sites either in
the City or the surrounding cities, based on the urbanized nature of this part of Orange County. The
City will provide substantial relocation assistance to displaced residents and businesses, as
described later in mitigation measures LP -2, LP -3, LP -4 and LP -5. However, the loss of single
family and multiple family housing is of concern for the region which is addressed in Sections 3.3
(Population and Housing) and Section 6.2 (Cumulative Impacts).
As described earlier, the analysis of potential right-of-way acquisition associated with the widening
alternatives assumed a full take if the remainder of the affected parcel totals less than 15,000 square
feet for commercial uses or less than 6,000 square feet for single family residential uses, or if the
remainder of the parcel does not meet the required setback of 15 feet from the new edge of the
public right-of-way to the nearest structure on the site for commercial uses .and 20 feet for
residential uses. This was to ensure that remnant parcels would be in conformance with site
development standards in the Zoning Code. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 will not
result in land use impacts from the creation of non -conforming land uses. The City of Santa Ana
F: IFRO.I-ENMGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.2.doc Page 3.2-I2
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
is evaluating the reuse of parcels impacted by implementation of the proposed project and will
reestablish uses that would be consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning.
Compensation for all full and partial takes would be provided as described later in Section 3.2.5
(Mitigation Related to Land Use and Planning).
Impacts Related to Remnant Parcels
As described in Section 1.0 (Project Description and Project Objectives), the acquisition of property
to accommodate the widened road cross section under Alternative 1 will result in remainder or
remnant parcels left after the completion of construction. The City anticipates these remainder
parcels would be combined into larger, developable parcels and sold to private parties for
development.
As discussed earlier, these parcels are designated for commercial or residential uses in the City's
General Plan Land. Use Element. The EIR for the Land Use Element addressed potential impacts of
commercial and residential uses on this segment of Grand Avenue at a program or planning level.
As part of the future development process for these remainder parcels, proposed commercial uses
on the west side of Grand Avenue and on the east side except for the segment between I-5 and north
of Fifteenth Street would be subject to independent environmental review. Similarly, proposed
residential uses on the east side of Grand Avenue between I-5 and north of Fifteenth Street would
also be subject to independent environmental review. This review would assess whether the
potential impacts of these uses were addressed in the Land Use Element EIR or would require
additional, separate environmental review prior to approval of the proposed uses by the City. If low
density residential uses are proposed on the east side of Grand Avenue between I-5 and north of
Fifteenth Street, these uses may be consistent with the General Plan land use designation and, as
minor infill projects, may not require environmental review.
Because future land uses on these remnant parcels cannot be identified at this time and these future
uses are not part of Alternative 1 for the widening of Grand Avenue, it is not possible to assess
whether these land uses would result in impacts not considered in this EIR or in the General Plan
Land Use Element EIR. Nonetheless, based on existing City procedures and policies, any potential
impacts of these future uses would be assessed and mitigated, if required, as part of the City's
development review process. Therefore, Alternative 1 is not expected to result in adverse land use
impacts related to potential reuse of remnant parcels. No mitigation is required.
Impacts on an Established Community
The NOP indicated that there could be a potentially significant impact regarding the physical
disruption or division of an established community. Although this is a fairly qualitative discussion,
it should be noted that impacts to an existing established community can be considered weighting
factors in significance evaluations. As noted earlier in the existing conditions discussion, the
majority of the existing single family residences are older and are generally well maintained and are
in good condition. This statement predominantly applies to the residential area between Fourth
Street and Santa Ana Boulevard. The fact that the older houses are well maintained could be an
indicator of a fairly stable neighborhood (as opposed to a neighborhood in decline) with some sense
of community pride. Although this area does not have the very rich cultural background as some
F:IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 3 SpIMSection 3.2.doe Page 3.2-13
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
other areas of Santa Ana, it will be irreversibly changed by the improvement of Grand Avenue to a
six -lane arterial and the elimination (20 properties for Alternative I and 23 properties for
Alternative 2) of some of the residential uses along this arterial.
In addition, some existing residential uses that were once located in the interior of a residential
neighborhood would now have backyards that front Grand Avenue. The overall character of
these residential areas would decline. Therefore, the proposed widening under Alternative 1 will
physically disrupt this established residential community permanently. The community would
also be temporarily impacted by the periodic construction activities as each part of the
improvement project becomes funded and implemented. Taking into consideration all of these
effects, the implementation of Alternative 1 would result in a significant adverse impact on this
established community.
Impacts Related to General Plan Consistency
Because Alternative 1 is consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element designation of this
segment of Grand Avenue as a Major Arterial, Alternative 1 would not result in adverse impacts
related to General Plan consistency regarding the designation of Grand Avenue. No mitigation is
required.
As discussed in Section 2 (Effects Found Not To Be Significant in the Initial Study), Alternative
1 includes the deletion of the Class 2 bike lane from Grand Avenue between 17th Street and First
Street from the Bikeway Master Plan of the City of Santa Ana Circulation Element. Alternative
1 would also be inconsistent with Policy 3.3 of the Circulation Element which states "Program
the construction of routes identified in the Bikeway Master Plan." Alternative I cannot provide
on -street bike lanes due to its narrower cross-section. Therefore, Alternative 1 would be
inconsistent with the City's Bikeway Master Plan for an on -street bike lane on Grand Avenue
within the project limits. Mitigation Measure LP -1 addressing these inconsistencies is provided
in Section 3.2.5 (Mitigation Measures Related to Land Use Planning).
The reuse of remnant parcels is anticipated to result in land uses consistent with the General Plan
land use designations for the areas along the project segment of Grand Avenue and with the General
Plan Major Arterial designation for the project segment of Grand Avenue. Therefore, Alternative 1
will not result in adverse impacts related to consistency with the General Plan land use designations
for these areas. No mitigation is required.
Impacts of Alternative 1 Related to Consistency with SCAG Land Use Policies
The SCAG land use policies from the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide are listed in Table
3.2-3. Alternative 1 was evaluated for consistency with each of these policies. As shown in Table
3.2-3, Alternative I is consistent with each policy, except for certain policies determined not to
apply to this proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 1 will not result in adverse impacts related to
SCAG land use policies.
F: IPRGJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.2.doc Page 3.2-14
via ai p
p� � v C
� G r�
`� y� .'" a°i
'
° m z°❑�❑ A
0 0�
.mow chi
O N
P. 'e •>
s p y O
.,., > 0
;, �° N
U 9 w 0
Oro
�z.�
O ON
N
y"q N N° U o
O
zro4
A •O p. °
a �i .�
N N
•�
oZ ❑
^
�roz
ar:3 4a.4J
Y I]Q I�
�
Y al P� U
14
Y y V
ro
�..� yy Y
3
tC � U
m N � • � �
� a' 1 p
I�" ° °;G v
'y q °"� T U y
o
eA^Nw^
o a°
O
aAN'vz
.J
o��'o
N g N N N
a o
'bo
U0
cc OA n 0 L) q
•p NN
�
q C
q .� P ro ms
ro bD v° to
o Np O
A
O
�>
Ch
� .� � z
Q
p .5 Nd 0
3 •� R
'� c d
78
.v
6-0 N
aU o
a
N
° o•o oUb
C w yda
o m°o
oY�° Udvw'a°pd
enN�
N w
`� a
�.^.3w°•N
.,y U�y �y N
C7
U
a�oi00����o��N
w
O y N U
Oa Q O CIJ
N ro Vn U
^CqY W
O y T a
q. dj
O
o b J•�
o N W UO ° N
N T aN+ ° N
q°.
•N
P,
�', ,�
1 -IN a
Ri � a�.
Pvyyi
^Ytlj
l��
(d •^ ° y
R' � � N
Qn ° ••r Ui
NP..� Z A � �
ii U (J yO
� v N
Uri¢°q.�•�d�v�v�dWF+����F��+3��CF��'W6n
� ,�
� '�N
uS N
,v�
q .�.7 _T
N
� T�
v^
q y
0 >
p
O
•p T
U
y
a�
N a
w
o oA20
ro
bN cAo.ti
-08,� �
� .�
Y "'
•M U � 4O
Zipp
a°A
N
o v��-'r N
� 17
•g� ��-�
•O
pp '� .�G
O OFL
d �
'C O
� �
�
yN .�
U
bO .�
� d
o w q
py°
qPM
.0 U
00.
'
ro•
a. N .�
y• w o
y°{
� y
'.�
N V] � `.
.q
W •a�
W w ani
W cC a
s.
v
A
zo
0
0
0
0
N
m
m
m
m
m
O
W
0 .0—
'p^
' o �+
°T
O
a
d ro o
aqi
F• O U O
y, �y Fir
N d0 p H 'b
U Y
, 0 t� j OA,'i�`' y R .,�.
N In N o
0 j
'
y z
N N
�0 roq y° 0 p
ro❑
F
app .q
g
O`�'
w .°q
O
N❑❑
.O
L.Nb"Ny�
P
•yy
O
.
yyppNaU��.,
aNy
Ntr
'�bo
P
O
+
O
Nn O.
aP'O
WF°U
roppa1
bwm`
O
'NOV
^
rob
Om w
•qanp. ro
O v
'yG
.�a+'
69 0
O 01
Oq
OUb9D
b N PaUOO'Wa
F
> OO
d
U❑0Z
Z
0
N'0O
,Go
0td Os
y
rrNr�a
,.'O
�
O O
.>p0
�ryo.A
'
°0
qro
-0v
0ai
No
oa~] .0
'03 A
6i '>"'
p�aqq
UWO `~d
qa�>
LCUL,
a°R
'.d
OU
9-9
�
y OUJ,4y
q
i 1O
gb, v
'Qpa^�
j wO� 0,
7oO
•W
>
W.q
QPN
O0
< U
ab
V°i]
Uy
Fg
P
J
y°
•O HNVv
g VO qq>
.ay •�
PI
7°.
'27
Ud
.'
O°qWW
° PpyO-+'
POI
R
.o
�y
.4w
'
.z
C
O
a
ONO°
pU
000 0w'0
wb a•� °
0
m 8 °
.�i
0 3"¢�
vppro❑
o.�
�'po
yro
p
0 0
'd
m p
y
�' ✓'�
A.
.5 y
a
d
N
O u
b
O
y •U
S.
N,-N�i y
.�
O
CdC
W N ii
N
SOS
•fJ
tdd
O F+
}ayi�
O
p
0
q
10
y vi
O q
fL
b4
.9
�
�N O b
�O ro �
tq]
U
.� "
id °
ro q b0
pUp O't
O 17 y
O
b0
o
p .'�. A
nb �
O p
aN U
O
U
Pi �'y.
R
o A.'y
d
z
o
z
o
o
v
m
m
M
m
m
a
0
a
z
0 U.
ro� o z
F� �jro .� z
o N �� �0
p
O N cs N 'd
N
G
O O�
a N
p W S+ y d
O
zv
.,0 O
a 0 a 0.0
•�
ps P'
3 H a
o o .d
u �
w a O
'U
❑�
ro
ryry
0
U
vi E} N
j1y
ap1 qp
N p�
U 3
p„ w �' :drp7y 'IUCD
O y .p
V
U
m. o CUi]
N F> O a v�
R� .0 O
P
etD d ^ N
.N
.f^❑t+�
bo
o
00
•O
aw
�UrP,z
'0'0
601
Al
''[[�� ..q . G
cj
.q
A
.U+ 09 >
y V0 '•'a�J
N 'b y
.13.
rF 0
ay " vE'
a d
F
O p C+.
W R7 �JJ
ti Q R SL
m ti '.G a N p
Q UM •.� ttl
m
> N a+
O U 0v
iL N
s0 O
•C�C 'a a
+�j
p(L'1 U
il' �'iddi
p
F•�'•p°
y
ow
'.
N
W U odu0 U
��.�
0 a'y
o
5'm b'
� oZ
a c0'zi
o � aro a .p
y
Hro uro S
F
� p N > vq� U
NR � O y
a ,L� s❑d
IUB• H
� �
� U l� �
"
MU
''�O
a 1.1 � ? 6
y
O
0 bq •
N b>0id ,ON .,U_r
ON^ UF4
O
N
D•OO .'Q'
10OU
UN F
•�GOqq ,N
�ca
O
P.Mr
�B
U
a. V4
��1U�Uyy- ����j`
F. C❑pb U
vi
W
tl
w^'
"
vy
ror�
N
v �3
F��'
y
•O^
ti
rob
�ro
N �
.a
N
N
0
V
Or N
O
~y
P,
U ro
G
ro
oro
Kg
'�
V1
b .,U.
ion y
N •p
d
W 'd
y
a.
aa'
Sam
.2 -o
&
meg°
�
'01
��JJ5o
a5
eq
•O
'O
� rn
O
f]0 o
N Q� �y
� A N
v�vJ1
.d .�
a�
o R
w
N H •�
'a a 'O
•° y
� a
o
m
a
au' N
p
°PSA
p g
w q
o o
o.
ri `
W aai
Z o o
vai ku v
W w w
q 0
d
a
oo
T
O
N
N
M
M
M
M
M
M
O
a
T
S N W O N ro q .G OLyA �,
p RJ a� (7 .y.
"y1
i5❑y+ O
.". CJ U
NO
C
U q .� q p 6[ N N 6
(� ty >❑°❑
'y
y y ro
ate+ .FJ
V
�yq
ro O U w O p°y q Q
'
y N Wd°� w F
d�
dM 4 ;�'
O
T
o o y w ro a
N O
o n }�y
q
N O P,
N p^
G
U p.d U w,G7 V
ro W
a� Eo 7g'b
3 3
°N' U
'O
.p d m vis w w 0.u/i o .� .°,
0`'"0.1opno
.� .�
o^
; of �
o ro
i�
°
ro o ° o Yg •� A. G •5'j d
w b+-•
'� u Q "u' d P'
.camc 3k
•5 5 0
agio°>°AJS
'S
°'
•a z o p o T Y
u
,3 w°
O ••�� CN O
o •°�,
O
roq Pp
'dyU
;tg
d
°00
ih
ro,,wq ua�oNq�N$L
�,•oH ro>,ro `o^YQB
•
DoHa°i
ago oa
0. 0 'Jy q P+ q o
° a$i .0
°� �"-'
'S °
•O
>
qro¢, ;n�
Cj
v .^� r.
Zi 4
a�
ro a�
R 'O
0a"���a�
p N Fj
� ��.��
�o oro��
p
Z °'
M ° dw �� o ro H
�
ro aao? o n
�:� o
k' p0+'gq"
o�q
p .� ' ° u 13 b a v°�.' .,uT• `� W.,�
o
C7 bC 44A
',�arj
15-4
E
'�hV'U
C7 w
roOP'H
q
U�aq"
.b�A .Of"
t
�id+ ,`�. '.�°q
doPq
',«-O�I
m
^•.LUD,
�.�'°"°"Nc�y
M• � 06< 03
^•oqCL
.2 .
p
Om°y
o
p1
�dUw>9q
°`�6o'�
syyg�
3
�q'V
°ati
maUP
°°--G�yyC°
U�j
b.
w
U �
O
0 Id
O0
xi J
c� ' b
•p en p
w.
q
0
C U Pp
o
�•'
WO �'
�
O p
bA
U O
°
u
'ti
J
•O y
o
°
oY�'
v
from
.ro❑w
p
y ♦y d
°
tw
bo
> b
aroi eV
��
o
lC
IIIVOOO
O N O r,
OVV$
V C
w
w
'5 O
O
P ❑M❑ ° v a
o � °CC'
v �
0
o �ay�
•�pUp
bA itl � U
pUp �tl vii
O
� '� v
� O aq�5.
.O on'Opp
ro�
�yyy •v v
p,
po
0
OK Op
O
0m
z
W Kv
W mb
d
z
N
N
N
N
u
m
ri
m
m
:q
0
W
tet'„`..$
,w o 44 o
o z p z
q o ..
o
+^ q o%
04 cd
A
z`
z
N0 N
onto
,o aHi
a
10
c
0�
•� a
n�o ° 'o 0
-hYt.�m
q.
F: .3Apon°
F �•cTi...
ddooa
0o0
>
Ecyooa
" 3 .ti p'
.4
z v o .>
Z° m :-y
d
m S 00
bA
pq° '� J
,w
y
•p°'ow
'�` °
F
b
R
N ..HI ro P3 N H r
W N
p U Y y
>
0.0 W ,may
N a'1
v d
p '° y
H T
'�
•�y Y�' y
y �a U
°
e
U 0.v •�
y api b>
ro
o o
o Q
sdp
oaao ro�oroon
�vmaNRNo
°>
�p°3aor
oH�
'^ •¢x!
Cp7 p`�p .^oo
' S10°S77 .�o
o wH�
No
'�aH
•'o?°o
° ,AY
p,
�
W�
vqa
a°i
2
3Q?
}0y
Qo
cNO'°
dO�aoO1
v
0 5
"Ol o
o
P
eq o
o pro m
w
wo O
O LL
o
N
�3 W N
° .�
y
V°1
a
'�pw G H
U 'O U
O ° ° °
¢' y
R�-
FL
w.
o
m ++
H �^ H o
+�
H a " Ht�,,"❑y
O°�
$
8[rL
1. B a 8
p '
O N
.� w
+-' N
id � W q
�' ro
y
b❑ R w'
U
O' w
O
Jb ,q
N
R.�c3 ro ryu+ �.
WFl
U M
y
N ro❑`
T b O
OU .a ��j
uH� O N
OH O N U
ro Vi
N •''-1 N Vl ..y
q
ro Y ro
°�� �
V Op 'Sj
p N
,�°,
bD
`.�
❑p 0p.
bro
bv
6Ub
J° 0oU
�
OO
b
'g 0-2
p0ggp
..3
q.o N2
p•qtv� p.
wti
Noa�
A "R ro
0
•�
p=
� tb
b09 Y N,
72
`�
°
pU �
❑ .T w
'a7 m w
O
U
F ro ro
..Y
p
.� m •�y `p
O A p
H H
vp wo
'^ o
•�
tjjj
OU • o Pp �
N N GU9 N
fR 'S'' � O
i�d cd � U
.°p sU.
iL w O
y tL
.0
N o A
H
O 18
0`0 .
HO.i ro N
0•.� N N Y
Y� y
� ,�
y
�
m m w
o�
pl '�%. i=
ri
g cH❑� b (d �p
TJ
y ppq,
o,
p O D U
^ N
p w
d°
A ro o
C-0
z
N
o
O
O
o
O
:p
0
W
b
ro�
P�
o0.�
w � d
� o
�
� N
q w
O v
JE a0i A
U
��
a 3 ro q
yb w.E
L7 q U y O U
U
v
Wa� 8
ro w b 'O '+'�
0 o � ro
a�
z
w
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
impacts of Alternative 2 Related to Land Use and Planning
Impacts of Alternative 2 Related to Property Acquisition
Figure 3.2-2 shows the potential right-of-way impacts and the extent of takes for each property
affected under Alternative 2. A reference number has been assigned to each parcel along the Grand
Avenue study area. As shown earlier, Table 3.1-1 summarizes the potential right-of-way impacts
under Alternatives 1 and 2 and includes the corresponding map reference numbers. As shown,
Alternative 2 would result in the full take of 56 parcels and the partial take of 20 parcels. Table
3.1-2, provided earlier, summarizes the property takes for single and multiple family residential
dwelling units, commercial and public uses and vacant parcels under Alternative 2.
It is expected that the affected residents can be relocated to elsewhere in the City or in the
surrounding cities, based on the active housing market in 2000 and the 2.13 percent vacancy rate in
2001 (Department of Finance City and County Population and Housing Estimates, January 2001).
However, it may be difficult to quickly relocated all affected residents. As described earlier, the
implementation of the proposed widening of Grand Avenue would be phased, which would
include the phased acquisition of property. This would have the effect of spreading the property
acquisition and subsequent relocation activities over time. This would be expected to somewhat
ease the difficulty in relocating the total number of affected residents in an active housing market
with only limited vacancies. Affected businesses are expected to be able to be relocated to new
sites either in the City or the surrounding cities, based on the urbanized nature of this part of Orange
County. The City will provide substantial relocation assistance, as described later in mitigation
measures LP -2, LP -3, LP -4 and LP -5. However, the loss of single family and multiple family
housing is of concern for the region which is addressed in Sections 3.3 (Population and Housing)
and Section 6.2 (Cumulative Impacts).
As described earlier, the analysis of potential right-of-way acquisition associated with the widening
alternatives assumed a full take if the remainder of the affected parcel totals less than 15,000 square
feet for commercial uses or less than 6,000 square feet for single family residential uses, or if the
remainder of the parcel does not meet the required setback of 15 feet from the new edge of the
public right-of-way to the nearest structure on the site for commercial uses and 20 feet for
residential uses. This was to ensure that remnant parcels would be in conformance with site
development standards in the Zoning Code. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 will not
result in land use impacts from the creation of non -conforming land uses. The City of Santa Ana
is evaluating the reuse of parcels that were taken for the implementation of the proposed project
and will reestablish uses that would be consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning.
Compensation for all full and partial takes would be provided as described later in Section 3.2.5
(Mitigation Related to Land Use and Planning).
Impacts Related to Remnant Parcels
As described in Section 1.0 (Project Description and Project Objectives), the acquisition of property
to accommodate the widened road cross section under Alternative 2 will result in remainder or
remnant parcels left after the completion of construction. The City anticipates these remainder
parcels would be combined into larger, developable parcels and sold to private parties for
development.
F:IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text- GrandlSection 3 SpIMSection 3.2.doc Page 3.2-2/
THIRD STREET
SCALE t Soo
#> 364 05-6
Le
tY
r -o -ow -Mr --mom
Page lof3
F
.RNATIVE 2 RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPACTS
IOWA P&7nsZatZts 77 AND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
ILY— � '
/ /
"-VZ///
202i 2%,
212, 2zo,
214. 244, ji
no 5 ---
gr#
-77-7-
rr
Le
tY
r -o -ow -Mr --mom
Page lof3
F
.RNATIVE 2 RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPACTS
IOWA P&7nsZatZts 77 AND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
FFORD STREET
✓ �' �. ;4,,r �"x y t 34
v: I
O
r
17.00
f•N'. ,2t1 u
J ^+
FRELIKU
F r
409 N �
�+ w
N
LE 1,500
SP
�{ ?'K K t
v, m
W f yy
k x 2
M
zT•o4
LL N
1Y 1'• � Ny
U _ J
Page 2 of 3
:RNATIVE 2 RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPACTS
P&DConsultants AND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
Page 3 of 3
-RNATIVE 2 RIGHT -OF WAY IMPACTS
1 , P&D Consultants AND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
LFGEN
EXIST R!M
FULL TAKE
AMIAED RIOAT-OF-MAY...
MAP KFEAEMCE HuwR
Page 3 of 3
-RNATIVE 2 RIGHT -OF WAY IMPACTS
1 , P&D Consultants AND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
As discussed earlier, these parcels are designated for commercial or residential uses in the City's
General'Plan Land Use Element. The EIR for the Land Use Element addressed potential impacts of
commercial and residential uses on this segment of Grand Avenue at a program or planning level.
As part of the future development process for these remainder parcels, proposed commercial uses
on the west side of Grand Avenue and on the east side except for the segment between I-5 and north
of Fifteenth Street would be subject to independent environmental review. Similarly, proposed
residential uses on the east side of Grand Avenue between I-5 and north of Fifteenth Street would
also be subject to independent environmental review. This review would assess whether the
potential impacts of these uses were addressed in the Land Use Element EIR or would require
additional, separate environmental review prior to approval of the proposed uses by the City. If low
density residential uses are proposed on the east side of Grand Avenue between I-5 and north of
Fifteenth Street, these uses may be consistent with the General Plan land use designation and, as
minor infill projects, may not require environmental review.
Because future land uses on these remnant parcels cannot be identified at this time and these future
uses are not part of Alternative 2 for the widening of Grand Avenue, it is not possible to assess
whether these land uses would result in impacts not considered in this EIR or in the General Plan
Land Use Element EIR. Nonetheless, based on existing City procedures and policies, zoning any
potential impacts of these future uses would be assessed and mitigated, if required, as part of the
City's development review process. Therefore, Alternative 2 is not expected to result in adverse
land use impacts related to potential reuse of remnant parcels. No mitigation is required.
Impacts on an Established Community
Alternative 2 would result in the removal of existing residential uses along Grand Avenue. Similar
to Alternative 1, this would result in a significant adverse impact on the character of this established
community.
Impacts Related to General Plan Consistency
Because Alternative 2 is consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element designation of this
segment of Grand Avenue as a Major Arterial, Alternative 2 would not result in adverse impacts
related to General Plan consistency. No mitigation is required. In addition, Alternative 2
accommodates an on -street Class 2 Bike lane as specified in the City's Circulation Element
Bikeway Master Plan. No mitigation is required.
The reuse of remnant parcels is anticipated to result in land uses consistent with the General Plan
land use designations for the areas along the project segment of Grand Avenue and with the General
Plan Major Arterial designation for the project segment of Grand Avenue. Therefore, Alternative 2
will not result in adverse impacts related to• consistency with the General Plan land use designations
for these areas. No mitigation is required.
Impacts of Alternative 2 Related to Consistency with SCAG Land Use Policies
The SCAG land use policies from the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide were shown earlier
in Table 3-3. Alternative 2 was evaluated for consistency with each of these policies. As shown in
F: IPROJ-EM (Grand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 3 SalitWection 3.2.doc Page 3.2-25
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
Table 3-3, Alternative 2 is consistent with each policy, except for certain policies determined not to
apply to this proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 2 will not result in adverse impacts related to
SCAG land use policies.
3.2.5 MITIGATION RELATED TO LAND USE AND PLANNING
Mitigation for the impacts of Alternatives I and 2 related to property acquisition is provided in
measures LP -2 through LP -5, below. Also, as disussed in Section 1 (Project Description and
Poiject Objectives), much of the acquisition process is described in a question and answer format
in the City of Santa Ana Handbook on Acquisition which is provided in Appendix I.
Alternatives 1 and 2 will not result in adverse impacts related to reuse of remnant parcels and
General Plan consistency. No mitigation is required.
Alternatives 1 and 2 will not result in adverse impacts related to SCAG land use policies. No
mitigation is required. With the exception of one policy, the No Project Alternative will not result
in adverse impacts related to SCAG land use policies. Mitigation for this impact is implementation
of Alternative 1 or 2.
Mitigation measure LU -1, which applied only to Alternative 1 previously, relates to bicycle lanes,
as described earlier in Section 2.2 (Land Use Impacts Found Not to be Significant). This mitigation
measure has been updated per the refined alignment and definition of Alternative 1. Mitigation
measure LP -1 would not apply to Alternative 2 because Alternative 2 would be consistent with the
City's Bikeway Master Plan and the Class 11 bike lanes shown on Grand Avenue in the Commuter
Bikeways Strategic Plan.
In the event that Alternative I is selected, mitigation measure LP -1 shall apply.
LP -1 The City shall revise the Bikeway Master Plan to delete the on street bike lanes on this
segment of Grand Avenue consistent with the final design of Alternative 1. The City shall
also notify OCTA to delete the Class II bike lanes on this segment of Grand Avenue in the
Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan. The deletion of the bikeway from the City's General
Plan Bikeway Master Plan, would make the General Plan consistent with the planning for
Grand Avenue along this segment.
LP -2 Consistent with the requirements of eminent domain law and the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, the City of Santa Ana shall
pay all owners of real estate including land, buildings and improvements the fair market
value for property taken, either in whole or in part, for the widening of the project segment
of Grand Avenue. Fair market value shall be determined through appraisal of the affected
property.
LP -3 Consistent with the requirements of eminent domain law and the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, the City of Santa Ana shall
assist displaced businesses in finding alternative locations, either within or outside the City
limits, as appropriate. Displaced businesses are also eligible for reimbursement of certain
F:IPROJ-ENMGrand eir1New Text- Gran&Section 3 SpliMSection 3.2.doc Page 3.2-26
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
relocation costs, including the replacement of business stationary or telephone connection
fees, and moving costs. hi addition, business specific impacts such as those pertaining to the
loss of fixed equipment shall be evaluated and compensated on a case by case basis.
LP -4 The City of Santa Ana has several programs available to assist small businesses. All City or
City -assisted programs offering such financial assistance shall be offered to qualifying
businesses displaced by the project.
LP -5 Consistent with the requirements of eminent domain law and the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, the City of Santa Ana shall
assist displaced residents in finding alternative locations, either within or outside the City
limits, as appropriate. Displaced residents are also eligible for the reimbursement of certain
relocation costs, including moving costs.
3.2.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION RELATED TO LAND USE AND
PLANNING
Alternative 1 will result in an inconsistency in the City's Bikeway Master Plan. The
implementation of mitigation measure LP -1, if Alternative 1 is selected, will mitigate this impact to
below of level of significance.
Alternatives 1 and 2 will result in significant adverse impacts related to property acquisition. These
impacts can be mitigated to below a level of significance based on measures LP -2, LP -3, LP -4 and
LP -5.
As discussed later in Sections 3.3 (Population and Housing) and 6.2.4 (Cumulative Impacts Related
to Population and Housing), the loss of housing associated with the acquisition of right-of-way for
the proposed project may contribute to a cumulative significant adverse impact on housing in the
City of Santa Ana. This contribution to a significant cumulative adverse impact by the proposed
Grand Avenue widening cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance.
Alternatives 1 and 2 will result in the disruption of an established community due to the
permanent changes associated with the removal of existing residential uses which previously
buffered interior residential properties from Grand Avenue. Although the impact to the
community character is not quantifiable, the effect of the disruption due to the removal of
existing structures is considered a significant adverse impact on the existing community in
proximity of the project limits along Grand Avenue which cannot be mitigated to below a level
of significance.
Alternatives I and 2 will not result in adverse impacts related to reuse of remnant parcels, General
Plan consistency (other than the Bikeway Master Plan for Alternative 1 as described above) and
SCAG land use policies.
F.•IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.2.doc Page 3.2-27
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
3.3 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Based on the findings of the IS, the proposed Grand Avenue widening may or would result in
potentially significant adverse impacts on population and housing, specifically related to the
displacement of affordable housing. The analysis in the following sections focuses on the existing
conditions in the study area, the analysis methodology, thresholds of significance, the potential
population and housing impacts of the Grand Avenue widening alternatives related to affordable
housing, and mitigation as needed.
3.3.1 EXISTING SETTING RELATED TO POPULATION AND HOUSING
Based on housing estimates from the California Department of Finance, there were 74,611 dwelling
units in the City of Santa Ana in January 2001. The 2001 housing vacancy rate in the City was 2.13
percent. There are no. assisted housing projects or assisted housing units in the Grand Avenue area.
As noted earlier, there are single and multiple family housing units adjacent to the project segment
of Grand Avenue. Much of the housing in the Grand Avenue area is older and is likely moderately
priced and affordable, compared to newer housing elsewhere in the City.
3.3.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE RELATED TO POPULATION AND HOUSING
A project will normally have a significant impact related to population and housing if it will result in
the displacement of a substantial number of persons or in the displacement of a substantial number
of housing units. In addition, a project could result in significant adverse impacts related to
population and housing if it:
• Induces substantial growth or population through the provision of employment or housing or
both employment and housing.
• Contributes to cumulative demand for housing.
• Is a large scale project which creates a jobs/housing ratio greater than 5.85 in Orange County.
3.3.3 METHODOLOGY RELATED TO POPULATION AND HOUSING
The potential impacts of the proposed widening of Grand Avenue were assessed based on the
estimated number of residential units that would be acquired and the number of residents that would
be displaced by each alternative. The number of residents potentially displaced by the proposed
project was estimated assuming an average household size of 4.33 persons in 2000, based on
statistics from the California Department of Finance.
The Final FIR for the City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element (January 21, 1998) was
reviewed as a source for information regarding the status and availability of housing, particularly
moderately priced and affordable housing, in the City. In addition, the City of Santa Ana Housing
Element (December 2000) was also reviewed as an information source. This information was used
in assessing the potential impacts of the Grand Avenue widening on housing and population in the
City.
PROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 3 SpiitlSection 3.3.doc Page 3.3-I
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
3.3.4 IMPACTS RELATED TO POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impacts of Alternative 1 Related to Population and Housing
As shown earlier in Table 3.2-2, Alternative I will require the acquisition of an estimated 20 single
family dwelling units and 41 multiple family dwelling units. As shown in Table 3.3-1, a total of
approximately 264 residents are estimated to be displaced by the acquisition of these housing units
under Alternative 1.
TABLE 3.3-1
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENTS
(1)Assumes an average household size of 4.33 persons. Source: Housing Element pp. A-7.
As noted earlier, the housing in this area is older and is likely more moderately priced and
affordable than newer housing elsewhere in the City. Therefore, although this housing is not
identified by the City as assisted, moderately priced or affordable housing, it is likely considered to
be affordable and moderately priced for much of the market it currently serves. The availability of
affordable and moderately priced housing in the City of Santa Ana and the surrounding cities is
somewhat limited, based on the overall demand for this type of housing and the total number of
units meeting the criterion of affordability.
Nonetheless, it is expected that the affected residents can be relocated to elsewhere in the City or in
the surrounding cities, based on the active housing market in 2000 and the 2.13 percent vacancy rate
in the City in 2001. The City will provide substantial relocation assistance to displaced residents, as
described earlier in mitigation measures LP -2 and LP -5.
Even with mitigation, the loss of these affordable and moderately priced housing units in Santa Ana
under Alternative 1 would potentially contribute to a cumulative significant adverse impact after
mitigation. This is because of the substantial demand for affordable and moderately priced housing
in the City of Santa Ana and the County overall. Refer to Section 6.2.4 (Cumulative Impacts
Related to Population and Housing) for additional discussion regarding the cumulative impacts of
the Grand Avenue widening and other projects in the City of Santa Ana related to population and
housing.
Impacts of Alternative 2 Related to Population and Housing
As shown earlier in Table 3.2-2, Alternative 2 will require the acquisition of an estimated 23 single
family dwelling units and 41 multiple family dwelling units. As shown earlier in Table 3.3-1, a total
PROJ-ENVIGrand eirlNew Text- GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.3.doc Page 3.3-2
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Number of Full Takes
Single Family Dwelling Units
20
23
Multiple Family Dwelling Units
41
41
Number of Partial Takes
0
0
Total Takes of Residential Units
61
64
Estimated Number ofDisplaced Residents 1)
1 264
277
(1)Assumes an average household size of 4.33 persons. Source: Housing Element pp. A-7.
As noted earlier, the housing in this area is older and is likely more moderately priced and
affordable than newer housing elsewhere in the City. Therefore, although this housing is not
identified by the City as assisted, moderately priced or affordable housing, it is likely considered to
be affordable and moderately priced for much of the market it currently serves. The availability of
affordable and moderately priced housing in the City of Santa Ana and the surrounding cities is
somewhat limited, based on the overall demand for this type of housing and the total number of
units meeting the criterion of affordability.
Nonetheless, it is expected that the affected residents can be relocated to elsewhere in the City or in
the surrounding cities, based on the active housing market in 2000 and the 2.13 percent vacancy rate
in the City in 2001. The City will provide substantial relocation assistance to displaced residents, as
described earlier in mitigation measures LP -2 and LP -5.
Even with mitigation, the loss of these affordable and moderately priced housing units in Santa Ana
under Alternative 1 would potentially contribute to a cumulative significant adverse impact after
mitigation. This is because of the substantial demand for affordable and moderately priced housing
in the City of Santa Ana and the County overall. Refer to Section 6.2.4 (Cumulative Impacts
Related to Population and Housing) for additional discussion regarding the cumulative impacts of
the Grand Avenue widening and other projects in the City of Santa Ana related to population and
housing.
Impacts of Alternative 2 Related to Population and Housing
As shown earlier in Table 3.2-2, Alternative 2 will require the acquisition of an estimated 23 single
family dwelling units and 41 multiple family dwelling units. As shown earlier in Table 3.3-1, a total
PROJ-ENVIGrand eirlNew Text- GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.3.doc Page 3.3-2
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
of approximately 277 residents are estimated to be displaced by the acquisition of these housing .
units under Alternative 2.
Although this housing is not identified by the City as assisted, moderately priced or affordable
housing, it likely is considered to be affordable and moderately priced for much of the market it
currently serves. The availability of affordable and moderately priced housing in the City of Santa
Ana and the surrounding cities is somewhat limited, based on the overall demand for this type of
housing and the total number of units meeting a criterion of affordability.
Nonetheless, it is expected that the affected residents can be relocated to elsewhere in the City or in
the surrounding cities, based on the active housing market in 2000 and the 2.13 percent vacancy rate
in the City in 2001. The City will provide substantial relocation assistance to displaced residents, as
described earlier in mitigation measures LP -2 and LP -5.
Even with mitigation, the loss of these affordable and moderately priced housing units in Santa Ana
under Alternative 2 would potentially contribute to a cumulatively significant adverse impact after
mitigation. This is because of the substantial demand for affordable and moderately priced housing
in the City of Santa Ana and the County overall. Refer to Section 6.2.4 later in this EIR for
additional discussion regarding the cumulative impacts of the Grand Avenue widening and other
projects in the City of Santa Ana related to population and housing.
3.3.5 MITIGATION RELATED TO POPULATION AND HOUSING
Mitigation measures LP -2 and LP -5, provided earlier, would substantially reduce the potential
impacts of the proposed widening of Grand Avenue related to population and housing. No further
mitigation is proposed. Refer also to Section 6.2.4 later in this EIR for discussion regarding the
numerous policies in the City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element related to the protection
and preservation of existing housing and the development of new housing in the City.
3.3.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION RELATED TO POPULATION
AND HOUSING
Mitigation measures LP -2 and LP -5 would substantially mitigate the adverse impacts of
Alternatives 1 and 2 related to population and housing. However, based on the demand for
affordable and moderately priced housing and the available housing stock, the cumulative loss of
residential units in the City cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance.
PROJ-ENNGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.3.doc Page 3.3-3
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
3.4 AIR QUALITY
Based on the findings of the IS, the proposed Grand Avenue widening may or would result in
potentially significant adverse air quality impacts, specifically related to the potential violation of, or
contribution to the violation of, a defined ambient air quality standard and the potential exposure of
sensitive receptors to pollutants. The analysis in the following sections focuses on the existing
conditions in the study area, the analysis methodology, thresholds of significance, the potential air
quality impacts of the Grand Avenue widening alternatives related to the ambient air quality
standards (AAQS) and sensitive receptors, and mitigation as needed.
The analysis of the potential air quality impacts of the proposed Grand Avenue widening was
conducted by Mestre Greve Associates as documented in the Air Quality Assessment for the Grand
Avenue Widening City of Santa An (Mestre Greve Associates, July 20, 2001). The findings of this
technical analysis are summarized in the following sections. The complete air quality technical
report is included in Appendix E of this EIR.
3.4.1 EXISTING SETTING RELATED TO AIR QUALITY
Climate
The climate in and around the Grand Avenue project area, as with all of southern California, is
controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific
Ocean. It maintains moderate temperatures and comfortable humidities, and limits precipitation to a
few storms during the winter, wet season. Temperatures are normally mild, except during the
summer months which commonly experience substantially higher temperatures. Temperatures of
100 degrees Fahrenheit (F) have been recorded during summer months in recent years. The annual
average temperature in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) is approximately 75 degrees F.
Winds in the project area are almost always driven by the dominant land/sea breeze circulation
system. Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime on -shore sea breezes. At night, the wind
generally slows and reverses direction, traveling towards the sea. During the transition period from
one wind pattern to the other, the dominant wind direction rotates into the south and causes a minor
wind direction maximum from the south. The frequency of calm winds, defined as winds of less
than two miles per hour, is less than 10 percent. Therefore, there is little stagnation in the vicinity of
the project segment of Grand Avenue, especially during busy daytime traffic hours.
Southern California frequently has temperature inversions which inhibit the dispersion of pollutants.
Ground based or radiation inversions are most severe during clear, cold, early winter mornings.
Under conditions of a ground based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occurs, and high
concentrations of primary pollutants may occur near major roads. Elevated inversions act as a lid or
upper boundary and restrict vertical mixing. Dispersion is not restricted below an elevated
inversion. Mixing heights for elevated inversions are lower and more persistent in the summer.
Low summer inversions put a lid over the Basin and are responsible for the high levels of ozone
(03) observed during summer months in the Basin.
F.-IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.4.doc Page 3.4-I
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
Air Quality Management
The proposed Grand Avenue widening project is in the Basin and is, therefore, subject to review
with respect to the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) adopted by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (AQMD). The Basin consists of all of Orange County and the non -desert
parts of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The proposed project is
jurisdictionally the responsibility of the AQMD and, to a lesser extent, the California Air Resources
Board (CARB). The AQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the Basin and
develops and implements Transportation Control Measures. The CARB is charged with controlling
motor vehicle emissions, including the establishment of legal emissions rates for new vehicles and
oversight of the California vehicle emissions program.
Other agencies important in air quality management for the Basin include the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and SCAG. The EPA implements the provisions of the
federal Clean Air Act (CAA) which establishes national ambient air quality standards (AAQS). In
areas which are not achieving these standards, the CAA requires that plans be developed and
implemented to meet the AAQS. The EPA oversees these efforts in the Basin and insures that
appropriate plans are developed and implemented. The primary agencies responsible for writing
and implementing the AQMP are SCAG and the AQMD.
The AQMD and SCAG, in coordination with local governments and the private sector, developed
the AQMP for the Basin. The AQMP is the most important air quality management document for
the Basin because it provides a blueprint for meeting the defined federal and state AAQS. The 1997
AQMP was adopted locally on November 8, 1996, by the AQMD Board. The CARB amended the
03 part of the 1997 AQMP in 1999 as part of the California State Implementation Plan. The 1997
AQMP with the 1999 Amendments was adopted by the EPA in December 1999. State law
mandates the revision of the AQMP at least every three years, and federal law specifies certain dates
for development attainment plans for criteria pollutants. The 1997 AQMP with the 1999
Amendments supersedes the 1994 AQMP revision that was adopted locally by the AQMD in
November 1996. The 1997 revision to the AQMP was adopted in response to the requirements set
forth in the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) and the 1990 amendments to the federal CAA. The
AQMD and SCAG are currently in the process of preparing a 2001 AQMP.
The Basin has been designated by the EPA as a non -attainment area for 03, carbon monoxide (CO)
and suspended particulates. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the Basin has met the federal AAQS for the
last three years and, therefore, is qualified for redesignation to attainment. A maintenance plan for
NO2 is included in the 1997 AQMP. The CCAA mandates the implementation of a program that
will achieve the California AAQS and the CAA mandates the implementation of new air quality
performance standards. .The attainment of all federal PMIo health standards is to be achieved no
later than December 31, 2006, and 03 standards are to be achieved no later than November 15,
2010. The deadline for meeting the CO standards was December 31, 2000.
The overall strategy for the AQMP is to meet the applicable state and federal requirements and to
demonstrate attainment of the AAQS. The 1997 AQMP uses two tiers of emission reduction
measures: short and intermediate term measures, and long term measures. Short and intermediate
measures can be adopted using available technologies and management practices between 1994 and
F: IPROJ-ENRGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.4.doc Page 3.4-2
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
2005. These measures rely on known technologies and proposed actions to be taken by several
agencies that have statutory authority to implement such measures. Short and intermediate term
measures in the 1997 AQMP include 35 stationary source, seven on road, six off road, one
transportation control and indirect source, five advanced transportation technology and one further
study measures. These measures, proposed to be implemented between 1995 and 2005, rely on
both traditional command and control, and on alternative approaches to implement technological
solutions and control measures.
To ultimately achieve the defined AAQS, additional emissions reductions will be necessary, beyond
the implementation of the short and intermediate measures. Long term measures rely on the
advancement of technologies and control measures that can reasonably be expected to occur
between 1997 and 2010. These long term measures rely on further development and refinement of
known low and zero emissions control technologies for both mobile and stationary sources, in
addition to technological breakthroughs. These measures are proposed to be implemented between
1997 and 2010.
Monitored Air Quality
Air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional
air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the Basin. Estimates for the Basin
have been made for existing emissions, as documented in the AQMP. Those data indicate mobile
sources are the major source of regional emissions in the Basin. Motor vehicles account for
approximately 51 percent of volatile organic compounds (VOC), 63 percent of nitrogen oxide
(NO.) emissions and approximately 78 percent of CO emissions in the Basin.
The Grand Avenue project area is in AQMD Source Receptor Area 17 (Central Orange County).
The Receptor Area 17 monitoring station, the nearest air quality monitoring station to Grand
Avenue, is in Anaheim. Air quality data collected at this station is considered to be representative
of the air quality in the Grand Avenue area. Air quality at the Source Receptor Area 17 station is
monitored for 03, CO, NO2 and PM10. The air quality monitoring data for these pollutants at this
station from 1998 to 2000 are shown in Table 3.4-1.
The air quality data for Source Receptor Area 17 indicates that 03 is the pollutant of primary
concern in the project area. The state standard for 03 was exceeded once every 40 days in 2000,
once in 1999 and once every 37 days in 1998. 03 is a secondary pollutant, which means that it is
not directly emitted. 03 is the result of photochemical reactions between other pollutants, most
importantly hydrocarbons, and NO2. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport
downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in Source Receptor Area 17. Many
areas in the Basin contribute to the 03 levels experienced at the Source Receptor Area 17 station,
with the more significant areas being those directly upwind.
F.•IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.4.doc Page 3.4-3
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
TABLE 3.4-1
EXISTING AIR QUALITY LEVELS MEASURED
AT THE SOURCE RECEPTOR AREA 17
AIR QUALITY MONITORING STATION
Notes: 1. PM10 samples were collected every six days. The percentages refer to the percent of samples exceeding
the standard and not the number of days per year that the standard was exceeded.
2. ppm—parts per million.
3. Data presented are valid, but incomplete in that an insufficient number of valid data points were collected
to meet EPA and/or CARB criteria for representatives.
Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District and Mestre Greve Associates (2001).
CO is another important pollutant that is due largely to motor vehicles. High levels of CO
commonly occur near major roads and freeways. CO levels in the region and in the Grand Avenue
project area are currently within both the state and federal AAQS. However, CO may potentially be
a problem in the future for areas adjacent to freeways and other major roads.
The state standards for PMio have been exceeded consistently in Source Receptor Area 17, for
approximately four percent of the days measured in 2000, 25 percent of the days measured in 1999
and 20 percent of the days measured in 1998. PMte levels in this area are due to natural sources,
grading operations and motor vehicles. According to the EPA, some people are much more
sensitive than others to breathing fine particles or PMio. People with influenza, chronic respiratory
and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worsening illness and premature death due
to breathing PMte. Other groups considered sensitive include smokers, people who cannot breathe
well through their noses and exercising athletes who may breathe through their mouths. PMI a levels
have decreased significantly in the last three years.
Other than the 03 and PMio exceedances in Source Receptor Area 17 described above, no federal or
state AAQS were exceeded for the other criteria pollutants, as shown earlier in Table 3.4-1.
F.•IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 3 SpliMection 3.4.doc Page 3.4-4
California
National
Maximum Level
Days State Std.
Pollutant
Standard 2
Standard 2
Year
Exceed
Ozone (03)
0.09 ppm
0.12 ppm
2000
0.13
9
for 1 hour
for I hour
1999
010 (3)
1 (3)
1998
0.14
10
Carbon Monoxide
20 ppm
35 ppm
2000
7.3
0
(CO)
for 1 hour
for 1 hour
1999
8.3(3)
0 (3)
1998
7.9
0
Carbon Monox de
9.0 ppm
9 ppm
2000
4.7
0
(CO) (3)
for 8 hours
for 8 hours
1999
5.3
0
1998
5.3
0
Particulates (PMio)
50 ug/m
150 ug/n?
2000
126
15(4-1.)
for 24 hours
for 24 hours
1999
122f
90 (25%) (3)
1998
81t
72(20% (3)
Nitrogen Dioxide
0.25 ppm
0.053 ppm
2000
0.11
0
(NO2)
for 1 hour
AAM
1999
0.12
0
1998
0.14
0
Notes: 1. PM10 samples were collected every six days. The percentages refer to the percent of samples exceeding
the standard and not the number of days per year that the standard was exceeded.
2. ppm—parts per million.
3. Data presented are valid, but incomplete in that an insufficient number of valid data points were collected
to meet EPA and/or CARB criteria for representatives.
Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District and Mestre Greve Associates (2001).
CO is another important pollutant that is due largely to motor vehicles. High levels of CO
commonly occur near major roads and freeways. CO levels in the region and in the Grand Avenue
project area are currently within both the state and federal AAQS. However, CO may potentially be
a problem in the future for areas adjacent to freeways and other major roads.
The state standards for PMio have been exceeded consistently in Source Receptor Area 17, for
approximately four percent of the days measured in 2000, 25 percent of the days measured in 1999
and 20 percent of the days measured in 1998. PMte levels in this area are due to natural sources,
grading operations and motor vehicles. According to the EPA, some people are much more
sensitive than others to breathing fine particles or PMio. People with influenza, chronic respiratory
and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worsening illness and premature death due
to breathing PMte. Other groups considered sensitive include smokers, people who cannot breathe
well through their noses and exercising athletes who may breathe through their mouths. PMI a levels
have decreased significantly in the last three years.
Other than the 03 and PMio exceedances in Source Receptor Area 17 described above, no federal or
state AAQS were exceeded for the other criteria pollutants, as shown earlier in Table 3.4-1.
F.•IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 3 SpliMection 3.4.doc Page 3.4-4
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
Local Air Quality
Local air quality is a major concern along roads. CO is a primary pollutant which is directly emitted
from a variety of sources, the primary source being motor vehicles. For this reason, CO
concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated -by a road network and are
used to assess its impacts on local air quality. Comparisons of CO levels with the federal and state
AAQS indicate the severity of the existing concentrations for receptors in the project area. The
federal and state AAQS for CO were provided earlier in Table 3.4-1.
CO levels due to roads in the vicinity of Grand Avenue were assessed with the CALINE4 computer
model, a fourth generation line source air quality model developed by the California Department of
Transportation ("CALINE4," Report No. FHWA/CA/TL-84/15, June 1989). The purpose of the
model is to assess air quality impacts near transportation facilities in the microscale region. The
microscale region encompasses an area a few thousand feet around a pollutant source. Given source
strength, meteorology, site geometry and site characteristics, the model can reliably predict pollutant
concentrations. The methodology for forecasting existing and future CO levels in the Grand
Avenue area is described in greater detail later in Section 3.3.4 (Methodology Related to Air
Quality).
The CALINE4 computer modeling for CO was conducted for three intersections in the vicinity of
the proposed project: Grand Avenue/First Street, Grand Avenue/Frait Street and Grand
Avenue/Seventeenth Street. Receptors were located approximately 25 feet from the nearest existing
land uses. These receptor locations are shown in Figure 3.4-1. The existing CO concentrations at
these intersections are shown on Table 3.4-2.
The existing background CO concentrations for 1997 were taken from the AQMD CEQA Air
Quality Handbook (1993), the latest available source for this information. The existing 2000 CO
background concentrations are available for the air quality monitoring station in Anaheim, which is
the nearest representative station. The existing background CO levels are estimated to be 7.3 parts
per million (ppm) for one hour and 5.8 ppm for eight hours. Therefore, 7.3 ppm was added to the
worst case on hour CO projections and 5.8 ppm was added to the eight hour projects, to account for
background CO levels on Grand Avenue, as shown in Table 3.4-2.
The traffic data for the Grand Avenue widening project were provided by P&D Consultants, Inc.
(July 2001). The peak hour levels of service (LOS) on Grand Avenue are important in the
CALINE4 computer modeling because they determine congestion levels. The more congested an
intersection, the lower the travel speeds. The speeds used in the modeling determine the vehicular
emissions factors. The lower the speeds, the higher the emissions factors and, therefore, the higher
the CO levels. PM peak hour traffic is used in the CALINE4 computer model as the worst case
traffic scenario because PM peak hour traffic volumes are higher than AM peak hour volumes. The
modeling results of the existing CO levels at the three project area intersections are shown in Table
3.4-2. As shown, the existing one hour CO levels range from 10.9 to 11.3 ppm, well below the
AAQS of 20 ppm. The eight hour CO levels range from 7.6 to 7.9 ppm, also well below the AAQS
of 9 ppm.
F:IPROJ-EWGrand eirlNew Text- GrandlSection 3 SplitWection 3.4.doc Page 3.4-5
ORAl®NGE y
•L..r•j r.
i -g 2�r��'dei Grove
_ y..
NP
_,... 7.�
17th St.
3Nl<
..._..I
a I
LL
R- h
First St. TUSTIN
i�.
SANTA
ANA
\NOT TO SCALE ® Receptor Location %
CALINE4 CO MODELING RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
�' P&DConsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
TABLE 3.4-2
EXISTING CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
Roadway
Carbon Monoxide m
1 hour
8 hour
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
1. N.W. Grand Avenue/1" Street
10.9
7.6
2. S.W. Grand Avenue/Frait Street—residential
11.3
7.9
3. S.W. Grand Avenue/17th Street
11.0
7.7
Summary of
No. of Sites
No. of Sites
Carbon Monoxide
Exceeding
Exceeding
State Standard
20 ppm
9 nnm
Exceedances
0
0
Notes: 1. The CO concentrations include ambient concentrations of 7.3 ppm for 1 -hour levels and 5.8 ppm for 8 -
hour levels.
2. ppm—parts per million.
3. The receptor locations are sbown in Figure 3.4-1.
3.4.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE RELATED TO AIR QUALITY
A project will normally have a significant impact related to air quality if it will result in:
• A violation of any ambient air quality standard.
• A significant contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation.
• Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
The AQMD has established the following emissions thresholds for long term operations related
emissions:
• 550 pounds daily of CO
• 55 pounds daily of NO,
• 150 pounds daily of sulfur dioxide (SO2)
• 55 pounds daily of reactive organic gases (ROG)
• 150 pounds daily of PMto
The AQMD has established the following quarterly (and daily) thresholds for short term
construction related emissions:
F:IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text- GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.4.doc Page 3.4-7
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
• 24.75 tons of CO (550 pounds per day)
• 2.5 tons of ROG (75 pounds per day)
• 2.5 tons of N% (100 pounds per day)
• 6.75 tons PM10 (150 pounds per day)
• 6.75 tons of SO, (150 pounds per day)
3.4.3 METHODOLOGY RELATED TO AIR QUALITY
CO is the pollutant of major concern along roads because the most notable source of CO is motor
vehicles. As a result, CO concentrations are usually indicative of local air quality generated by a
road network and are used as an indicator of the potential impacts of a road on local air quality.
Local air quality impacts can also be assessed by comparing future CO concentration with the state
and federal CO standards and by comparing future CO concentrations with and without a proposed
project.
Future CO concentrations in the Grand Avenue area, with and without the proposed widening, were
forecast using the CALINE4 computer model. This model forecasts air quality impacts near
transportation facilities, in the microscale region. Worst case meteorology was assessed. A late
afternoon winter period with a ground based inversion was considered. For worst case
meteorological conditions, a wind speed of 0.5 meter per second (one mile per hour) and a stability
class G were used for a one hour averaging time. Stability class G is the worst case scenario in
terms of the most turbulent atmospheric conditions. A worst case wind direction for each site was
determined by the CALINE4 model. A sigma theta of 10 degrees was used to represent the
fluctuation of wind direction. A high sigma theta value would represent a very changeable wind
direction. The temperature used for worst case was 50 degrees F. Temperature affects the
dispersion pattern and emission rates of motor vehicles. The temperature represents the January
mean minimum temperature as reported by Caltrans. The wind speed, stability class, sigma theta
and temperature data used for the modeling are those recommended in the Development of Worst
Case Meteorology Criteria (California Department of Transportation, June 1989). A mixing height .
of 1,000 meters was used as recommended in the CALINE4 Manual. A surface roughness of the
ground in the area, 100 centimeters, was used based on the CALINE4 Manual. The results are also
determined based on the LOS on the area roads.
Emission factors for the arterials used with the CALINE4 computer model were obtained from the
CARB. The emission factors of version MVEI7G, which is the latest version, were used.
The CALINE4 modeling for the arterials was conducted using peak hour traffic data and includes
traffic on Interstate 5 (I-5). The peak hour traffic for I-5 is assumed to be about ten percent of the
average daily traffic on this freeway. Future projected traffic volumes with and without the
proposed Grand Avenue widening project are essentially similar.
F: WW-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.4.doc Page 3.4-8
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
The peak hour volumes and LOSS at the three Grand Avenue intersections identified earlier were
used in the CALINE4 modeling. The LOSS determine the congestion levels and, therefore, the
travel speeds and CO emissions at these intersections.
Eight hour CO levels were projected using the methodology described in the Caltrans Air Qualit
Technical Analysis Notes. This method essentially uses a persistence factor which is multiplied
times the one hour emission projections. The projected eight hour ambient concentration is then
added to the product. The persistence factor can be estimated using the highest ratio of eight hour to
one hour second annual maximum CO concentrations from the most recent three years for which
data is available. For the proposed Grand Avenue widening, a persistence factor of 0.7 was used.
The data and results of the CALINE4 modeling for the proposed Grand Avenue widening are
provided in the appendix of the AirQuality Assessment technical report.
Generally, the one hour CO level is considered the peak maximum CO level since it is the highest
CO measured for an hour. According to the Caltrans Air Quality Technical Analysis Notes,
changes in meteorology and traffic over time disperse CO concentration levels and cause them to be
less severe. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the one hour CO levels would persist for a full eight
hours. As a result, a one hour CO level is considered generally the peak level and is usually higher
than an eight hour CO level.
SCAG identified two air quality policies in the growth management chapter of the Regional
Comprehensive Plan and Guide. The proposed Grand Avenue widening alternatives were evaluated
for consistency with these air quality policies.
3.4.4 IMPACTS RELATED TO AIR QUALITY
Short and long term air quality impacts were assessed. Short term impacts would occur during
grading and construction activities for the widening alternatives. Long term impacts would occur
during operation of the widened segment of Grand Avenue.
hnpacts of Alternative 1 Related to Air Quality
Short Term Air Quality Impacts Under Alternative 1
Construction under Alternative 1 will include two major components. The first will be the removal
of the existing road pavement, sidewalks and landscaping, and the demolition and removal of
existing structures such as commercial and residential structures. The second component consists of
grading the right-of-way and construction of the road surface, sidewalks, sound walls and
landscaping. In general, the equipment for these demolition and construction activities will consist
of several pieces of heavy equipment, such as scrapers, tractors and graders. Another type of
equipment that would be used would be large dump trucks, for hauling wastes from the site and
materials to the site. There would generally only be one or two dump trucks working at the site at
any one time. For this analysis, it was assumed that up to three pieces of heavy equipment would be
operated simultaneously, as described below.
F.IPRO.I-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.4.doc Page 3.4-9
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
There are expected to be some short term temporary air quality impacts resulting from demolition
and construction of the widened Grand Avenue under Alternative 1. Air pollutants will be emitted
by construction equipment and fugitive dust will be generated during grading and site preparation.
The EPA has set air pollutant emission factors for construction activities for large development
projects. Based on the CLQ Air Quality Handbook (AQMD, 1993), the emission factor for
disturbed soil is 26.4 pounds of PM10 per day per acre of disturbed area. If water and/or other soil
stabilizers are used, as required under AQMD Rule 403, fugitive dust emissions can be reduced by
up to fifty percent.
The widening of Grand Avenue could potentially result in short term impacts associated with dust
and equipment emissions. It is difficult to quantify emissions from heavy duty equipment because
of the day to day variability in construction activities and equipment used. Typical emission rates
for construction equipment from the CEOA Air Quality Handbook were used for this analysis. For
a project of this size, at least three pieces of heavy equipment, including one scraper, one tractor and
one grader, may be expected to operate at any one time. If all three pieces of equipment were to
operate over an eight hour period, the emissions that would result would be 14 pounds per day of
CO, three pounds per day of NO2, 41 pounds per day of ROG, five pounds per day of SO2 and
approximately five pounds per day of PM10.
Air pollutants will also be generated by construction workers traveling to and from the job site.
However, information is not available at this time to project these emissions accurately although
they are usually small in comparison to other construction related emissions.
Based on these emissions, construction of the proposed Grand Avenue widening would not exceed
the defined AQMD thresholds listed earlier. Therefore, the construction related emissions of the
proposed Grand Avenue widening would not be significant.
In addition, as noted earlier in Section 2.4 (Geology Impacts Found Not to be Significant),
mitigation measures G-3 and G-4 are proposed to reduce dust and erosion emissions associated with
the proposed project. No further mitigation is required for short term air quality impacts under
Alternative 1.
As described earlier in Section 1.0 (Project Description and Project Objectives), it is anticipated
that the widening of Grand Avenue under Alternative 1 will be constructed in phases, based on
available funding. For example, as funding becomes available, the intersections could be
improved, followed later by the widening of Grand Avenue on the segments between the
intersections. Therefore, the demolition and construction for the widening under Alternative 1
would not occur in one continuous time period. Demolition and construction activities could
occur intermittently over a period of several years before construction of the entire widening
project is complete. Therefore, these potential air quality impacts could occur over time, as short
segments of the Grand Avenue widening is constructed. However, even with phased
construction, the construction related emissions of the proposed Grand Avenue widening would not
be significant.
F.IPROJ-ENVAGrand eirlNew Text- GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.4.doe Page 3.4-10
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
Long Term Air Quality Impacts Under Alternative I
Local Area Air Ouality. The CALINE4 computer modeling results for the buildout year for the
Grand Avenue widening, 2020, are shown in Table 3.4-3. The future CO modeling was conducted
at the intersections of Grand Avenue with First, Fruit and Seventeenth Streets. The receptor
locations used for the future CO modeling are the same receptor locations as for the modeling of
existing CO levels, shown earlier in Figure 3.4-1.
The future ambient background CO concentration levels are from the CEOA Air Quality Handbook.
The future projected ambient CO levels for 2000 were used for this analysis because data is not
available for 2020. Therefore, it is assumed that the background CO levels for 2000 are the same as
2020. This can be considered as the worst case scenario because background CO levels are
projected to decrease steadily in future years. The future background levels, from the Anaheim
monitoring station, are 9.5 ppm for one hour CO levels and 5.5 ppm for eight hour CO levels. The
CO levels in Table 3.4-3 are totals of the background levels of CO coming into that area plus the
CO levels generated by the local roads.
The CALWFA CO modeling was conducted for two scenarios: the future No Project Alternative
and the future With Project Alternative. As shown in Table 3.4-3, the future CO levels for the No
Project Alternative are estimated to range between 9.7 and 11.3 parts per million (ppm) for one hour
and between 6.8 and 7.9ppm for eight hours. The future CO levels associated with the proposed
Grand Avenue widening project are expected to range between 9.5 and 11.0 ppm for one hour and
between 6.7 and 7.7 ppm for eight hours. The future CO concentrations for both the project and No
Project Alternatives are anticipated to be below the state and federal AAQS as shown in Table 3.4-
3.
For these future scenarios, the CO levels during peak hour traffic for the future with project
alternative are anticipated to be less than under the No Project Alternative. Under the proposed
widening project, future CO levels are projected to be an average of 0.3 ppm less for one hour and
0.2 ppm for eight hours at the three receptor locations, compared to the No Project Alternative.
The reductions in the future CO levels under the proposed project occur because the proposed
widening project will help alleviate the heavy traffic congestion at intersections within the project
limits. Without the proposed Grand Avenue widening, the intersection of Grand Avenue with First
Street will operate at LOS D in 2020; the intersections at the I-5 northbound ramps, Seventeenth
Street and Fourth Street will operate at LOS E; and the intersection with Fruit Street will operate at
LOS C. The 2020 peak hour traffic at these intersections will be very congested. However, with
the proposed Grand Avenue widening, the peak hour traffic on Grand Avenue, specifically at the I-5
northbound ramp and Santa Ana Boulevard will be improved to LOS C. The peak hour traffic on
Grand at Fourth Street and Seventeenth Street will be improved to LOS D. The only intersection
that will not be improved with project implementation is the southbound intersection at Santa Ana
Boulevard where the exclusive dual right turn lanes will be converted to a single right tum lane and
one through lane, to provide a third through lane. This conversion will result in the intersection
performing at LOS F during PM peak hour. Under the no project condition it would perform at
LOS D during PM peak hour. Refer to Section 3.5 (Transportation) for a detailed discussion on
traffic.
F.•IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 3 SpIOSection 3.4.doc Page 3.4-11
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
The future with project CO modeling results in Table 3.4-3 can also be compared with the existing
CO levels shown earlier in Table 3.4-2. As shown, the future with project CO concentration levels
will essentially be lower than the existing CO levels. The future CO concentration levels will be
reduced an average 0.9 ppm for one hour CO and 0.5 ppm for eight hours at the three intersections
assuming implementation of the proposed Grand Avenue widening. This is mainly due to this
proposed widening project, the decrease in future background CO concentration levels and the
anticipated decrease in the vehicular emission factors (version MVEI7G). In general, the
background CO concentration and the vehicular emission factors are projected to decrease steadily
in future years. The future contribution of the local traffic will actually increase due to an increase
in traffic volumes, but this will be more than offset by the decrease in background CO levels and
vehicular emission factors. In addition, the proposed widening project will alleviate the traffic
congestion at these intersections and, therefore, the future CO levels are also anticipated to be
reduced.
TABLE 3.4-3
WORST CASE PROJECTIONS OF CARBON MONOXIDE
CONCENTRATIONS FOR 2020
Receptor Locations
Future Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
No Project m
With Project
m
1 hour
8 hours
1 hour
8 hours
1. N.W. Grand Avenue/First Street
9.7
6.8
9.5
6.7
2. S.W. Grand Avenue/Fruit Street
11.3
7.9
11.0
7.7
residential
3. S.W. Grand Avenue/17s Sheet
10.8
7.6
10.6
7.4
Summary of Carbon Monoxide State
No. of Sites
No. of Sites
No. of Sites
No. of Sites
Standards Exceedances
Exceeding
Exceeding
Exceeding
Exceeding
20 Pum
9 pLm
20 pnm
9 Pool
0
0
0
0
In summary, Alternative 1 will not result in adverse impacts on local air quality and will contribute
to a reduction in CO levels for the one and eight hour periods, compared to both existing conditions
and the future No Project Alternative.
Regional Air Quality. Increases in CO levels in the region compared to existing conditions were
projected with and without the proposed Grand Avenue widening. Under the No Project
Alternative, future traffic at the intersections along Grand Avenue will be very congested. During
the peak hour, traffic demand on Grand Avenue will be well above the capacity of this street,
especially at First Street, Santa Ana Boulevard, Washington Place and Seventeenth Street. With the
proposed Grand Avenue widening, air quality is projected to improve since this project will
alleviate heavy traffic congestion at these intersections. It is anticipated that, with the
implementation of the proposed Grand Avenue widening, regional CO emissions will be reduced
with respect to the No Project Alternative although the amount of this emission reduction can not be
quantified. In summary, the proposed Grand Avenue widening would beneficially affect regional
air quality.
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - Gran&Section 3 SplitlSection 3.4.doc Page 3.4-12
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
Impacts Related to Consistency with SCAG Air Quality Policies
The SCAG air quality policies, from the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, are listed in
Table 3.4-4. Alternative 1 was evaluated for consistency with each of these policies. As shown in
Table 3.4-4, Alternative 1 is consistent with policy 5.11. Policy 5.07 was determined not to apply to
this proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 1 will not result in adverse impacts related to SCAG
air quality policies.
TABLE 3.4-4
CONSISTENCY WITH SCAG AIR QUALITY RELATED POLICIES
Policy Number
SCAG Poli Source
Consistency of the Grand Avenue Widening
with Policy
5.07
Determine specific programs and associated actions
The assessment of options to command and
needed (e.g., indirect source rules, enhanced use of
control regulations is outside the scope of this
telecommunications, provision of community based shuttle
proposed project. Therefore, this SCAG policy
service, provision of demand management based
does not apply to the proposed Grand Avenue
programs, or vehicle-miles-noveled/emission fees) so that
widening and the No Project Alternative.
options to command and control regulations can be
assessed. 1
5.11
Through the environmental document review process,
Refer to Sections 3.2 (Land Use and Planning),
ensure that plans at all levels of government (regional, air
3.4 (Air Quality) and 3.5 (Transportation and
basin, county, subregional and local) consider air quality,
Circulation) in this EIR. Based on the discussions
land use, transportation and economic relationships to
in these sections, the proposed Grand Avenue
ensure consistency and minimize conflicts. (1)
widening and the No Project Alternative are
consistent with this SCAG policy.
Sources:
(1) Growth Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide.
Impacts of Alternative 2 Related to Air Quality
Short Term Air Quality Impacts Under Alternative 2
Construction under Alternative 2 will include the same two major components, demolition and
construction, as described earlier for Alternative 1. The equipment for these demolition and
construction activities under Alternative 2 would be the same as described earlier for Alternative 1.
Similar to the analysis for Alternative 1, the analysis for Alternative 2 assumed that up to three
pieces of heavy equipment would be operated simultaneously, as described below.
Alternative 2 would result in short term air quality impacts during demolition and construction
similar to the impacts under Alternative 1. However, because Alternative 2 would result in
widening Grand Avenue in a wider total cross section than under Alternative 1, the length of time
construction would occur under Alternative 2 would likely be slightly longer than under Alternative
1. Nonetheless, assuming the same level of effort of three large pieces of equipment operating
simultaneously, Alternative 2 would not result in emissions that exceed the defined thresholds.
Therefore, the construction related emissions of the proposed Grand Avenue widening under
Alternative 2 would not be significant.
In addition, as noted earlier in Section 2.4 (Geology Impacts Found Not to be Significant),
mitigation measures G-3 and G-4 are proposed to reduce dust and erosion emissions associated with
F.-IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.4. doe Page 3.4-13
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
the proposed project under Alternatives 1 or 2. No further mitigation is required for short term air
quality impacts under Alternative 2.
As described earlier in Section 1.0 (Project Description and Project Objectives), it is anticipated that
the widening of Grand Avenue under Alternative 2 will be constructed in phases, based on available
funding. For example, as funding becomes available, the intersections could be improved, followed
later by the widening of Grand Avenue on the segments between the intersections. Therefore, the
demolition and construction for the widening under Alternative 2 would not occur in one continuous
time period. Demolition and construction activities could occur intermittently over a period of
several years before construction of the entire widening project is complete. Therefore, these
potential air quality impacts could occur over time, as short segments of the Grand Avenue
widening is constructed. however, even with phased construction, the construction related
emissions of the proposed Grand Avenue widening under Alternative 2 would not be significant.
Long Term Air Quality Impacts Under Alternative 2
Local Area Air Qualitv. The CALF M4 computer modeling results for the buildout year for the
Grand Avenue widening, 2020, shown earlier in Table 3.4-3 would be the same for Alternative 2 as
the traffic volumes on Grand Avenue would be similar under Alternatives 1 and 2. Therefore,
Alternative 2 will not result in adverse impacts on local air quality and will contribute to a reduction
in CO levels for one and eight hour periods, compared to both existing conditions and the future No
Project Alternative.
Regional Air Qualitv. Increases in CO levels in the region compared to existing conditions were
projected with and without the proposed Grand Avenue widening. Under the No Project
Alternative, future traffic at the intersections along Grand Avenue will be very congested as
described earlier. With the proposed Grand Avenue widening under Alternative 2, air quality is
projected to improve since it will alleviate heavy traffic congestion at these intersections. It is
anticipated that, with the implementation of the proposed Grand Avenue widening, CO emissions
will be reduced with respect to the No Project Alternative although the amount of this emission
reduction can not be quantified. In summary, the proposed Grand Avenue widening under
Alternative 2 would beneficially affect regional air quality.
Impacts Related to Consistency with SCAG Air Quality Policies
The SCAG air quality policies, from the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, were shown
earlier in Table 3.4-4. Alternative 2 was evaluated for consistency with each of these policies. As
shown in Table 3.4-4, Alternative 2 is consistent with policy 5.11. Policy 5.07 was determined not
to apply to this proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 2 will not result in adverse impacts related
to SCAG air quality policies.
3.4.5 MITIGATION RELATED TO AIR QUALITY
As discussed above, Alternatives 1 and 2 and the No Project Alternative will not result in adverse
impacts related to air quality and the SCAG air quality policies. No mitigation is required.
F: IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirlNew Text- GrandlSection 3 SpIMSection 3.4.doc Page 3.4-14
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
Mitigation measures G-3 and G-4, discussed earlier in Section 2.4 (Geology Impacts Found Not to
be Significant) would reduce dust emissions during construction. No further mitigation is required.
3.4.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION RELATED TO AIR QUALITY
Alternatives 1 and 2 will not result in adverse impacts related to air quality or to SCAG air quality
policies.
F': WRUJ-E'NVIGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.4.doc Page 3.4-15
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
3.5 TRANSPORTATION
Based on the findings of the IS, the proposed Grand Avenue widening may or would result in
potentially significant adverse transportation impacts specifically related to parking. The analysis in
the following sections focuses on the existing conditions in the study area, the analysis
methodology, thresholds of significance, the potential impacts of the Grand Avenue widening
alternatives related to overall traffic and circulation operations and parking, and mitigation as
needed.
The potential traffic impacts of the proposed Grand Avenue widening were evaluated in the Grand
Avenue Widening Project Traffic Study (P&D Consultants, Inc., June 2001). The findings of this
Traffic Study are summarized in the following sections. The complete Traffic Study is provided in
Appendix F in this EIR.
3.5.1 EXISTING SETTING RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION
An inventory of existing conditions on the project segment of Grand Avenue was conducted to
identify the number of existing through travel lanes, intersection lane geometry, traffic control
devices and existing traffic volumes, as described in the following sections.
Existing Travel Lanes and Traffic Control Devices
Grand Avenue is currently a four lane, north -south facility between First Street and Santa Ana
Boulevard. Between Santa Ana Boulevard and Seventeenth Street, there are currently six through
lanes provided. Grand Avenue is classified as a Major Arterial in the Master Plan of Streets and
Highways (MPSH) which is part of the City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element. This
classification is consistent with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) adopted by the
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA).
Seven of the thirteen intersections on Grand Avenue between First and Seventeenth Streets are
signalized. The remainder are controlled by stop signs on the minor street. approaches. Figure 3.5-1
shows the existing lane geometry at each signalized intersection on the project segment of Grand
Avenue.
Existing Traffic Volumes
P&D Consultants conducted 24-hour machine tube counts at selected midblock locations along
Grand Avenue and morning and afternoon peak hour intersection traffic counts at the study
intersections in April 2001.
Figure 3.4-2 shows the existing daily traffic volumes on the project segment of Grand Avenue. As
shown, the midblock daily traffic volumes are 25,900 vehicles per day (vpd) south of Seventeenth
Street, 32,000 vpd between Fruit Street and the Orange County Register driveway, and 30,300 vpd
between Fourth and First Streets.
F: WROJ-ENPIGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.5.doc Page 3.5-1
11 7
Seventeenth St. �y
Fifteenth St. .�
�• ����
I F 0
) Fourteenth St.
.0 y I.5 NB Ramps
ao oL
Santa Ana Blvd. ® A00I.5 HOV Ramps
0
Stafford St.
Fruit St. ® 4
o'
m . O.C. Register Driveway
L
0
o Sixth St.
d
LL
z
`T Fourth St.
o Traffic Signal Third St. o
X41 .�
•I Stop Sign a a1 IIIII 4�
F Free Right seeondStl •1 �iiy
OL Overlap Phase
L
o
EXISTING SETTING
WIN P&D Consultants @RAND AVENUE WIDENING El
Seventeenth St.
25,900 vpd
1.5 NS Ramps
a
06
-as
ca
Santa Ana Blvd. 1.5 HOV Ramps
Fruit St.
32,000 vpd
O.C. Register Driveway
Sixth St.
Fourth St.
`T
vpd=Vehicles per day 30,300 vpd
First St.
Source: P&D Traffic Counts, 2009
FMW
Source: City of Santa Ana
2001 EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
P&DCZWtants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING E I R
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
Figures 3.5-3 and 3.5-4 show the existing intersection turning volumes for the seven signalized
intersections on the project segment of Grand Avenue, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
The busiest intersection is Seventeenth Street with approximately 9,500 and 10,300 vehicles
traversing this intersection in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Approximately 8,200 and
10,200 vehicles traverse the Fourth Street intersection during the AM and PM peak hours,
respectively. In general, these data indicate that peak hour volumes on the project segment of
Grand Avenue are generally heavier in the afternoon than in the morning.
Existing Levels of Service (LOS)
Table 3.5-1 summarizes the existing LOS for the three midblock locations on the project
segment of Grand Avenue. As shown, based on the daily volume/capacity ratios, all study
roadway sections currently operate at LOS D or better. Refer to Section 3.5.3 (Methodology
Related to Transportation) for a detailed explanation of LOS.
TABLE 3.5-1
ROAD LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS
Road Section
Daily
V/C
LOS
Grand Avenue:
ICU
LOS
South of Seventeenth Street
0.46
A
South of Fruit Street
0.85
D
North of First Street
0.81
D
Table 3.5-2 summarizes the existing intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values and
corresponding LOS for the seven signalized intersections on the project segment of Grand Avenue.
As shown, based on the ICU analysis using existing AM and PM peak hour turning volumes and
existing intersection lane geometry, all seven intersections operate at acceptable LOS during the
AM peak hour. However, the Fourth Street intersection operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour.
The ICU worksheets used in the analysis are provided in Appendix A of the Traffic Study.
TABLE 3.5-2
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS
Intersection
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
Seventeenth Street
0.78
C
0.80
C
I-5 Northbound Ramps
0.59
A
0.61
B
Santa Ana Boulevard/1-5 HOV Ramps
0.59
A
0.76
C
Fruit Street
0.56
A
0.75
C
O.C. Register Driveway
0.49
A
0.55
A
Fourth Street
0.83
D
0.97
E
First Street
0.59
A
0.71
C
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.5.doe Page 3.5-4
Source: City of Santa Ana
EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
P&DConsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
m 122
t— 769
Seventeenth St.
•
♦ Y
7 f" 266
0
®Tr
129 —,'
823—).
196 89aN
N
m N 76
�— 713
s
Nm
n .-
ti
•
1-S NB Ramps
a
•
O
N a
o�� �28
.,0
(— 132
E' ♦
�T24
(7153
oo
Santa Ana Blvd.
®
I-S HOV Ramps
413 m h y
0
26
Fruit St.
®
844
p
43
mnc`v
0
8
y y3
®
O.C. Register Driveway
0
Sixth St.
o
123
532
135
jo
Fourth St.
°n
•
�mmn �59
o Traffic Signal
I E— 474
,- 270
sz �'
First St.
•
Akww000
azo-->
Source: P&D Traffic Counts, 2001
Source: City of Santa Ana
EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
P&DConsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
Source: City of Santa Ana
EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
PON P&DConsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
n $ m 368
t— 997
160
Seventeenth St.
•
7
•
o
zze
��
968 —)
143
v
262
;::;5;7
:357
`i
6 I I
om
ww
N w
ti
• I.5 NB Ramps
>
•
CQ
T4*.
Santa Ana Blvd.
• 1-5 HOV Ramps
0
Tmn 236
_
1 �— 25
`J
4
Fruit St.
136
0
83
cQio�
v
a
oN �64
za
`r
Register Driveway
• O�� C
3. (�
Sixth St.
®
o
I
N
m w 227
—1248
C-262
2
Fourth St.
•
233 ICY
®
o
—;
159 moa
629LME
`T
•
128
698
Wq�—t
o
—,84
Traffic Signal
19
First St.
•
591
0
Source: City of Santa Ana
EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
PON P&DConsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
Planned Improvements
The City of Santa Ana MPSH designates Grand Avenue as a Major Arterial throughout its entire
length, consistent with the OCTA MPAH designation for this segment of Grand Avenue. Grand
Avenue is also classified for Class II bike lanes in the City of Santa Ana Bikeway Master Plan. A
Class II bikeway provides a striped bike lane for one way travel in the street right-of-way. In the
vicinity of the study area, Seventeenth and First Streets are also classified as Major Arterials. Santa
Ana Boulevard and Fourth Street are designated as Primary Arterials.
Existing Conditions Related to Parkin
On street parking is not currently provided on the project segment of Grand Avenue. Off street
parking is provided by the existing residential and commercial uses adjacent to the project segment
of Grand Avenue. City policy generally does not allow on street parking on arterials.
3.5.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION
A project will normally have a significant impact related to transportation and circulation if it will
cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system.
In addition, the General Plan Circulation Element establishes LOS D or better as the desired LOS
for major intersections in the City. Therefore, if the proposed Grand Avenue widening causes the
LOS at any intersection to be LOS E or worse, then the project would result in a significant adverse
impact related to transportation and circulation.
3.5.3 METHODOLOGY RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION
Methodology Related to Surface Transportation
The traffic study for the proposed widening of the project segment of Grand Avenue analyzed
traffic operations at seven intersection operations under the following scenarios:
2001 Existing Conditions
2020 No Project Alternative
2020 Build Alterative
The LOS concept was developed to evaluate the operating conditions of components of a
transportation circulation system. The Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research
Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Third Edition, Updated December 1997).
defines LOS as a qualitative measure which describes operational conditions within a traffic
stream, generally in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic
interruptions, comfort and convenience. LOS is rated from A to F, with LOS A representing the
best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst. Specific criteria are used to define
LOS for different types of facilities as discussed below.
F: IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.5.doc Page 3.5-7
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
LOS Criteria for Road Segments
For planning purposes, the City of Santa Ana has established the maximum road. capacity
corresponding to different LOS designations based on road classifications, as shown in Table 3.5-
3.
TABLE 3.5-3
MAXIMUM AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC FOR ARTERIAL ROADS
Street
Classification
Lane
Configuration
LOS A
LOS B
LOS C
LOS D
LOS E LOS F
Principal Arterial
8 Lanes Divided
45,000
52,500
60,000
67,500
75,000 > 75,000
Major Arterial
6 Lanes Divided
33,900
39,400
45,000
50,600
56,300 > 56,300
Primary Arterial
4 Lanes Divided
22,500
26,300
30,000
33,800
37,500 > 37,500
Secondary Arterial
4 Lanes Undivided
15,000
17,500
20,000
22,500
25,000 > 25,000
Commuter Street
1 2 Lanes Undivided_A
7,500
18,800
10,000
11,300
12,500 > 12,500
Source: City of Santa Ana, General Plan - Circulation Element, 1998.
In this study, LOS for road segments was calculated by comparing traffic volumes to the LOS E
capacity. This comparison yields a volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio .from which the LOS is
determined.
LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersection
Intersection operations were analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method.
ICU is a quantitative ratio which compares intersection volume with capacity. Based on the ICU,
intersection performance is described using LOS designations as shown in Table 3.5-4.
LOS A represents relatively light traffic conditions with minimum delay. LOS F represents heavy
congestion with long queues and excessive delays. For this study, LOS D or better was considered
to be the acceptable service level for peals hour conditions on the project segment of Grand
Avenue. This is consistent with the City of Santa Ana's Circulation Element which establishes
LOS D or better on major intersections in the City.
The ICU analysis for this study used standard parameters currently followed by the City of Santa
Ana. These standard parameters include default saturation flow rates (the maximum number of
vehicles that can pass through a lane per hour of green time at a signalized intersection), and
clearance interval (a percentage of the overall intersection capacity utilized by vehicles to clear
the intersection during the amber or yellow signal), Default saturation flow rates of 1,600
vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) for turn lanes and 1,700 vphpl for through lanes were used in
the analysis. A value of 1,600 vphpl was also used to determine the ICU value for free right turn
lanes; however, this ICU value was not included in the overall total for the intersection. Finally,
a clearance interval of five percent was used for all intersections.
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - GrandWection 3 SplWSection 3.5.doc Page 3.5-8
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
TABLE 3.5-4
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
LOS
Description
ICU
A
Very low delay. Most vehicles do not stop at the intersection.
0.00 to 0.60
B
More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher delays.
0.61 to 0.70
C
The number of vehicles stopping becomes significant, though many
0.71 to 0.80
still pass through the intersection without stopping.
D
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Many vehicles
0.81 to 0.90
stop and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines.
E
Results in delay considered to be unacceptable.
0.91 to 1.00
F
Considered unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with
Above 1.00
oversaturation, when arriving traffic exceeds the capacity at the
intersection.
Source: City of Santa Ana, General Plan - Circulation Element (1998).
Methodology Related to On Street Parking
The availability of on street parking and City policy regarding on street parking on arterials were
reviewed. Impacts on off street parking were considered earlier in Section 3.2 (Land Use and
Planning) related to the acquisition of property for the proposed widening of Grand Avenue.
Specifically, during the land acquisition process, the City will assess whether the removal of off
street parking from individual parcels and land uses results in non -conforming uses. Mitigation
is provided in Section 3.2 (Land Use and Planning) related to the acquisition of right-of-way,
including parcels which become non -conforming as a result of the removal of off street parking.
Methodology Related to SCAG Transportation Policies
SCAG identified a number of transportation policies in the growth management chapter of the
Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and in the Mobility Element. The proposed Grand
Avenue widening alternatives were evaluated for consistency with these transportation policies.
3.5.4 IMPACTS RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION
Future year traffic forecasts were developed using a citywide computerized travel demand
forecasting model. Future total daily traffic volumes and AM and PM peak hour intersection
turning movements were provided by the City of Santa Ana for use in this analysis. These forecasts
assume completion of transportation improvements in the City's seven year Capital Improvement
Program and other improvements in Orange County which are ongoing or programmed for
implementation by 2020.
F.IPROJ-ENPIGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.5.doc Page 3.5-9
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
Impacts of Alternative 1 Related to Trans ov rtation
Potential Traffic Impacts Under Alternative 1
Future Travel Lanes and Traffic Control Devices. Two future scenarios were analyzed for the 2020
horizon year: a build scenario and the No Project Alternative. The 2020 No Project Alternative
assumes completion of all ongoing and programmed transportation improvements, without the
proposed widening on the project segment of Grand Avenue. The intersection geometry assumed
for the 2020 No Project Alternative is the same as the existing intersection geometry for the project
segment of Grand Avenue, as shown previously in Figure 3.5-1.
The 2020 build scenario assumes the proposed improvements on Grand Avenue are in place by
2020. Under the 2020 build scenario, two alternatives were considered. Both alternatives provide
for widening Grand Avenue to six lanes. Alternative 1 provides the widening in a 100 foot wide
right-of-way. Alternative 2 provides the widening in a 120 foot wide right-of-way. The additional
20 feet of right-of-way under Alternative 2 provides for an expanded landscaped median and
bicycle lanes consistent with the City of Santa Ana Master Plan of Bikeways. The proposed
intersection lane configurations under both alternatives are the same. Alternatives 1 and 2 would
provide comparable capacity on the project segment of Grand Avenue. Therefore, the LOS analysis
for the 2020 build scenario is considered applicable to both alternatives.
Figure 3.5-5 shows the assumed intersection geometry under the 2020 build alternatives, reflecting
the widened approaches on Grand Avenue. To accommodate the proposed widening, the exclusive
right tum lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches of majority of the study intersections
would be converted to shared through/right turn lane. In addition to the increase through lanes on
Grand Avenue, there are significant improvements to the intersection geometry at First and
Seventeenth Streets. At First Street, additional left turn lanes, to provide dual left turn lanes, are
provided on the northbound and southbound approaches. Exclusive right tum lanes are provided on
the eastbound and northbound approaches. At Seventeenth Street, an exclusive right turn lane is
added to the northbound and westbound approaches, and left turn lanes are added to the northbound
and southbound approaches, to provide dual left turn lanes on Grand Avenue at this intersection.
Future Traffic Volumes. The 2020 traffic volumes used in this study are based on 2020 traffic
forecasts prepared by PBQ&D for the Santa Ana Couplet Study, which generated turning
volumes at four of the seven study intersections (at Seventeenth Street, I-5 northbound ramps,
Santa Ana Boulevard/I-5 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) ramps and First Street). These forecasts
were adjusted to ensure consistent traffic volumes between intersections. The traffic forecasts
showed an overall traffic growth rate of approximately one percent per year in the City of Santa
Ana. This rate was used to develop peak hour traffic forecasts for the remainder of the study
intersections (at Fruit Street, Orange County Register driveway and Fourth Street), and daily
traffic volumes for midblock locations.
F:IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 3 Sp1itlSection 3.5.doc Page 3.5-10
Seventeenth St. I
B
F
d 1-5 NB Ramps
OL
C � �S
c�
Santa Ana Blvd. I.5 HOV Ramps0*00
�.
C
L
4
tFruit St.
x
eA
3
O.C. Register Driveway q p�
Sixth St.
`T Fourth St.
o Traffic Signal
•I Stop Sign I
F Free Right y�1�
OL Overlap Phase
First St. —�
ASSUMED 2020 INTERSECTION GEOMETRY
P&DConsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING El
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
Figure 3.5-6 shows the projected 2020 daily traffic volumes on the project segment of Grand
Avenue. As shown, the daily midblock volumes range from 31,300 vpd south of Seventeenth Street
to 38,000 south of Fruit Street, and 36,600 vpd north of First Street. The 2020 AM and PM peak
hour intersection turning volumes are shown in Figures 3.5-7 and 3.5-8, respectively.
LOS Analysis. Analysis of future conditions was conducted to determine roadway and
intersection operating efficiency as reflected by the LOS measures. Table 3.5-5 summarizes the
future LOS for the three midblock locations on the project segment of Grand Avenue under the
No Project Alternative and the Build scenario. As shown, the road segments between First and
Fruit Streets would operate at LOS E or F in 2020 under the No Project Alternative. Under the
Build scenario, these segments would operate at LOS B. The segment south of Seventeenth
Street, which already provides six through lanes, would operate at LOS A under both the No
Project Alternative and Build scenario.
Table 3.5-6 shows the peak hour ICU and LOS values for the No Project Alternative and the
Build scenario. As shown, under the 2020 No Project Alternative, unacceptable levels of service
at LOS E or F, will occur at the following intersections during at least one of the peak hours:
• Seventeenth Street
• I-5 northbound ramps
• Fourth Street
TABLE 3.5-5
2020 ROAD LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
Road Section
NO PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE
BUILD ALTERNATIVE
V/C
LOS
V/C
LOS
Grand Avenue:
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Intersection
South of Seventeenth Street
0.56
A
0.56
A
South of Fruit Street
1.01
F
0.67
B
North of First Street
0.98
E
0.65
B
TABLE 3.5-6
2020 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
R- PROD-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 3 Split&ction 3.5.doc Page 3.5-12
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
BUILD ALTERNATIVE
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Intersection
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
Seventeenth Street
0.77
C
1.10
F
0.65
B
0.91
D
I-5 northbound ramps
0.64
B
0.98
E
0.64
B
0.79
C
Santa Ana Blvd./I-5 HOV ramps
0.73
C
0.89
D
0.73
C
0.74
F
Fruit Street
0.59
A
0.79
C
0.49
A
0.65
B
OrangeCounty Register Driveway
0.45
A
0.45
A
0.32
A
0.35
A
Fourth Street
0.89
D
0.93
E
0.74
C
0.88
D
First Street
0.84
D
0.85
D
0.78
C
0.72
C
R- PROD-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 3 Split&ction 3.5.doc Page 3.5-12
Seventeenth St.
31,300 vpd
y I-5 NB Ramps
4
M
C
D
Santa Ana Blvd. 1-5 HOV Ramps
Fruit St.
3$,000 vpd
O.C. Register Driveway
Sixth St.
Fourth St.
vpd=Vehicles per day 36,600 vpd
First St.
Source: City of Santa Ana
2020 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
PFM ,P&DConsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
Source: City of Santa Ana
2020 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
P&DConsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
�o� 161
t-- 1146
363
Seventeenth St. •
7 f—
°0
172
644 I
904 M�
a e206
46
l�
4i •
1.5 NB Ramps
O
`ui�i o 45
136
�J 26
o
s
766 —a
Santa Ana Blvd. ®
1-5 MOV Ramps
z ,+ m ^ N
0
31
J77
Fruit sf. ®
O
N N
O
0
m m 10
�-10
y �3
Je0• O.C. Register Driveway
0
sixth St.
m
v 149
F— 643
163
f—
2
Fourth St. •
196—,
1T
129 �Sm
•o
Traffic Signal
A�R
First
St. •
O
Source: City of Santa Ana
2020 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
P&DConsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
o Traffic Signal
Source: City of Santa Ana
Sixth St. 1
Fourth St.
First St.
O.C. Register Driveway
w n
X274
�- 322
—1588
,tJ
�— 154-
ly 326
Seventeenth St.
E/ y
7
T
•
O
350--a
261
m
1593—e c
87���
m
y l.'
IE
T
pr
N W
I
ma
y
•A& I -S NB Ramps
>
Qi
•
O
�mm 797
_24
184
5
('
768
T
Santa Ana Blvd.
® I -S HOV Ramps
24s N
0
m n va 285
` I I y I �30
Fruit St.
®
664—l'4 T
0
06
o Traffic Signal
Source: City of Santa Ana
Sixth St. 1
Fourth St.
First St.
O.C. Register Driveway
w n
X274
j
—1588
,tJ
317
2
281
T
760
192
o N
261
m
2020 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
rem P&DCOnsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
<--1078
f-168
7
2
T
15222 —)•
261
m
2020 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
rem P&DCOnsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
Under the 2020 Build scenario, the majority of intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS D
or better with the exception of the Santa Ana Boulevard/I-5 HQV Ramps intersection which
would operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour. This is primarily due to the reduction of the
existing dual right turn lanes to a single right turn lane in order to provide a third southbound
through lane through the intersection.
Impacts of Alternative 1 Related to On Street Parking
There is no on street parking on the project segment of Grand Avenue. Therefore, Alternative 1 will
not result in impacts related to on street parking. No mitigation is required.
Impacts of Alternative 1 Related to Consistency with SCAG Transportation Policies
The SCAG transportation policies, from the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and the
Regional Mobility Element, are listed in Table 3.5-7. Alternative 1 was evaluated for consistency
with each of these policies. As shown in Table 3.5-7, Alternative 1 is consistent with each policy,
except for certain policies determined not to apply to this proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 1
will not result in adverse impacts related to SCAG transportation policies.
Impacts of Alternative 2 Related to Transportation and Circulation
Potential Traffic Impacts Under Alternative 2
Future Travel Lanes and Traffic Control Devices. The 2020 build scenario assumes the proposed
improvements on Grand Avenue are in place by 2020. Under the 2020 build scenario, Alternative 2
is expected to perform the same as Alternative 1. Figure 3.5-5, provided earlier, shows the assumed
2020 intersection geometry under Alternative 2, reflecting the widened approaches on Grand
Avenue.
Future Traffic Volumes. Figure 3.5-6, provided earlier, shows the projected 2020 daily traffic
volumes on the project segment of Grand Avenue under Alternatives 1 and 2. The daily midblock
traffic volumes will range from 31,300 vpd south of Seventeenth Street to 36,600 vpd north of First
Street. The 2020 AM and PM peak hour intersection turning volumes under Alternative 2 were
shown earlier in Figures 3.5-7 and 3.5-8, respectively.
LOS Analysis Results. Tables 3.5-5 and 3.5-6 provided earlier, shows the peak hour ICU and LOS
values for the No Project Alternative and Alternative 2. As noted earlier, under the 2020 No Project
Alternative, LOS E or F will occur at three study area intersections in at least one of the peak hours.
F: IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - Grand&ctton 3 SplitlSection 3.5.doc Page 3.5-16
n
ti
00
4
U^ /- d p
O.
.IpyY N
0
OD U
N NNq
N°
13
a
a
b °' '.� a °' v
Y ce
° v 3 ro .Y
� m �¢
p v > °CL k'i
� •.�o �
m °
o
s
P 5 ro°
ofV
a
o vo
°
oU yqyq
qrn
U.,
.0
>o
C A.roc
y
NNC
oqz
NOw
0o°jZb
0�
N
0a •bW
Q °
U Y.'o
'
ai"a
"o
D
L.
P 7
Co
m
;Ja-t
"
q�
tr.
o m N O O
«+
O ,4 l q
y>tl m_
> q .dy q
.� N..� .7
Fi
-0 O
q m G
bo
° VJ
N
.°
31,j
O
"wmwA
to
� P� 0 O
b
"�
Y4
b o 0.
aDo
Aro UM
'2>
3 PLI N
co
ao
z o
roC°
'v
{eFr
U.
roU
40 P'
P'
^1t
'O
•,O0
°
N m
O.B yN
O
q
q
a
N°G
P.
°❑
o a
yy
og
� O�
U
GC
:� w
d ro
ro :: ''� y
O°
ii'
m�+ o o '41° t3�}pF?j
b
3> N
G b 0O
.5 .?;
q R.
q
y"
U
UO°N���bbb000�b
OK
asoa
o
0 P, �d ttl
P,� �o�o
a Y y
O U m ;;
P,o•�
N'�
0000a
'O
.O
.�a.�
O
�qO Q
Pi
"os
wg
o:5a'ro
po^�
°
°q' maw
a m
o
m bm
w
❑N
0�a°
?
broro'o
�0
8�
g"P4
pt�b
q
°q
ro
y
ro oark
°
❑w°
�a
Ao
P4
Q b
P,
.r .moi
old �
q
o
5o a°
a
>'�I
C7ojy�°
o"
o
cT°obo�u
�ry'0
°�
as a�
b°
b z
=°v
3 "d0
v
P'
°
P.
w
o .,G
o
a
Y
W
p°
❑a'd
ro
of �i O
a`t% N 00 N N
'Y ro "O
id P� O
q c0 PQ
y
U
wAWa
'5 3
n
° U
vq
°
m
8
0
zo
0
0
0
0
o
v
0
a
°
a.
v
n
ti
00
4
y
e
N
0
w
Y❑; O .d❑
•� O
p �.; °
`d qwq � ai
b .� ,� a) b❑❑ �i
b i)
°> U`
�
�
•°�, ".7 Qi
°Fy
� .0
m � .0
.'�
� w'
p e[i ��❑f O 4q-
a rzJ
'i�
o
y�y
� p C
py
O p, spy j
L9 b C`J �N�ii
W R.
V1 G
N
V .y 'a b
v •`� ,� .C'
Fo O IIJJ y❑y,.�p�f
� �
ry •�y
O
J7
�y
y
O N
M ° >
U
A y °
,.pN '•-�
b
p
KA
tL�tl, U.
y�
`n .q y
`O
•° O
O
d> z
�`6dd O
d
.�
U ' a W U
,
a a S° N
-4P,
p p,
O pryry
v. N W
N N
p N+4
ab C.yy
N m;
p� R, G
a+Y at
1
p
Cp115
> p,��g w '�'
p� O P. aPi
'Sp,u
O
w
b'Y
Do
O v
C7
n m.
$
v°
o n0'0
C7 w o
u .0
w° a° °
a
;bz w
5 0 0
go
en °�
w•o
o:�.yy
°
�'
A
u o
a
oar''
.•
+-� � w w
N y
rn v 8
>,,
.
O
¢ami
lo
•�C
uOaoyO��P
q a.0
,
z W
rruA
04¢
°l
ro9M
a
;"
U.00
.o
b'O
4.0
..r'DaO
N
.O
OOuO
.G
w
0
4O"
10
P, R.
F4qU° 7 q
. RooTa�avi
P4
N
O N N N N
y N
Fd�
N '«
4
rUi�.'�d a
o c,
b
a
.79 �7
V C
y y U
O
MU
m ,f�PFpPFppppgypjj v❑
`-'
O
iE O
ypbp., O
GY7
L7 bA
pe
N
u
a
Fl
aor.
w
g
N
go-
b �y Y
p
C
ro a71 l04
�>
�� y
o�
0• p
b y
6
a u
Z o�
zU o
W,°
� p YYacc�
Z
F
ns
ro
w
A
zo
o
N
N
N
N
u
O
F
a
h
M
w
o° z'ag
CL
�r�
oa
H. aqi u J >
q
IJ,U >
V7 ij
aU >
V] .a
yU >
V] Jy
�•0 4t �
a,yPia 'O
b'S
W
pp O
. d a
NUy
U
U
�GH?
u
O•'Oti
0
H~J
Ai C
° 49
yy CL N
°
H U
N N O
sU.
O
Haat
•�
•n
y '� Y Q' O O
N �p�
FH
n Y O
y
a0
H •.p -y
Ji i
O N g N^ J
a+ U' J
B o
o
o
�� o
o
a v$
�.'o
•rb"
J �,
�.� J
y ,
pd
d
PI N
.. N
o d
p .D o
10
O m
PCO LL
O P4
gd
d
ro
O
aro�i w yto �y
° •Yi+ U
O
'o 0
W o
aroi o
'O z Q�
id of o
ro ..�j Fs
y N
,•d •t"�
'h
0
'�' 'O ;ANG] �'
o
00
ro H
a.a
N
.g
W
.� :�
o a DC7
R •C .4
a
j ro
q
W �' v❑
:�
0KOran
-C
dN U
yrn
O
O
0 N q id
p
UrG
y
W
°O❑❑ry
Oly
W'N°
� i0J O .L
o OWa
a Qa
N
'UO^.�
' ¢
b GJ
Oy
,�
PGeK
> 114 'y
Y�
O
i.+nl %�
•� •�
' o
m y c
61
o
aqi 0
N
N o
%1
°p,
g' a, w
v� . a O O U
O oyp
N N N
y O.
U W Y
O
Y H O
W P+ O .ay ro RI
O a°'
CL
O t❑y O
N
qWq .iN,
FL U 1i. w .J
rd.U�.
rn lyl cTi
.a ° ¢'
CL •� 4i -Ai
o °q°
ro q o.y
0
y.p
biro
y
y
0
'v
Leo°
° •�
ao
y ''a{d
opd
tL °
gib$
U
Vl
J
Lr^%C
°
> VJ
Y I
q° a .4
d
7zap'�ro❑❑Y°
yoga
p°
42
NNPI
J
A p
ro
vW
J
o
Cai
-oo>
U
0
00
H 0
y
o o.� C o
i?�+ J
-9
W
o w
cr b
d o
H a
v �
q
aniE
10'd � �
a
•d ro O
�,
Jro �'°u
td
°.� u0
ro
°p o
�Of
'� .Ell
O O LL
�U�+^
O Crq
.n U O U
v�
F C4
•,Oy-
an
.•-.
O
d
J
q on
d
m o
J
v
J
'(
N
d
YO
N
N
N
cn
u
d"
In
It
PI
�
a
h
M
w
9
N
h
y
15
V UYq
O+
0
pU
7q y
0
4. O
10
Oy
m
UaO
7
U
iL {tom❑❑dj
r
'O
y>
H U p . 0
O •p
qyq
I\
OU V >'G
y R.
q
ri U
te. •y�
aU0�ro
.y
0 .� '4 U] 'C Ci
��ye-�JJ
ate- a'�
y �
1
U 6 0
60P4
O
U � Y
.0 Zn
vJ
�•�`
o�H ;
api LL
bw° ii
p'«
NVUi .w
�` qP"
C9
•�'
.��
aqi
q
0
�q
rowN
yyi'yCi
wNr
dasOWU0.a
p
tltlNJ
V U m
..Ydy
3H 0O bp Ea
v
0
0
oy
.y
U
poll"O
0
'l
d
a0.d'G
> 4p
ai z
i�N0
> O
y
OP'
U O
q >
0
o
s.
rRO
`'
^' o Q� U �
ro q .yam �.'
y '7 OA
W U
U
o .� O
9 }O..O
,Od'o 'W,'
'C b0 UO N
y�ji
•O
�U
C
id FL.
SOI y"'1
_r7
O
m
p.�
6 ..JF'' TJ '�i
'•pCi
w
�yy0
W 3 Q? °Y
'y
�q
•�
t
Z Pr
y
R
.�,�+ N
p '� O; Q R,
v x
o@
H
•.°p q a p o •°'
b ,�, .o
qoqd❑y
G .'� a
Oq ro
Q 04 o
q o q'
H.
'o
v
q
,b ro o^
'8,00
ro.3 0'5 �'�y p
w° H
%
''U°ay
H ro
o U
rny
oJ
�a
'�
CyO�"rJ Jb �G
Z
'
O yOl
llloQJJI'
�.
'S
T�o0.0
)
.b�N{F°�l0 O
id
p
24O
�«i? pN
�yy�bC�
5U
�Npaw¢YO
�y�.�J,i
roU❑id
'ppt{:Ha!7
O '0
'a 4
�ry�+£Yyyq,
roWoeniq
oP'-0
'z .
•'�OONFr
P4
�
�
(�y
N � •^ td ul H
U
ybq
N > N iOq
R0 FUJ
C7 .v Cg
Po
K�L •oN
g
•0
nn . ro
o 0-0-
0.o
pp
0 qc
a
A
N
ro0
on
° o
S 3
H ^
E
.p o 'm"'
v❑ w
S3 y
FT a>
ro
0,0 CUJ
q
O
,
d
�i {O., aqi
bA.�3
w P
O
,`�`o°
CpC
ro
•d
y
O 'R O
C/18
'O 0 p v
G 'b y
U d1
3ob0
�
'O�
Oi
m2mc
o
.'Oy^ayi
yNoP
pp
2m
Aq
i
�¢O
Vo>roo
p
79 0o
55°
8oao
3r°
w
oo
A N
rUj
yam,
QaQ
O q
.b
0 0 4L
w N •O
O
❑❑
N .p
Q 00!
pp
.q O N
y O j>
'� o 'g
'���
� •° '6
� B
� a � .�
°
v
tl°'
� �+
0 ;c �
o
ppo, o p b
U
o00A iv4
a W ' n
0
w
V'g0 .
m
L
d
J�
ze
z�
M
n
M
oo
fn
rn
o
U
'o
w
N
h
y
O
U
9
ti
tl
d
W
N
h
0.
6 00
id N
y
R c�
'�
OD m w N U W }}O..
Dc m O y V) .d py
°'O °
O ..� O '°O0
O O
OO. Cl
W ami 5
•, °" °
Lo
P O
W°ate
. a
o a
U Q
Ci
q�
y°y •^ N
F
'o O w YU u
a V
°
O
O q y :� °y m w
p
y .d O
U r�
O
2
U
� q
> q q `� s°r
6O ° a °w�q
0 ,�CN+
o D w
ye�
m
7
Go°
o o
7
N
a
NO�
.dJ.
q
..m..q G>'O^
N '.�q
rayy% U
Ri'a '�
O N .b P, O
[-�
tC b0
O
O ,a�
,�0
� O •pq � U
'a
> — °
G6�bgA�Q�
a
b�w°o�o?O�
Lr
rq. C7 P.
cq
a
dCI
$o��q
N•O
q
'' > N.�
oaroma> �
'O
"U.1 O O C�
q� q
U
d o
G
U td 'q O0
q Yj q
0 .
U .,
n1
N
"
4�y y
a N A
2
O� Y
���+
}0 'd
F4
y�o�bbp��a'q
���zy°°
N
Zr
°
O
d T ❑
Cq
q. w
CD U~
�
� �
o
o° aqi
+�- a> >
toh� o
LL
o '^
a
UQ
F. 5
N U
° 2RQ°L �
y RU
v
°
w v >,,g o
q (W �e
0.9
bo20
q
U'�w
`�
o o
UJ
N b0
C U 4' O
ly b
�a
0 P4
w8
0 y
bAo
p N
q v
H
y
U
0�3 N
bqq
b +'d+ �i
�' Y
41
R 0
�' b 'y
Vi
ro ••��
N Vt p
.949
O a°
y Ur] N b b U
U i Aay.� N
N O •--�
O q
N 4+ >
MO q0 N
° v
09
N
N .OO>
a��
O
W a' v 3
W o
v�ro
d
.'�
O
N_
V
d
M
r
M
N
h
0.
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
Under Alternative 2 in 2020, the majority of intersections on the project segment of Grand Avenue
are forecasted to operate at LOS D or better, with the exception of the Santa Ana Boulevard/I-5
HOV Ramps intersection which would operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour. This is primarily
due to the reduction of the existing dual right tum lanes to a single right tum lane in order to
provide a third southbound through lane through the intersection.
Impacts of Alternative 2 Related to On Street Parking
There is no on street parking on the project segment of Grand Avenue. Therefore, Alternative 2 will
not result in impacts related to on street parking. No mitigation is required.
Impacts of Alternative 2 Related to Consistency with SCAG Transportation Policies
The SCAG transportation policies, from the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and the
Regional Mobility Plan, were shown earlier in Table 3.5-7. Alternative 2 was evaluated for
consistency with these policies. As shown in Table 3.5-7, Alternative 2 is consistent with each
policy, except for certain policies determined not to apply to this proposed project. Therefore,
Alternative 2 will not result in adverse impacts related to SCAG transportation policies.
3.5.5 IMPACTS RELATED TO ACCESS DURING CONSTRUCTION
Construction of Alternatives 1 and 2 would impact access to existing businesses and residents along
Grand Avenue during each phase of construction. These impacts could occur as a result of
construction activities or equipment at the property access point or traffic control inhibiting access.
However, these impacts would be short term because they would only last for the duration of the
construction of that particular phase of the project. Construction impacts to access are generally
characterized as more of a `nuisance" aspect of a project because it is inconvenient not to have
readily available vehicular access to adjacent residential and commercial uses. Therefore,
implementation of Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in temporary impacts to access which could be
significant and would require mitigation.
3.5.6 MITIGATION RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION
Based on the analysis included in the Traffic Study, substantial improvements in traffic operations
will result on the project segment of Grand Avenue, if the proposed widening project is
implemented. As discussed earlier, Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in substandard LOS at the
Santa Ana Boulevard/I-5 HOV ramps intersection during the PM peak hour in 2020. The Traffic
Study recommends the retention of the dual right turn lane with overlap phasing to mitigate this
impact. However, due to the constraints .of the I-5 bridge over Grand Avenue, there is not enough
right-of-way to have three through lanes and dual right turn lanes. Further, the City carefully
analyzed both options and concluded that more congestion would be created upstream by reducing
the number of through lanes from three to two. Additionally, one of the defined objectives for this
project is to provide three through lanes in each direction on Grand Avenue which is consistent with
the General Plan Circulation Element and the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
Therefore, this is a significant adverse impact that cannot feasibly be mitigated.
F: TROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - Gran&Section 3 Split&ction 3.5.doe Page 3.5-22
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
At Seventeenth Street, an exclusive right turn lane would be required on the westbound approach to
achieve LOS D. This improvement would require additional widening on the north side of
Seventeenth Street east of Grand Avenue. This improvement has been included in the proposed
project. The additional properties for the right-of-way have been accounted for in the total parcels
affected by the proposed project.
Alternatives 1 and 2 will not result in adverse impacts related to on street parking and SCAG
transportation policies. No mitigation is required.
3.5.7 MITIGATION RELATED TO ACCESS
The following mitigation measures address the significant temporary adverse access impacts for
Alternatives 1 and 2 as discussed in Section 3.5.5 (Impacts Related To Access During
Construction).
T-1 Prior to initiating construction on the selected widening alternative for each construction
phase and segment of Grand Avenue, the City of Santa Ana will ensure that the project
contractor prepares traffic detour plans and construction truck access routes for that phase of
project construction. The plans will provide details to ensure access to existing
developments along the project roadway segments and provide traffic control in the project
area(s) during construction activities for each construction phase. The City of Santa Ana
will work with local businesses affected by the road widening project to ensure that the
businesses will be able to operate while road widening construction activities are underway.
The City of Santa Ana will review and approve the contractor's detour plans and truck
access routes.
T-2 Prior to commencing construction for individual segments of Grand Avenue, The City of
Santa Ana Public Works Agency and the project contractor will meet with representatives
from businesses on each project segment to identify individual business access needs
during construction. The defined access routes and entries to individual sites will be
clearly shown on all construction plans.
T-3 The City of Santa Ana will provide signs that indicate the project construction limits, access
routes, alternative routes, detour routes and entries to individual business sites for each
project segment and phase.
3.5.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION RELATED TO
TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS
The proposed widening of Grand Avenue under Alternatives 1 and 2 will largely result in beneficial
effects on traffic operations on the project segment of Grand Avenue. However, implementation of
either alternative will result in a significant avoidable adverse impact at the intersection of Grand
Avenue and Santa Ana Boulevard at the southbound right turn lane in the PM peak hour in 2020.
Alternatives 1 and 2 will not result in adverse impacts related to on street parking and SCAG
transportation policies.
F: TROJ-ENVAGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 3 Split&ction 3.5.doc Page 3.5-23
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
Implementation of Mitigation Measures T-1, T-2 and T-3 would mitigate the temporary access
impacts during each construction phase of Alternative 1 or 2 to below a level signficance.
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.5.doc Page 3.5-24
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
3.6 NOISE
Based on the findings of the IS, the proposed Grand Avenue widening may or. would result in
potentially significant adverse noise impacts, specifically related to long term increases in noise and
the potential exposure of sensitive receptors to extreme noise levels. The analysis in the following
sections focuses on the existing conditions in the study area, the analysis methodology, thresholds of
significance, the potential noise impacts of the Grand Avenue widening alternatives related to
increases in noise levels and sensitive receptors, and mitigation.
The analysis of the potential noise impacts of the proposed Grand Avenue widening is documented
in the Noise Assessment for Grand Avenue Widening EIR City of Santa Ana (BridgeNet
Consulting Services, May 9, 2002). The findings of this technical analysis are summarized in the
following sections. The complete noise technical report is included in Appendix G of this EIR. The
noise study determined the existing noise levels local to the project site, predicted the noise levels
that would exist with the proposed project and analyzed the noise impacts of the proposed road
widening alternatives on adjacent noise sensitive land uses. These with -project noise levels were
then compared with applicable City and State noise criteria and mitigation measures identified.
3.6.1 EXISTING SETTING RELATED TO NOISE
Noise Definitions
Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency
(pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (0).
Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in
sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale
used to measure earthquakes. For example, in terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dB
higher than another is judged to be twice as loud and sound 20 dB higher is four times as loud.
Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud).
Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency -
dependent rating scale was developed to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A -weighted decibel
scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner
approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Community noise levels are measured in terms of
the A -weighted decibel (dBA). Table 3.6-1 provides examples of various noises and their typical
A -weighted noise levels.
Sound levels decrease as a function of distance from the source as a result of wave divergence,
atmospheric absorption and ground attenuation. As the sound wave form travels away from the
source, the sound energy is dispersed over a greater area, thereby dispersing the sound power of the
wave. Atmospheric absorption also influences the sound levels received by the observer. The
greater the distance traveled, the greater the influence and the resultant fluctuations. The degree of
absorption is a function of the frequency of the sound as well as the humidity and temperature of the
air. Turbulence and gradients of wind, temperature and humidity also play an important role in
determining the degree of attenuation. In cases where receptors are far away from potential adverse
noise sources, intervening topography can have a substantial effect on perceived noise levels.
F.IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-1
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
TABLE 3.6-1
TYPICAL A -WEIGHTED NOISE LEVELS
dB(A)
OVER-ALL LEVEL
COMMUNITY
HOME OR
LOUDNESS
Sound Pressure Level
(Outdoor)
INDUSTRY
Human. Judgement
re. To 0.0002
of Different Sound
Microbars
Levels
130
Military Jet Aircraft Take-
Oxygen Torch (121)
120 dB(A) 32 Times
UNCOMFORTABLY
Off With After From
as Loud
LOUD
Aircraft Carrier @ 50 Ft.
(130
120
Turbo -Fan Aircraft @
Riveting Machine
110 dB(A) 16 Times
110
Take -Off @ 200 Ft. (90)
(110)
as Loud
Rock -N -Roll Band
108-114
100
VERY
Jet Flyover @ 1000 Ft.
100 dB(A) 8 Times
LOUD
(103)
as Loud
Boeing 707. DC -8 @ 6080
Ft. Before Landing (106)
Bell J2A Helicopter @ 100
Ft. (100)
90
Power Mower (96)
Newspaper Press
90 dB(A) 4 Times as
Boeing 737, DC -9 @ 6080
(97)
Loud
Ft. Before Landing (97)
Motorcycle @ 25 Ft.. (90)
80
Car Wash @ 20 Ft. (89)
Food Blender (88)
80 dB(A) 2 Times as
Prop. Airplane Flyover @
Milling Machine
Loud
1000 Ft. (88)
(85)
Diesel Track, 40 MPH @
Garbage Disposal
50 Ft. (84)
(80)
Diesel Train, 45 MPH @
100 Ft. 83
70
MODERATELY
High Urban Ambient Sound
Living Room Music
70 dB(A) 32
LOUD
(80)
(76)
Passenger Car, 65 MPH @
TV -Audio, Vacuum
25 Ft. (77)
Cleaner
Freeway @ 50 Ft. From
Pavement edge, 10 AM (76
t 6)
60
Air Conditioning Unit @
Cash Register @ 10
60 dB(A) %z as Loud
100 Ft. (60)
ft. (65-70)
Electric Typewriter
@ 10 Ft. (64)
Dishwasher (Rinse)
@ 10 Ft. (60)
Conversation (60)
50
QUIET
Large Transformers @ 100
50 dB(A) '/4 as
Ft. (50)
1
1 Loud
SOURCE: Reproduced from Melville C. Branch and R. Dale Boland, Outdoor Noise in the Metropolitan Environment,
Published by the City of Los Angeles, 1970.
F: IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - Grand&ction 3 SplitlSection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-2
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
Noise has been defined as unwanted sound and it is known to have adverse effects on humans.
From these known effects of noise, criteria have been established to help protect public health and
safety and prevent disruption of certain human activities. These criteria are based on such known
impacts of noise on humans such as hearing loss, speech interference, sleep interference,
physiological responses and annoyance, as described below:
Hearing Loss is not a concern in associated with surface transportation and roads. The
potential for noise induced hearing loss is most commonly associated with occupational
noise exposures in heavy industry or very noisy work environments. Noise levels in
neighborhoods associated with roads and traffic are not sufficiently loud to cause hearing
loss.
Speech Interference is one of the primary concerns related to environmental noise. Normal
conversational speech is in the range of 60 to 65 dBA and any noise in this range or louder
may interfere with speech. There are specific methods of describing speech interference as
a function of distance between the speaker and the listener and voice levels.
Sleep Interference is a major noise concern associated with traffic noise. Sleep disturbance
studies have identified interior noise levels that have the potential to cause sleep disturbance.
Sleep disturbance does not necessarily mean awakening from sleep, but can refer to altering
the pattern and stages of sleep.
Physiological Responses are those measurable effects of noise on people which are realized
as changes in pulse rate or blood pressure, for example. While such effects can be induced
and observed, the extent to which these physiological responses cause harm or are sign of
harm is not known.
Annoyance is the most difficult of all noise responses to describe. Annoyance is a very
individual characteristic and can vary widely from person to person. What one person
considers tolerable can be quite unbearable to another of equal hearing capability.
The public reaction to different noise levels varies from community to community. Extensive
research has been conducted on humans' responses to exposure of different levels of noise
through community response surveys. Community noise standards are derived from tradeoffs
between community response surveys, such as this, and economic considerations for achieving
these levels.
Adjacent Land Uses
An important part of this noise analysis was the identification of noise sensitive uses that may
potentially be impacted by the proposed project. This would include residences, schools and other
noise sensitive uses adjacent to the project segment of Grand Avenue or along other roads that may
be affected by project -related traffic. In the case of the Grand Avenue widening, there are existing
residential uses along the street alignment, both north and south of I-5.
The noise sensitive uses adjacent to the project segment of Grand Avenue include single family
residences, multiple family apartments, Frederick Remington Elementary School and Nuestra
F.IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-3
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
Senora de Guadelupe Church. There are single family residences on both sides of Grand Avenue
between Seventeenth Street and I-5, on the west side of Grand Avenue between Fruit and Fourth
Streets, and on the east side of Grand Avenue between Fourth and Third Streets. There are
apartments at the east end of Washington Street just north of I-5. The Elementary School is on
Fourth Street approximately 175 feet east of Grand Avenue and the Church is on the southeast
corner of Grand Avenue and Third Street.
Most of the existing noise sensitive uses which do not directly face Grand Avenue have some form
of block wall or wood fence to protect exterior areas from noise and visual intrusions. These
barriers range in height from four to seven feet. The single and multiple family residences on Grand
Avenue between Fruit and Fourth Streets directly face Grand Avenue and currently have no form of
exterior noise reduction. Therefore, these residences are currently directly impacted by existing
traffic noise. However, the buildings themselves provide some noise reduction for the rear yards
and outside areas associated with these residences. The front yards of single family residences are
specifically not subject to the City's exterior noise standard although the rear yards are.
The Grand Avenue project area is also influenced by noise from I-5. The noise level from 1-5 is
partially mitigated by existing sound barriers at the. edge of the freeway pavement where I-5 is
adjacent to residential uses. There is no wall on the freeway bridge over Grand Avenue.
Existing Noise Environment
The existing noise environment in the Grand Avenue project area was determined through a
comprehensive noise measurement survey and computer modeling effort. Several locations
adjacent to the Grand Avenue alignment and in surrounding areas were used as monitoring
locations. These measurements were used to describe the existing noise setting in this area. The
existing environment was modeled to establish a baseline noise level to which the proposed project
was then compared. The major existing noise sources in the vicinity of the project segment of
Grand Avenue are traffic on Grand Avenue and I-5. The Southern California Regional Rail
Authority (SCCRA) operates a mainline track, used for freight and commuter operations,
approximately 1,200 feet west of Grand Avenue. There are no other major existing noise
sources in the vicinity of the project segment of Grand Avenue.
Noise Measurement Survey
A noise measurement survey was conducted between February 19 and 24, 1999, which included a
total of 20 monitoring positions either at, or adjacent to, noise sensitive land uses along the Grand
Avenue alignment as shown on Figure 3.6-1. Table 3.6-2 lists the specific location of each
monitoring position and identifies the potentially noise sensitive land use at that location. The noise .
measurements were conducted between 11 AM and 5 PM to depict various traffic conditions. The
noise measurements were designed to determine ambient noise levels and to validate the project
related findings from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Noise Model. The
F.IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text- GranWection 3 SphMection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-4
17th Street
................................
16th street
3 2
14th street S a
et
14th 0.00
9
Iwo
staiiard St'
Fratlt St
Fruit street 10
1�1
12
13
Etta street 14
15
16
sbreel
IT
18
I
3rd Street
19
xe
stad met
1 t ,
LOCATIONS OF NOISE MONITORING POSITIONS
;8—Mnsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
TABLE 3.6-2
LOCATIONS OF NOISE MONITORING POSITIONS
Site
Address
Land Use
Position
1
1301 15th Street
Single Family
At Property Line - 42' from Road centerline
2
1302 15th Street
Single Family
At Property Line - 42' from Road centerline
3
1264A 15th Street
Single Family
At Property Line - 69' from Road centerline
4
1301 14th Street
Single Family
At Pro e Line - 42' from Road centerline
5
1263 14th Street
Single Family
At Property Line - 50' from Road centerline
6
1306 14th Street
Single Family
At Property Line - 100' from Road centerline
7
1258 14th Street
Single Family
At Property Line - 100' from Road centerline
8
1311 Washington Place
Apartments*
At Property Line - 212' from Road centerline
9
1307 Eastwood Avenue
Single Family
At Property Line - 186' from Road centerline
10
902 Grand Avenue
Office Building**
At Property Line - 57' from Road centerline
11
742 Grand Avenue
Single Farrdly
At Property Line - 66' from Road centerline
12
714 Grand Avenue
Single Family
At Property Line - 75' from Road centerline
13
620 Grand Avenue
Single Family
At Property Line - 68' from Road centerline
14
1211 6th Street
Apartments
At Property Line - 70' from Road centerline
15
516 Grand Avenue
Single Family
At Property Line - 70' from Road centerline
16
504 Grand Avenue
Single Family
At Property Line - 68' from Road centerline
17
1317 4th Street
Elementary School
At Property Line - 205' from Road centerline
18
1314 4th Street
Single Family
At Property Line - 169' from Road centerline
19
1313 3rd Street
Single Family
At Property Line - 169' from Road centerline
20
1310 3rd Street
Church
At Property Line - 74' from Road centerline
* Since the measurement survey, this noise sensitive land use and Washington Place have been removed. The
measurement location has been included for noise modeling purposes.
** Although 902 Grand Avenue is not a noise sensitive land use, the measurement location has been included for
noise modeling purposes.
Source: BridgeNet Consulting Services (July 2001).
P: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - Grand6Section 3 SplitlSection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-6
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
TABLE 3.6-3
EXISTING NOISE MEASUREMENTS
Site
Location
Position
1
Date
Time
LEQ
LmAx
Lra
Lso
L90
LMRJ
1
1301 15th Street
At PL
2-22-99
16:30
70.7
79.0
74.0
69.5
60.5
51.8
2
1302 15th Street
At PL
2-22-99
16:13
71.8
91.0
73.5
69.5
63.0
54.9
3
1264A 15th Street
At PL
2-19-99
16:19
67.9
77.1
71.0
66.0
60.5
53.7
4
1301 14th Street
At PL
2-22-99
15:52
71.5
86.0
74.0
70.0
62.5
52.2
5
1263 14th Street
At BF
2-22-99
14:38
69.3
84.6
72.0
67.5
62.5
57.9
6
1306 14th Street
At PL
2-22-99
15:34
64.3
83.0
66.5
62.5
58.0
51.2
7
1258 14th Street
At PL
2-22-99
14:21
64.1
79.0
66.5
62.5
58.5
54.5
8
1311 Washington
Place
At PL
2-22-99
14:58
64.5
70.2
65.5
64.0
62.5
60.7
9
1307 Eastwood
Avenue
At PL
2-24-99
15:46
62.9
70.2
64.0
62.5
60.5
57.7
10
902 Grand
Avenue
At BF
2-19-99
15:53
72.2
85.2
75.0
70.5
62.5
56.4
11
742 Grand
Avenue
At BF
2-19-99
15:35
70.2
80.1
73.0
69.0
60.0
54.1
12
714 Grand
Avenue
At BF
2-24-99
13:15
67.5
77.6
70.0
66.5
59.5
51.8
13
620 Grand
Avenue
At BF
2-24-99
12:50
67.3
79.1
70.5
65.6
57.0
50.2
14
1211 6th Street
At BF
2-19-99
15:15
67.7
77.9
70.5
66.0
59.5
54.5
15
516 Grand
Avenue
At BF
2-19-99
14:57
66.7
80.6
69.0
65.0
57.5
51.2
16
504 Grand
Avenue
At BF
2-24-99
13:40
66.2
76.9
70.0
63.5
56.5
51.1
17
1317 4th Street
At PL
2-24-99
12:22
64.6
74.1
67.5
62.5
60.0
57.2
18
1314 4th Street
At PL
2-19-99
14:34
65.7
77.2
68.0
64.0
59.5
56.8
19
1313 3rd Street
At PL
2-19-99
14:12
61.6
79.4
64.0
59.0
55.5
51.1
20
1310 3rd Street
At BF
2-24-99
11:53
67.6
76.7
70.5
65.5
60.5
57.2
Source: BridgeNet Consulting Services (July 2001).
(1) PL: At property line
BF: At building face
F.•IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.6.doe Page 3.6-7
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
measurement locations were selected to represent the noise environment throughout the project area,
and in areas where project related traffic changes might affect noise sensitive land uses.
The noise monitors used for the measurement survey were Brael & Kjwr Type 2236 sound level
meters. These analyzers meet the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S 1.4 specification
for a precision sound level meter. Briiel & Kjmr type 4188 %z -inch air condenser microphones were
used. The measurement systems were calibrated before and after each measurement with a Briiel &
Kjaer Type 4231 sound level calibrator with calibration traceable to the National Institute of
Standards and Technology.
The results of the noise measurement survey are shown in Table 3.6-3. The quantities measured
were the Equivalent Noise Level (Leq), the maximum noise level (Lmax), the minimum noise level
(Lorin) and the Percent Noise Levels (L%). Percent Noise Levels are one method of characterizing
the dynamics of ambient noise. For example, L90 is the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time
and represents the background or quieter noise level, L50 is the level' exceeded 50 percent of the
time and represents the average noise level, and L10 is the level exceeded 10 percent of the time and
represents the peak or intrusive noise levels. The results of the survey, which represent existing
noise levels from traffic on Grand Avenue, are described in the following paragraphs.
The existing noise measurements and modeling were based on 1999 traffic volumes. The
existing traffic volumes in 2002 are not expected to be substantially different than in 1999
because there have not been substantial changes in land use or the circulation system in the
Grand Avenue area over this period of time. In addition, in general, for changes in traffic
volumes to result in a significant change in noise levels (defined as an increase of 3 dB or more),
traffic volumes would have to double over that period. Typically, a city such as the City of Santa
Ana will experience an annual growth rate in traffic volumes of only a few percentage points for
an area that is substantially built out like the Grand Avenue project area. If the traffic in this area
had increased by a total of ten percent over the three year period (1999 to 2002), the increase in
noise levels would be less than 0.5 dB, which is not significant. Therefore, the noise
environment measured in 1999 is considered to be representative of the noise environment in the
Grand Avenue study area in 2002.
Existing Noise Exposure
The results in Table 3.6-3 show that the existing noise sensitive uses directly adjacent to Grand
Avenue are currently impacted by traffic noise. The residences most heavily affected are those on
the east side of Grand Avenue between Seventeenth Street and the I-5 Freeway, and on the west
side of Grand. Avenue between Fruit and Fourth Streets.
As shown in Table 3.6-3, the residences on the east side of Grand Avenue between Seventeenth
Street and the I-5 Freeway are exposed to significant noise levels during peak traffic hours. The
rear yards of these residences have some mitigation in the form of existing walls or fences. The
residences on Eastwood Avenue are further away from Grand Avenue, resulting in a lower noise
exposure level for these residential uses. The residences on Eastwood Avenue and Fourteenth
Street are also exposed to noise from traffic on I-5.
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-8
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
The front yards and the building faces of the single family residences on the west side of Grand
Avenue between Fruit and Fourth Street are significantly impacted by traffic noise. The rear yards
of these residences are sufficiently shielded from noise by the houses themselves.
The residences east of Grand Avenue between Third and Fourth Streets are separated from the road
by an existing vacant lot, and the increased distance of these units from Grand Avenue helps reduce
their noise exposure. The rear yard of the residence on Fourth Street nearest to Grand Avenue is
mitigated with a block wall 6.5 feet high, while the rear yard of the residence on Third Street nearest
to Grand Avenue is mitigated with only a four -foot high wood fence.
Existing Noise Contours
Table 3.6-4 lists the 2001 ADT volumes for Grand Avenue and I-5, with the corresponding
distances to the 60 dB, 65 dB and 70 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contours.
These values represent the distances from the centerline of the road to the contour values shown.
The existing noise levels for Grand Avenue were and are shown on Figures 3.6-2 and 3.6-3 as
lines, or contours, of equal noise level. Figure 3.6-2 shows the locations of the existing 60 dB,
65 dB and 70 dB CNEL contours for the segment of Grand Avenue between Seventeenth Street
and Santa Ana Boulevard, and between Santa Ana Boulevard and Fourth Street. Figure 3.5-3
shows the locations of the existing 60 dB, 65 dB and 70 dB CNEL contours for the segment of
Grand Avenue between Fourth and First Streets. These contours do not take into account the
mitigating effect of any existing noise barriers or structures along the road.
The noise sensitive land uses along Grand Avenue between Seventeenth Street and Santa Ana
Boulevard are between 42 and 186 feet from the centerline of Grand Avenue. At these distances,
the existing noise exposure levels in these areas range from 70.5 dB CNEL to 60.9 dB CNEL.
The noise sensitive land uses between Santa Ana Boulevard and Fourth Street are between 57
and 205 feet from the centerline of Grand Avenue. At these distances, these areas are exposed to
noise levels ranging from 69.5 dB CNEL to 61.1 dB CNEL.
The noise sensitive land uses between Fourth and First Streets are between 74 and 171 feet from
the centerline of Grand Avenue. At these distances, these areas are exposed to noise levels
ranging from 67.5 dB CNEL to 62.1 dB CNEL.
Railroad Noise
The major commuter rail corridor connecting Santa Ana with Los Angeles and San Diego Counties
is about 1,200 feet west of Grand Avenue. As a result, it was considered that this raih-oad may
represent an existing source of significant levels of noise in this area. This line, which is owned and
operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SORRA), currently accommodates
Amtrak passenger trains conning from Los Angeles to San Diego, Metrolink commuter trains
running from Los Angeles to Carlsbad, and freight trains running between San Diego and San
Bernardino.
F.WROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text- Gran&Section 3 SpIRISection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-9
EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS ON GRAND AVENUE FROM
SEVENTEENTH STREET TO FOURTEENTH STREET (db CNEL)
P&DConsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
10
IT
—60-65 `70 i 70, 65 60
Santa Ana
Blvd.
I �
100 feet
EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS ON GRAND AVENUE FROM
FOURTEENTH STREET TO SANTA ANA BOULEVARD (db CNEL)
P&DConsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS ON GRAND AVENUE FROM
SANTA ANA BOULEVARD TO FOURTH STREET NORTH HALF (db CNEL)
P&DConsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
i■i
EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS ON GRAND AVENUE FROM
SANTA ANA BOULEVARD TO FOURTH STREET SOUTH HALF (db CNEL)
P&DConsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIIt
EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS ON GRAND AVENUE FROM
FOURTH STREET TO FIRST STREET (db CNEL)
' , P8&DConsWtants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING E I R
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
TABLE 3.6-4
DISTANCES TO EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS
Source: BridgeNet Consulting Services (July 2001).
Currently, there are 35 daily Metrolink trains operating on this track. There are also currently 25
Amtrak trains which use the line each day. This line is also used for through and local freight
operations which are scheduled around the current passenger and commuter trains. This line
normally accommodates a couple through freight trains per day, and a local freight at least twice a
day. The local freights are generally less than ten cars in length while the through freights are often
6,000 feet in length. These through freight trains can be operated anytime of the day or night
depending on customer demand.
Analysis was conducted recently regarding the possible expansion of the existing rail line
through Santa Ana. The SCRRA prepared a Recirculated Draft E1R for the proposed Santa Ana
Second Main Track Project (Myra L. Frank and Associates and Frederic R. Harris, Inc., 2002).
That EIR indicated that if a second main line is constructed through the Cities of Santa Ana and
Orange, the total number of trains using this line could increase to 105 trains per day.
This operational data was used in conjunction with the Wyle Model to project existing train noise in
the Grand Avenue project area. These results are shown in Table 3.6-5 and are expressed as
distances from the railroad centerline to the 60, 65 and 70 dB contours. These projections are
unmitigated railroad noise effects which do not include consideration of topography or barriers such
as buildings or walls which would reduce these noise levels. The projected unmitigated noise level
at homes on the west side of Grand Avenue associated with operations on the SCRRA track is 60
dB CNEL. Most of the east side of the railroad right of way, which is between the railroad track
and Grand Avenue, is developed in commercial and industrial uses. These buildings provide a
mitigating effect, reducing noise from railroad operations on land uses east of the tracks and these
developed uses by at least 10 dB. Therefore, at the distance the project segment of Grand Avenue is
from the railroad track and with consideration of the noise reduction effects based on distance and
intervening structures, the projected mitigated noise levels from railroad operations are expected to
be less than 50 dB CNEL and were determined to not significantly impact noise sensitive land uses
in the Grand Avenue project area. Therefore, the existing and future railroad operations on this
track were assumed not to contribute significantly to the noise environment in the Grand Avenue
area.
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 3 Split0ection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-15
Distance to CNEL Contours ft.
Roadway
ADT
70 dB
65 dB
60 dB
2001
Grand Avenue
F40
Seventeenth Street to Santa Ana
25,900
46
98
212
Boulevard
32,000
43
113
244
Santa Ana Boulevard to Fourth Street
30,300
51
109
235
Fourth Street to First Street
I-5
Grand Avenue
1 236,000
65
461
993
2,138
Source: BridgeNet Consulting Services (July 2001).
Currently, there are 35 daily Metrolink trains operating on this track. There are also currently 25
Amtrak trains which use the line each day. This line is also used for through and local freight
operations which are scheduled around the current passenger and commuter trains. This line
normally accommodates a couple through freight trains per day, and a local freight at least twice a
day. The local freights are generally less than ten cars in length while the through freights are often
6,000 feet in length. These through freight trains can be operated anytime of the day or night
depending on customer demand.
Analysis was conducted recently regarding the possible expansion of the existing rail line
through Santa Ana. The SCRRA prepared a Recirculated Draft E1R for the proposed Santa Ana
Second Main Track Project (Myra L. Frank and Associates and Frederic R. Harris, Inc., 2002).
That EIR indicated that if a second main line is constructed through the Cities of Santa Ana and
Orange, the total number of trains using this line could increase to 105 trains per day.
This operational data was used in conjunction with the Wyle Model to project existing train noise in
the Grand Avenue project area. These results are shown in Table 3.6-5 and are expressed as
distances from the railroad centerline to the 60, 65 and 70 dB contours. These projections are
unmitigated railroad noise effects which do not include consideration of topography or barriers such
as buildings or walls which would reduce these noise levels. The projected unmitigated noise level
at homes on the west side of Grand Avenue associated with operations on the SCRRA track is 60
dB CNEL. Most of the east side of the railroad right of way, which is between the railroad track
and Grand Avenue, is developed in commercial and industrial uses. These buildings provide a
mitigating effect, reducing noise from railroad operations on land uses east of the tracks and these
developed uses by at least 10 dB. Therefore, at the distance the project segment of Grand Avenue is
from the railroad track and with consideration of the noise reduction effects based on distance and
intervening structures, the projected mitigated noise levels from railroad operations are expected to
be less than 50 dB CNEL and were determined to not significantly impact noise sensitive land uses
in the Grand Avenue project area. Therefore, the existing and future railroad operations on this
track were assumed not to contribute significantly to the noise environment in the Grand Avenue
area.
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 3 Split0ection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-15
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
TABLE 3.6-5
PROJECTED UNMITIGATED RAILROAD NOISE LEVELS
Source
Distance to CNEL Contours ft
70 dB
65 dB60
dB
Passenger and Freight
Operations
315
600
1,150
Source: BridgeNet Consulting Services (May 2002).
3.6.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE RELATED TO NOISE
City of Santa Ana Noise Criteria
The Noise Element of the City of Santa Ana General Plan has established guidelines for acceptable
community noise levels based on the CNEL rating scale. For residential uses, the noise levels in
exterior living areas, defined as rear yards, patios and balconies, cannot exceed 65 dB CNEL. The
interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB CNEL in any habitable
room. While there are no specific noise standards for schools, a common design goal for school
classrooms is 45 dB CNEL. The State of California has also established guidelines for acceptable
community noise levels based on the CNEL rating scale. These guidelines specify indoor and
outdoor noise levels similar to those specified in the Noise Element, as shown in Figure 3.6-4.
The specific noise level guidelines used to assess the compatibility of the proposed Grand Avenue
widening project with the noise environment were:
65 CNEL exterior noise environment at existing residential uses.
45 CNEL for the interior noise environment at existing residential uses and school
classrooms.
Community Noise Assessment
In community noise assessment, changes in noise levels greater than three dB are often identified as
significant, while changes less than one dB will usually not be discernible. In the range of one to
three dB, residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. There is no
scientific evidence to support the use of three dB as a significance threshold. In laboratory testing
situations, humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than one dB. In a
community noise situation, however, noise exposures are over a long time period and changes in
noise levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation.
Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels become discernible is likely to be
some value greater than one dB, and three dB appears to be appropriate for most people. As a
result, a noise level change of at least 3 dBA was considered a significant increase for this noise
analysis. Mitigation measures were required where the 65 dB CNEL exterior noise standard was
exceeded. In the cases where there would be an increase of at least 3 dBA but the exterior noise
standard was not exceeded, noise sensitive land uses already have exterior noise mitigation
measures, i.e. block walls, in place. There were no instances where the interior noise standards
were exceeded so no mitigation measures are necessary to address interior noise impacts.
F:IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-16
Land Use Category
Residential -Low Density
Residential - Multiple Fan*
Transient Lodging- Motels, Hotels
Stimu, Librarian, Cho Ireh
pitab, Nursing Hom srs
Auditoduns, Concert Hags,
Amptiithestre
Sports Arena, Outdoor
Pbygmunde, Nelgbborbood Parks
Comtmtulty Noise Exposure
Lda or CNEL,
Golf Courson Riding Stabbs
WaterRecreadou,Cetaemdea j
Office Bulkilagv, Business
Conumclai and Resideadal
Industrial, Manufacturing Utilities '
Agriculture
Source: State of California Noise Compatibility Guidelines
Normally Acceptable
Speebiod Land Use b SatE00my,
Based Upon tie Assumption flus
Any BWudiags Inv" amot
Nomul Conventional Combrndbn,
Without Auy Speabl NOW 11301140a
Requirements,
M Coadldonagy Atows b
New Construction or lh"Upowm
Sbouid be Undertaken Only Auer a
fktaikd Aeab%b of the Nobe
ReiucWnRequbtmem Is Made and
Needed Was insulation Featasss
fatluded In the bmdga Conventional
Comtrxdon, bat with a"al
Wiadows sail FreshAlrSnpply
System or Air Cootdtbaing, WSI
Noroaaysum".
m Normally Usamptable
New Coanmctlun er Bevalopnxat
Swum Gtutrally bebutomitat
ITNew Caetraedonor Mvclopuamt
tbm Froeced, a bdaNea Aualiab 9T
the Nobe Reduction Requirelnems
Must be Made and Needed Nobe
insulation Feature Tadadul In the
Design.
- Ck"Uuuaphhb
New Cuanrattba ar Devekpuk at
Should Generally not be Uadertak"L
NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES
P&DComultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING El
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
3.6.3 METHODOLOGY RELATED TO NOISE
Noise Assessment Metrics
Community noise is generally not steady state and varies with time. Under conditions of non -steady
state noise, some type of statistical metric is necessary to quantify human response to noise. There
are several rating scales for the analysis of adverse effects of community noise on people. They are
designed, to account for the lmown effects of noise on people. Based on these effects, the
observation has been made that the potential for a noise to impact people is dependent on the total
acoustical energy content of the noise. A number of noise scales have been developed to account
for this observation.
The description, analysis and reporting of community noise levels around communities is made
difficult by the complexity of human response to noise and the number of noise metrics that have
been developed for describing noise impacts. Each metric attempts to quantify noise levels with
respect to community response. Most metrics use the A -weighted noise level to quantify noise
impacts on humans. A -weighting is a frequency correction that correlates the overall sound
pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear.
Noise metrics can be divided into two categories: single event and cumulative. Single event metrics
describe the noise levels from an individual event such as an aircraft flyover or perhaps a heavy
equipment pass -by. Cumulative metrics average the total noise over a specific time period, which is
typically 1 -hour or 24 -hours for community noise assessments. For the proposed Grand Avenue
widening, cumulative noise metrics, described below, were used.
Cumulative Noise Metrics
There are several rating scales for the measurement of community noise. These rating scales
account for the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on
humans; the variety of noises found in the environment; the variations in noise levels that occur as a
person moves through the environment; and the variations associated with the time of day. They
are designed to account for the known health effects of noise on humans described earlier. Based
on these effects, the observation has been made that the potential for a noise to impact people is
dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise. A number of noise scales have been
developed to account for this observation. Two predominate noise scales are the Equivalent Noise
Level (LEQ) and the CNEL, which are described as follows:
LEQ is the sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the same total
energy as a time -varying signal over a given sample period. LEQ is the "energy" average
noise level during the time period of the sample. LEQ can be measured for any time period,
but is typically measured for 15 minutes, one hour or 24 -hours. The noise measurement
survey for the Grand Avenue widening project was conducted in terms of the LEQ metric.
CNEL is similar to LEQ but it is for 24 hours, and applies a weighting factor which places
greater importance on noise events occurring during the evening and night hours when sleep
disturbance is a concern. CNEL is a 24-hour, time -weighted annual average noise level.
F: WROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-18
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
Time -weighted refers to the fact that noise which occurs during certain sensitive time
periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The evening time period, defined as 7 PM
to 10 PM is penalized by five, and the night time period, defined as 10 PM to 7 AM, is
penalized by 10 dB. These penalties and time periods were selected to attempt to account
for increased human sensitivity to noise during the quieter periods of a day, where sleep is
the most probable activity. A CNEL noise level may be reported as a CNEL of 60 dBA, 60
dBA CNEL or 60 CNEL. Typical noise levels in terms of the CNEL scale for different
types of communities are shown in Figure 3.6-5.
L(N), or L%, is a statistical method of describing noise which accounts for the variance
in noise levels throughout a given measurement period. L(N), where N equals a
percentage, is a way of expressing the noise level exceeded for a percentage of time in a
given measurement period. For example, since 15 minutes is 25 percent of 60 minutes,
L(25) is the noise level that is exceeded for fifteen minutes of a sixty minute
measurement period. The L(N) metric is the most commonly used for noise ordinance
standards. For example, most daytime city, state and county noise ordinances use an
ordinance standard of 55 dBA for 30 minutes per hour or an L(50) level of 55 dBA. In other
words, these noise ordinances require that for residential uses, a piece of equipment not on
the property will not be allowed to generate a noise level of 55 dBA for more than thirty
minutes in any hour. As the noise level limit increases, the time the noise is allowed to
occur within any hour is reduced.
Assessing Existing Noise Levels
The existing traffic noise levels in the Grand Avenue project area were established in terms of the
CNEL metric by modeling the road for the current traffic and speed characteristics. The noise
levels modeled in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the
FHWA ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model," FHWA-RD-77-108, December 1978).
Traffic data used to project existing noise levels were derived from City of Santa Ana 2001 traffic
counts. The traffic mix in terms of truck percentages and time distributions for Grand Avenue and
I-5 used in the analysis are based on measurements for roads in southern California and are
considered typical for arterials in this area (Orange County Environmental Management Agency,
Traffic Census, 1975).
Railroad Noise
The "Assessment of Noise Environments Around Railroad Operations" (Wyle Laboratories Report
WCR 73-5, July 1973) was used to model the train noise levels in the Grand Avenue project area,
associated with rail operations on the railroad tracks approximately 1,200 feet west of this area. The
noise generated by a train pass -by can be divided into two components: the noise generated by the
engine or locomotive, and the noise generated by the railroad cars. The characteristic frequency of a
train engine is different than for train cars. The effective radiating frequency is 1,000 hertz (Hz) for
locomotive engines and 2,000 Hz for the part of the noise generated by the cars. The noise
generated by a train engine is the result of the mechanical movements of the engine parts, the
combustion process, the horn if used, and, to a lesser extent, the exhaust system. The noise
F.•IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - Gran&Section 3 SplitlSection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-19
CNEL Outdoor Location
—90 -
Apartment Next to Freeway
314 Mile From Touchdown at Major Airport
--80—
I I0—
<
Downtown With Some Construction Activity
Urban High Density Apartment
—�o
<
Urban Row Housing an Major Avenue
—60 —
<-
Old Urban Residential Area
<...-_._..._..._.._
Wooded Residential
0—
<
Agricultural Crop Land
—d0—
<
Rural Residential
Wilderness Ambient
TYPICAL CNEL NOISE LEVELS
100 P&D Consultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
generated by train cars is a result of the interaction between the wheels and the railroad track. A
source height equal to zero feet was used in the model for the train car noise and a source height of
10 feet was used for the locomotive.
3.6.4 IMPACTS RELATED TO NOISE
Two types of potential noise impacts may occur as a result of the proposed Grand Avenue
widening:
Demolition and construction noise may impact residences whose property lines border Grand
Avenue and the playground and classroom activities at Frederick Remington Elementary
School.
In the long term, traffic on the widened segment of Grand Avenue may increase the noise
environment for residences and the school adjacent to this segment of Grand Avenue.
The noise analysis for the proposed Grand Avenue widening alternatives considered both short and
long term impacts, as described in the following sections.
Impacts of Alternative 1 Related to Noise
Short Tenn Construction Impacts Under Alternative 1
As described earlier, construction under Alternative 1 will include two major components. The first
will be the removal of the existing road pavement, sidewalks and landscaping, and the demolition
and removal of existing structures such as commercial and residential structures. The second
component consists of grading the right-of-way and construction of the road surface, sidewalks,
sound walls and landscaping. In general, the equipment for these demolition and construction
activities will consist of several pieces of heavy equipment, such as scrapers, tractors and graders.
Another type of equipment that would be used would be large dump trucks, for hauling wastes from
the site and materials to the site. There would generally only be one or two dump trucks working at
the site at any one time. For this analysis; it was assumed that up to three pieces of heavy
equipment would be operated simultaneously, as described below.
Construction noise is generally high level, short duration noise which represents a potential short
term impact on ambient noise levels in areas adjacent to the construction site. Noise generated by
construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable
generators, can reach high levels. Excavation and grading activities typically represent the highest
potential for short term noise impacts during construction.
The degree of impact will be dictated by the amount of construction equipment used, the density of
heavy equipment, the proximity to a noise sensitive land use, and the duration of the grading and
excavation process. General grading and construction activity noise levels for various pieces of
equipment are shown in Figure 3.6-6. The noise levels shown on Figure 3.6-6 represent the range
of noises generated at a distance of 50 feet from the equipment. Noise levels from a single source
typically fall off at a rate of six dB for every doubling of distance from the source. For example, at
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GranMection 3 SplitlSection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-21
A. -Weighted Sound Level (dBA) at 50 feet
.�..._.._�_ 60 70 so 90 100.._�.�. YIO
iCompact (rollers)
Front loaders
Backhoes
`l'raeters
Scrapers,graders
Pavers
Tucks
Concrete mixers
Concrete pumps
Cranes (movable)
Cranes (derrick)
Pumps
Generators
Compressors
Pneumatic wrenches
Jackhammers and drills
Pile Drivers (peak levels)
Vibrators
Saws
go
__._W..
i
1
..�.■.�■
""""""
.�
--------_
- _
Source: "Handbook of Noise Coatroy" by Cyril Harris, 1979.
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET
MoM P&DConsultantS GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
a distance of 200 feet, the noise levels shown in Figure 3.6-6 are approximately 12 dBA less; at a
distance of 1,000 feet, the levels are about 25 dBA less. The loudest piece of equipment that is
expected to operate during construction of the proposed widening would be equipment such as
tractors and scrapers used during grading.
There are existing residences and a school directly adjacent Grand Avenue that will be exposed to
audible noise levels from construction activities associated with the widening of Grand Avenue.
According to the preliminary plans prepared by Tetra Tech (2002), the proposed construction
activity will be within 10 feet of the fence bordering the west side of the playground at the school,
and adjacent to the walls and fences surrounding some of the residential parcels. This means
construction activities will be as close as 150 feet to the nearest classroom building face and within
50 feet of the nearest residential building faces.
Demolition and construction noise is a short term impact on existing noise levels. Every effort must
be made to ensure that excessive noise is minimized whenever possible during construction. Noise
generated by construction equipment and construction activities can reach high levels as shown
earlier on Figure 3.6-6. Construction equipment noise comes under the control of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Noise Control Program (Part 204 of Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations).
The most effective method for controlling construction noise is through local control of construction
hours. Consistent with mitigation measure N-1, provided later in this Section, construction for the
Grand Avenue widening will occur between 7 AM and 7 PM Mondays through Fridays, and
between 8 AM and 6 PM on Saturdays. No construction will be allowed on Sundays or federal
holidays. This mitigation will substantially reduce short term noise impacts under Alternative 1, but
not always to below a level of significance.
As described earlier in Section 1.0 (Project Description and Project Objectives), it is anticipated
that the widening of Grand Avenue under Alternative 1 will be constructed in phases, based on
available funding. For example, as funding becomes available, the intersections could be
improved, followed later by the widening of Grand Avenue on the segments between the
intersections. Therefore, the demolition and construction for the widening under Alternative 1
would not occur in one continuous time period. Demolition and, construction activities could
occur intermittently over a period of several years before construction of the entire widening
project is complete. Therefore, potential short term noise impacts could occur over time, as short
segments of the Grand Avenue widening is constructed. Therefore, mitigation measure N-1,
provided later in this Section, would apply to each phase of demolition and construction under
Alternative 1.
Long Term Noise Impact Under Alternative 1
The potential long term traffic related noise impacts associated with the proposed widening of
Grand Avenue under Alternatives 1 and 2 were assessed by comparing 2020 with project noise
levels to 2020 noise levels without the proposed widening. The difference in noise levels between
the with and without project scenarios for each segment of Grand Avenue would be due to the
increase in traffic caused by the project alone.
F. IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GrandWection 3 SplitlSection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-23
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
As described earlier in Section 1.0 (Project Description and Project Objectives), Alternatives 1 and
2 will provide the same number of through travel lanes on the project segment of Grand Avenue.
Alternative 1 proposes to widen Grand Avenue to a right-of-way width of 100 feet and Alternative 2
proposes to widen Grand Avenue to a right-of-way width of 120 feet. The major difference
between these two Alternatives is the addition of a five-foot wide, continuous bicycle lane in
Alternative 2. The project traffic volumes and the width of the traveled portion of the road surface
would be the same for both Alternatives. Therefore, the noise analysis of the with project scenario
assesses the potential noise impacts of both Alternatives 1 and 2.
The projected 2020 traffic volumes for this analysis are from the Traffic Study (January 2002).
Table 3.6-6 lists the projected traffic volumes on the project segment of Grand Avenue and the
corresponding distances to the 60 dB, 65 dB and 70 dB CNEL contours under the No Project
Alternative. Table 3.6-7 lists the projected traffic volumes and corresponding distances to various
noise contours for the with project scenario. The traffic mix in terms of truck percentages and time
distributions for the project segment of Grand Avenue for 2020 were assumed to be the same as for
existing conditions.
The values in Tables 3.6-6 and 3.6-7 represent the distances from the centerline of the project
segment of Grand Avenue, under the No Project and the widening alternatives, to the 60 dB, 65 dB
and 70 dB noise contours. Figure 3.6-7 shows the locations of the 60 dB, 65 dB and 70 dB CNEL
contours for the Future No Project case between Seventeenth Street and Santa Ana Boulevard,
and between Santa Ana Boulevard and Fourth Street. Figure 3.6-8 shows the locations of the 60
dB, 65 dB and 70 dB CNEL contours for the Future No Project case between Fourth and First
Streets. Figure 3.6-9 shows the locations of the Future With Project case 60 dB, 65 dB and 70
dB CNEL contours between Seventeenth Street and Santa Ana Boulevard, and between Santa
Ana Boulevard and Fourth Street. Figure 3.6-10 shows the locations of the Future With Project
case 60 dB, 65 dB and 70 dB CNEL contours between Fourth and First Streets. These values do
not take into consideration the effect of any noise barriers, topography or intervening buildings
which would alter these noise level projections.
To determine the change in noise levels associated with the proposed widening of Grand Avenue, a
comparison was made between the 2020 with and without project noise levels. Table 3.6-8 lists the
existing and 2020 noise levels in dB CNEL at fifty feet from the centerline of the project segment of
Grand Avenue, for existing conditions, and the 2020 No Project and 2020 with project scenarios.
Table 3.6-8 shows the difference in noise levels as.a result of future growth and the difference in
noise levels as a result of the proposed widening of the project segment of Grand Avenue alone.
The project related noise impact is the difference between the 2020 with project values and the 2020
No Project Alternative noise levels.
The results in Table 3.6-8 indicate there will be an increase in noise levels along the project segment
of Grand Avenue due to normal growth through 2020. This growth will result in a projected
increase in noise levels ranging from a 0.8 dB increase between Seventeenth Street and First Street.
An increase in noise of 0.8 dB CNEL is not considered significant.
F:IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text- GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-24
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
TABLE 3.6-6
DISTANCES TO 2020 NO PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS
Road Segment
2020 ADT
Seed h
Distance to CNEL Contours (ft)
Grand Avenue
Seventeenth Street to Santa Ana
Boulevard
Santa Ana Boulevard to Fourth
Street
Fourth Street to First Street
1-5 at Grand Avenue
31,300
40
52
112
241
38,000
40
59
127
274
36,600
40
58
124
267
1 370,000 j
65
622
1,340
2,886
Source: BridgeNet Consulting Services (2001).
TABLE 3.6-7
DISTANCES TO 2020 WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS
Road Segment
2020 ADT
Seed h)
Distance to CNEL Contours (ft)
Grand Avenue
Seventeenth Street to Santa Ana
Boulevard
Santa Ana Boulevard to Fourth
Street
Fourth Street to First Street
1-5 at Grand Avenue
31,300
40
52
112
241
38,000
40
59
127
274
36,600
40
58
124
267
370,000
65
1 622
1,340
2,886
Source: BridgeNet Consulting Services (2001).
F:IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirlNewText- GranMection 3 SplitlSection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-25
FUTURE NO PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS -
SEVENTEETH STREET TO FOURTEENTH STREET (db CNEL)
1 P&DConsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING El
FUTURE NO PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS -
FOURTEENTH STREET TO SANTA ANA BOULEVARD STREET (db CNEL)
P&DConsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EI R
FUTURE NO PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS -
SANTA ANA BOULEVARD TO FOURTH STREET NORTH HALF (db CNEL)
P&DConsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING ;IR
FUTURE NO PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS -
SANTA ANA BOULEVARD TO FOURTH STREET SOUTH HALF (db CNEL)
P&DConsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
FUTURE NO PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS -
FOURTH STREET TO FIRST STREET (db CNEL)
P&DCOnsWtants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
FUTURE WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS -
SEVENTEENTH STREET TO FOURTEENTH STREET (db CNEL)
P&DConsultmts GRAN D AVENUE W! DENING EIR
m Properties Taken
=Mitigation Required
1
14" St.
I
65 70 1 706S 60
" Santa. Ana
Fwy off ramp
I
3 '
\1
ti
i
�. ——...... 100 feet
FUTURE WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS -
FOURTEENTH STREET TO SANTA ANA BOULEVARD (db CNEL)
P&DEZdtants_ GRAND nveNue WIDENING EIR
Properties Takea
T
Stafford StTt.
60 65 70 II I 7 60
I{II o(I�
Fruit St.
.......... X
4>
........... .
100 feet
FUTURE WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS -
SANTA ANA BOULEVARD TO FOURTH STREET NORTH HALF (db CNEL)
To=nstants —GRAND AVENUE ;1'�D"E"Nl�NG EIR
= Properties Takeo
/
ry
r
�
�
70
70 65
60
60' St. .
_
J%
j
/ff
r� f✓i
f
f6 /.
sof
/
Jif
f
f
ll
y
f
n -
-
100 feet
FUTURE WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS -
SANTA ANA BOULEVARD TO FOURTH STREET SOUTH HALF (db CNEL)
INERM 'R1 P&DCOnsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
FUTURE WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS -
FOURTH STREET TO FIRST STREET (db CNEL)
P&DConsultants GRAND AVENUE WIDENING EIR
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
TABLE 3.6-8
NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM ROAD CENTERLINE
AND CHANGES IN NOISE LEVELS IN THE FUTURE
Road Segment
Noise Levels at 50 Feet From the Road Centerline in dB CNEL
Exist ng
2020 Under
2020 Under
Change Due
Change Due
the No
the With
to Growth
to the Project
Project
Project
Alternative
Scenario
On Grand Avenue From
69.5
70.3
70.3
0.8
0.0
Seventeenth Street to
Santa Ana Boulevard.
Santa Ana Boulevard to
70.4
71.2
71.2
0.8
0.0
Fourth Street
Fourth Street to First
70.2
71.0
71.0
0.8
0.0
Street
I-5 at Grand Avenue
84.6
1 86.5
865-1
1.9
0.0
Source: BridgeNet Consulting Services (2001).
Traffic on I-5 is also expected to increase in the future due to normal growth. However, there is
no expected change in projected traffic volumes on I-5 as a result of the proposed Grand Avenue
widening itself. There are existing noise barriers along this segment of I-5 and, therefore, the
projected noise from I-5 is assumed to be mitigated by these noise walls.
The results in Table 3.6-8 also show that there will be no change in noise levels as a result of the
widening alternative along the entire project segment of Grand Avenue. The 2020 with project
noise levels will be the same as under the No Project Alternative, as shown on Table 3.6-8.
As discussed in detail elsewhere in this EIR, the widening of Grand Avenue under Alternative 1
will require the acquisition of some properties directly adjacent to Grand Avenue. The acquisition
of residential units will remove the first row of structures adjacent to Grand Avenue between
Seventeenth Street and Northbound I-5 off -ramp at Grand Avenue, thereby exposing the second
row of residences to increased noise levels associated with traffic on Grand Avenue. The second
row of residences is currently largely screened from traffic noise by the structures, fences and walls
associated with the first row of residences. The removal of the first row of residences homes will
result in an increase of approximately three to five dBA in noise to the second row of dwellings
next to Grand Avenue. In some cases, the 2020 with project traffic noise level at the second row
of homes will exceed the City of Santa Ana exterior noise standard, and rear and side yards of
these unit will require mitigation. Other properties proposed to be acquired by the City include
the first row of single family residences adjacent to Grand Avenue between Santa Ana Boulevard
and First Street. The removal of the first row of residences in this area will result in an increase
of approximately seven to 10 dBA in noise at the second row of residences on this segment of
Grand Avenue. The removal of the first row of homes will result in a significant increase in
noise to the existing second row of homes located nearest to Grand Avenue.
The exterior noise standard for the City of Santa Ana is 65 dB CNEL. Therefore, noise sensitive
land uses subject to traffic noise levels in excess of 65 dB CNEL as a result of the widening of
F.•IPROJ-EWGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-36
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental lmpact Report Section 3.0
Grand Avenue under Alternative 1 will require noise mitigation. As noted above, this includes
residences in the second row of residences from Grand Avenue which are within the 65 dB
CNEL contour for the 2020 with project scenario.
The distances to the 65 dB CNEL noise contour for the 2020 with project scenario under
Alternatives 1 and 2 are shown in Figures 3.6-9 and 3.6-10 and as summarized in Table 3.6-7.
Noise sensitive land uses within these distances of the centerline of Grand Avenue will require
mitigation. As described in the following section, a noise barrier will be necessary to mitigate the
noise impacts in the rear and side yards of residences to reduce traffic related noise levels to below
the City's exterior noise standard of 65 dB CNEL. Mitigation described later in this Section would
substantially mitigate this potentially significant adverse impact under Alternative 1, to below a
level of significance.
Impacts of Alternative 2 Related to Noise
Short Term Construction Impacts Under Alternative 2
Alternative 2 will result in demolition and construction equipment and activities similar to
Alternative 1. Therefore, the short term noise impacts under Alternative 2 will be similar to the
impacts under Alternative 1. Mitigation measure N-1, provided later in this Section, will
substantially reduce short term noise impacts under Alternative 2, but not always to below a level of
significance.
Long Term Noise Impacts Under .Alternative 2
The potential long term traffic related noise impacts associated with the proposed widening of
Grand Avenue under Alternative 2 would be similar to the impacts under Alternative 1. Both
Alternatives assume the same traffic volumes, so the 2020 noise contours would be the same, as
shown earlier in Tables 3.6-6, 3.6-7 and 3.6-8. In addition, the 2020 noise levels for Alternative 2
would be the same as the noise levels under the No Project Alternative. However, the wider right-
of-way for Alternative 2 would result in the acquisition of more residential units, thereby potentially
exposing more second row residences to adverse noise levels which exceed the City of Santa Ana
exterior noise standard.
3.6.5 MITIGATION RELATED TO NOISE
Mitigation Measure for Short Term Noise Impacts
N-1 The project specifications shall require project contractors to implement the following
during all site preparation, grading and construction:
• All site preparation, grading and construction activities shall be limited to between the hours
of 7 AM and 7 PM Mondays through Fridays, and between 8 AM and 6 PM on Saturdays.
No site preparation, grading or construction shall be allowed on Sundays or federal holidays.
F.IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text- Gran&Section 3 SohASection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-37
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
• The operation of construction equipment which generates substantial noise levels or levels
noticeably above general construction noise shall be limited to between the hours of 10 AM
and 4 PM, to the extent feasible.
•
All construction equipment shall be properly muffled, operated consistent with the
manufacturers' specifications and maintained in good working order to reduce equipment
related noise generation.
• Temporary noise barriers shall be installed and used adjacent to sensitive land uses during
periods when the loudest construction activities are occurring.
• All construction activities shall comply with applicable State and local construction noise
regulations.
Analysis of Mitigation for Lona Term Noise hnnacts
Traffic Noise Mitigation. There are a number of strategies for mitigating noise impacts from road
noise sources. The most common measures are
(1) reducing the noise emission levels from the noise source.
(2) blocking the noise transmission paths with a noise barrier.'
(3) shielding the receiver from noise by increasing the noise reduction characteristics of the
building.
These potential noise reduction strategies are described below.
Noise Source Reduction
The control of motor vehicle noise emission levels comes under the jurisdiction of the State of
California and the City of Santa Ana has no authority to make changes related to the noise
emissions from motor vehicles. The only means a local agency such as the City has in
controlling noise levels from motor vehicles are by controlling vehicle speeds and truck traffic.
The City could enact an ordinance restricting heavy trucks (those with three or more axles) from
traveling on the project segment of Grand Avenue in the project area to reduce traffic related
noise levels. However, the elimination of heavy trucks from the Grand Avenue traffic mix
would reduce the 2020 with project noise level by only 0.5 dB, which is insignificant.
Required Noise Barriers
As discussed previously, the City of Santa Ana is proposing to acquire properties adjacent to the
project segment of Grand Avenue to accommodate the proposed widening under Alternatives 1
and 2. The removal of units from the first row of residential dwellings adjacent to Grand Avenue
will subject units in the second row of dwellings to increased noise levels. In some cases, the
increased noise level at the property line of the second row of dwellings will be in excess of the
City's exterior noise standard.
F.- PROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text- Gran&Section 3 Spli4Section 3.6.doc Page 3.6-38
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
Between Seventeenth Street and Santa Ana Boulevard, the second row of dwellings is between
92 and 129 feet from the centerline of Grand Avenue. At these distances, the projected noise
exposure level at these residences for the 2020 with project case will range from 66.3 dB CNEL
to 64.1 dB CNEL. The second row of residences between Santa Ana Boulevard and Fourth Street
is 167 feet from the centerline of Grand Avenue. When the first row of residences is removed,
the second row of dwellings will be exposed to a noise level of 63.2 dB CNEL. The second row
of residences between Fourth and First Streets are between 120 and 169 feet from the centerline
of Grand Avenue. The projected noise level at these lots for the 2020 with project case will
range from 65.2 dB CNEL to 63.0 dB CNEL.
The exterior noise standard for the City of Santa Ana is 65 dB CNEL. Therefore, all noise
sensitive land uses subject to traffic noise levels in excess of 65 dB CNEL as a result of the
widening of Grand Avenue under either Alternative 1 or 2 will require noise barriers. This
includes the second row of residential dwellings located within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour
for the 2020 with project case. The distances to the 65 dB CNEL noise contour for the 2020 with
project case are listed in Table 3.6-9.
TABLE 3.6-9
DISTANCES TO 65 DB CNEL NOISE CONTOUR FOR THE
2020 WITH PROJECT CASE
Grand Avenue
Distance from Centerline
ft.
Seventeenth Street to Santa Ana
Boulevard
112
Santa Ana Boulevard to Fourth Street
127
Fourth Street to First Street
124
Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm or combination
wall/berm) is the most efficient method of reducing traffic noise levels. The effect of a noise
barrier is critically dependent on the geometry between the noise source and the receiver. A
noise barrier effect occurs when the barrier breaks the "line of sight' between the noise source
and the noise sensitive receiver. The greater the distance the sound must travel around the
barrier to reach the receiver, the greater the noise reduction of the barrier. A barrier which does
not break the line -of -sight is not an effective barrier, while one which just interrupts the line -of -
sight achieves a five dBA reduction in noise. The FHWA model was also used in a
computerized format to determine barrier heights in this analysis.
Noise barrier calculations were performed for each of the noise sensitive properties which will be
exposed to an increase in noise due to the removal of an adjacent property under Alternatives 1
and 2. Noise barriers are required for all noise sensitive land uses exposed to noise levels
exceeding 65 dB CNEL. The residential lots requiring noise barriers are listed in bold in Tables
3.6-10 and 3.6-11. The results of the calculations show that a noise barrier, 5.5 feet in height
relative to the residential pad elevation, will be sufficient to reduce the projected noise levels at
each of the exposed noise sensitive land uses for the 2020 with project case, to below the City of
Santa Ana exterior noise standard. This noise barrier height will be sufficient for all exterior
F.•IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-39
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
noise sensitive land uses under both Alternatives 1 and 2. The results of the noise barrier
calculations are presented in Tables 3.6-12, 3.6-13 and 3.6-14 for the impacted residential uses
along the three segments of Grand Avenue
Noise Barrier Design
To be effective in reducing the noise levels, barriers must be continuous structures with no gaps
or gates. The walls must maintain a minimum density of 3.5 pounds per square foot. This may
be achieved with an earth berm, a brick wall or stud construction wall with 7/8" stucco finish,
3/8" plate or laminated glass, 5/8" Plexiglas or a combination of these materials.
Interior Noise
The interior noise standard for new residential construction the City of Santa Ana is 45 dB
CNEL. Most residential dwellings provide 20 dB of exterior -to -interior noise insulation.
Therefore, the property would have to be situated near the new right-of-way to exceed the
interior noise standard. All residential uses that could have been exposed to interior noise levels
in excess of the City's interior noise standard are in areas where the additional right-of-way for
either Alternative 1 or 2 would require a full take of the property. Therefore, no mitigation is
required for meeting the City's interior noise standards.
F: IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - GrandWection 3 SplitlSection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-40
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
TABLE 3.6-10
PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS AT RESIDENTIAL LOTS UNDER ALTERNATIVE I
Location
Action
Exposed Property
Existing
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Future
No
Project
Noise
Level
CNEL
Centerline
Distance to
Grand
Avenue
Projected
*Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Noise
Barrier
Required
1301 15th Street
Full Take
130515th Street
55.4
56.2
93'
66.2
Yes
1302 15th Street
Full Take
130615th Street
55.4
56.2
93'
66.2
Yes
1500 Grand Avenue
Full Take
1501 Eastwood
47.2
48.0
330'
57.9
No
1264 15th Street
Full Take
1258 15th Street
53.3
54.1
129'
64.1
No
1404 Grand Avenue
Full Take
1404 Grand Avenue
49.9 1
50.8
215'
60.7
No
1301 14th Street
Full Take
130514th Street
54.8
55.6
102'
65.6
Yes
1263 14th Street
Full Take
125914th Street
54.6
55.4
105'
65.4
Yes
130214th Street
Empty Lot
130614th Street
64.9
65.8
100'
65.7
Yes
126414th Street
Empty Lot
125814th Street
64.9
65.8
100'
65.7
Yes
1307 Eastwood Avenue
No Take
1307 Eastwood Avenue
50.9
51.7
186'
61.7
No
930 Grand Avenue
No Take
1205 Stafford Street
53.4
54.2
145'
64.1
No
742 Grand Avenue
Full Take
1214 Fruit Street
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
738 Grand Avenue
Full Take
725 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
734 Grand Avenue
Full Take
725 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No,
730 Grand Avenue
Full Take
725 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
718 Grand Avenue
Full Take
725 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
718 Grand Avenue
Full Take
721 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
718 Grand Avenue
Full Take
717 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
714 Grand Avenue
Full Take
715 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
710 Grand Avenue
Full Take
711 Eastwood Avenue
. 52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
710 Grand Avenue
Full Take
709 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
702 Grand Avenue
Full Take
703 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
626 Grand Avenue
Full Take
629 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
624 Grand Avenue
Full Take
622 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3 '
167'
63.2
No
620 Grand Avenue
Full Take
619 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
616 Grand Avenue
Full Take
617 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
612 Grand Avenue
Full Take
615 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
606 Grand Avenue
Full Take
609 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
1211 6th Street
Full Take
715 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
516 Grand Avenue
Full Take
1202 6th Street
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
516 Grand Avenue
Full Take
519 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
516 Grand Avenue
Full Take
517 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
510 Grand Avenue
Full Take
515 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
508 Grand Avenue
Full Take
511 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
502 Grand Avenue
Full Take
507 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
424 Grand Avenue
Full Take
501 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
420 Grand Avenue
Full Take
419 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
416 Grand Avenue
FullTake
411 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
1302 4th Street
Full Take
1314 4th Street
52.2
53.0
169'
63.0
No
309 Grand Avenue
No Take
1313 3rd Street
52.2
53.0
169'
63.0
No
303 Grand Avenue
No Take
1313 3rd Street
52.2
53.0
169'
63.0
No
* Future With Project Case Bold = Residential Lots which Require Noise Mitigation
F: IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.6 doe Page 3.6-41
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
TABLE 3.6-11
PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS AT RESIDENTIAL LOTS UNDER ALTERNATIVE 2
Location
-
Action
Exposed Property
Existing
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Future
No
Project
Noise
Level
CNEL
Distance to
Grand
Avenue
Centerline
Projected
*Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Noise
Barrier
Required
1301 15th Street
Full Take
130515th Street
55.4
56.2
93'
66.2
Yes
130215th Street
Full Take
130615th Street
55.4
56.2
93'
66.2
Yes
1500 Grand Avenue
Full Take
1501 Eastwood
47.2
48.0
330'
1 57.9
No
1264 15th Street
Full Take
125815th Street
53.3
54.1
129'
64.1
No
1404 Grand Avenue
Full Take
1404 Grand Avenue
49.9
50.8
215'
60.7
No
1301 14th Street
Full Take
130514th Street
54.8
55.6
102'
65.6
Yes
1263 14th Street
Full Take
125914th Street
54.6
55.4
105'
65.4
Yes
1302 14th Street
Empty Lot
130614th Street
64.9
65.7
100'
65.7
Yes
1264 14th Street
Empty Lot
125814th Street
64.9
65.7
100'
65.7
Yes
1307 Eastwood Avenue
No Take
1307 Eastwood Avenue
50.9
51.7
186'
61.7
No
930 Grand Avenue
No Take
1205 Stafford Street
53.4
54.2
145'
64.1
No
742 Grand Avenue
Full Take
1214 Fruit Street
52.5
53.3
167'
1 63.2
No
738 Grand Avenue
FullTake
725 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
734 Grand Avenue
Full Take
725 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
730 Grand Avenue
Full Take
725 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
718 Grand Avenue
Full Take
725 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
718 Grand Avenue
Full Take
721 Eastwood Avenue
52,5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
718 Grand Avenue
Full Take
717 Eastwood Avenue
52,5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
714 Grand Avenue
Full Take
715 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
710 Grand Avenue
Full Take
711 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
710 Grand Avenue
Full Take
709 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
1 167'
63.2
No
702 Grand Avenue
Full Take
703 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
626 Grand Avenue
Full Take
629 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
624 Grand Avenue
Full Take
622 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
620 Grand Avenue
Full Take
619 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
616 Grand Avenue
Full Take
617 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
612 Grand Avenue
Full Take
615 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
606 Grand Avenue
Full Take
609 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
1 63.2
No
1211 6th Street
Full Take
715 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
516 Grand Avenue
Full Take
1202 6th Street
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
516 Grand Avenue
Full Take
519 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
516 Grand Avenue
Full Take
517 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
510 Grand Avenue
Full Take
515 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
508 Grand Avenue
Full Take
511 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
502 Grand Avenue
Full Take
507 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
424 Grand Avenue
Full Take
501 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
420 Grand Avenue
Full Take
419 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
416 Grand Avenue
Full Take
411 Eastwood Avenue
52.5
53.3
167'
63.2
No
1302 4th Street
Full Take
1314 4th Street
52.2
53.0
169'
63.0
No
309 Grand Avenue
No Take
1313 3rd Street
52.2
53.0
169'
63.0
No
303 Grand Avenue
No Take
1313 3rd Street
52.2
53.0
169'
63.0
No
* Future With Project Case Bold = Residential Lots which Require Noise Mitigation
F: IPROJ-ENRGrand eirlNew Text - Gran&Section 3 SplitlSection 3.6doc Page 3.6-42
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
TABLE 3.6-12
NOISE BARRIER CALCULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON GRAND AVENUE BETWEEN
SEVENTEENTH STREET AND SANTA ANA BOULEVARD
Location of Exposed
Residential Property
Road
Elevation
(ft.)
Centerline
of Grand
Avenue to
Wall (ft.)
Base
of
Wall
(ft.)
Centerline of
Grand
Avenue to
Observer
(fw
Pad
Elevation
(it)
Observer
Height
(ft.)
Wall
Height
(ft)
Noise Level
Unmitigated
(CNEL)
Noise
Level
Mitigated
(CNEL)
U -05 -1 -5 -6 -Street
110
93
110
98
110
5
5.5
66.2
60.5
1306 15Street
110
93
110
98
110
5
5.5
66.2
60.5
1258 15 Street
110
129
110
134
110
5
5.5
64.1
58.6
1404 Grand Avenue
110
215
110
220
110
5
5.5
60.7
55.4
1305 le Street 1
110
102
1 110
1 107
110
1 5
1 5.5
65.6
1 60.0
125914 Street '
110
105
110
110
110
5
5.5
65.4
59.8
130614 Street
110
100
110
105
110
5
5.5
65.7
60.1
1258 14 Street
110
100
110
105
110
5
5.5
65.7
60.1
1307 FAstwood Avenue
110
186
110
191
110
5
5.5
61.7
56.3
TABLE 3.6-13
NOISE BARRIER CALCULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON GRAND AVENUE
BETWEEN SANTA ANA BOULEVARD AND FOURTH STREET
Location of Exposed
Residential Property
Road
Elevation
(ft)
Centerline
of Grand
Avenue to
Wan (ft)
Base
of
Wall
(ft)
Centerline of
Grand
Avenue to
Observer
(ft
Pad
Elevation
(ft)
Observer
Height
(ft.)
Wall
Height
00
Noise Level
Unmitigated
(CNEL)
Noise
Level
Mitigated
(CNEL)
1205 Stafford Street
110
145
110
150
110
5
5.5
64.1
58.7
1215 Fruit Street
110
208
110
213
110
5
5.5
61.8
56.5
1214 Fruit Street
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
725 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
725 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
1 110
172
110
1 5
5.5
1 63.2
'57.8
725 Eastwood Avenue
1 110
167
110
t72
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
725 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
721 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
717 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
715 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
711 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
110
'172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
709 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
703 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
629 Fastwood Avenue
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
622 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
1 63.2
57.8
619 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
617 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
615 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
609 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
I10
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
715 Fastwood Avenue
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
1202 6 Street
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
519 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
517 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
515 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
511 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
110
1 172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
507 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
501 Eastwood Avenue
110.
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
419 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
411 Eastwood Avenue
110
167
110
172
110
5
5.5
63.2
57.8
F.•IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 3 SpIMSection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-43
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
TABLE 3.6-14
NOISE BARRIER CALCULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON GRAND AVENUE
BETWEEN FOURTH AND FIRST STREETS
Mitigation Measure for Long Term Noise Impacts
N-2 The City of Santa shall incorporate 5.5 foot high noise barrier walls as specified in the noise
technical report in the design of the selected alternative for the widening of Grand Avenue,
based on the potentially impacted properties listed in Tables 3.6-10 (Alternative 1) and 3.6-
11 (Alternative 2) in this EIR. These noise barriers shall be shown in the project
specifications and shall be constructed concurrently with the construction of the widening on
Grand Avenue.
3.6.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION RELATED TO NOISE
The potential short term noise impacts associated with construction of Alternatives 1 and 2 would
be substantially mitigated based on implementation of mitigation measure N-1, above. However,
the anticipated noise levels of construction equipment cannot be mitigated to below a level of
significance, because of the proximity of the proposed widening project to adjacent noise sensitive
land uses. Therefore, in the short term, the construction of the proposed Grand Avenue widening
under Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in significant adverse noise impacts which would be
substantially mitigated, but which cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance.
The long term noise impacts of the proposed Grand Avenue widening under Alternatives 1 and 2
will result in adverse noise impacts on sensitive land uses adjacent to Grand Avenue.
Implementation of mitigation measure N-2 above will substantially reduce these noise impacts, to
within City standards and, therefore, to below a level of significance.
F.IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - GranWection 3 SplitlSection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-44
Road
Centerline
Base
Centerline of
Pad
Observer Wall
Noise Level
Noise
Location of Exposed
Elevation
of Grand
of
Grand
Elevation
Height Height
unmitigated
Level
Residential Property
00
Avenue to
wag
Avenue to
(fL)
(ft) (fL)
(CNEL)
Mitigated
Wall (ft.)
(ft)
Observer
(CNEL)
(ft.
1314 4 Street
110
169
110
174
110
5 5.5
63.0
57.6
1313 3 Street
110
169
110
174
110
5 5.5
63.0
57.6
1313 3 Street
110
169
110
174
110
5 5.5
63.0
57.6
Mitigation Measure for Long Term Noise Impacts
N-2 The City of Santa shall incorporate 5.5 foot high noise barrier walls as specified in the noise
technical report in the design of the selected alternative for the widening of Grand Avenue,
based on the potentially impacted properties listed in Tables 3.6-10 (Alternative 1) and 3.6-
11 (Alternative 2) in this EIR. These noise barriers shall be shown in the project
specifications and shall be constructed concurrently with the construction of the widening on
Grand Avenue.
3.6.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION RELATED TO NOISE
The potential short term noise impacts associated with construction of Alternatives 1 and 2 would
be substantially mitigated based on implementation of mitigation measure N-1, above. However,
the anticipated noise levels of construction equipment cannot be mitigated to below a level of
significance, because of the proximity of the proposed widening project to adjacent noise sensitive
land uses. Therefore, in the short term, the construction of the proposed Grand Avenue widening
under Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in significant adverse noise impacts which would be
substantially mitigated, but which cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance.
The long term noise impacts of the proposed Grand Avenue widening under Alternatives 1 and 2
will result in adverse noise impacts on sensitive land uses adjacent to Grand Avenue.
Implementation of mitigation measure N-2 above will substantially reduce these noise impacts, to
within City standards and, therefore, to below a level of significance.
F.IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - GranWection 3 SplitlSection 3.6.doc Page 3.6-44
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Based on the findings of the IS, the proposed Grand Avenue widening may or would result in
potentially significant adverse impacts on cultural resources, specifically related to impacts on
archeological resources, historic resources, and existing religious and sacred uses. The analysis of
the potential impacts of the proposed Grand Avenue widening related to cultural resources is
documented in the Cultural Resource Assessment for Grand Avenue Widening Project, City of
Santa Ana, Orange County (Discovery Works, Inc., April 2001). In addition, in December 2001,
the City conducted additional analyses for two structures at 702 North Grand Avenue and at 714
North Grand Avenue. These additional analyses are also provided in Appendix H. The findings
of the cultural resources assessment are summarized in this Section. The complete technical report
is included in Appendix H of this EIR.
3.7.1 EXISTING SETTING RELATED TO CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural Resources Background for the Grand Avenue Area
Prehistoric Setting
The project segment of Grand Avenue is in the floodplain east of the Santa Ana River and south of
Santiago Creek, an area subject to seasonal floods which in the past created swamps and sloughs.
Prehistorically, the environmental conditions would have been much the same as today. While this
floodplain would have provided abundant food and tool making resources, and undoubtedly served
as a procurement area for regional prehistoric populations, it is an unlikely location for long term or
village -type settlement. Most documented prehistoric sites in Orange County that represent long
term occupation and possible villages are on mesas around coastal bays and estuaries or on knolls
above the floodplain. The archival research conducted for the Grand Avenue project identified
several documented prehistoric sites on the bluffs overlooking the River. These locations were
favored because they are more secure and less subject to periodic flooding.
Some archaeological sites within several miles of the Grand Avenue project area date to the earliest
identified prehistoric traditions, termed either the Early Man Horizon or the San Dieguito Tradition.
The earliest local cultural tradition is a late San Dieguito component at the Irvine Site (CA -ORA -
64) on the bluffs above Middle Newport Bay. The San Dieguito/Early Man traditions are followed
by cultures termed either Milling Stone Horizon or Encinitas Tradition. Prehistoric sites
representing this time period (after 5500 B.C.) typically yield large numbers of metates and manos
(milling stones) as well as unique artifacts of unknown use, called discoidals and cogged stones.
There are a number of Milling Stone Horizon sites in Orange County. One site, CA -ORA -83,
known as the Cogged Stone Site, is on the Bolsa Chica Mesa on the north side of Bolsa Chica Bay
and the wetlands. Cogged stones are also recorded for CA -ORA -145 and CA -ORA -163, which are
well south of the Grand Avenue project area.
By 3000 B.C., coastal populations begin exhibiting greater reliance on marine resources. Along the
coast, deep sea fishing began in earnest and circular fishhooks and perforated stones, possibly
associated with larger nets, appear. Inland and in the San Joaquin Hills canyons, acorn processing
technology appears. The Intermediate Horizon is followed by the Late Prehistoric Horizon or
FIPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.7.doc Page 3.7-1
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
Shoshonean Tradition, beginning around A.D. 500. Among the recognized archaeological changes
is the presence of arrowheads, soapstone bowls, callus shell beads, steatite effigies and cremations.
These innovations have been linked to the arrival of Shoshonean peoples in the area. By A.D. 1000,
smoking pipes and Tizon brownware pottery also appear. This late prehistoric period ends abruptly
when Spanish colonists begin establishing missions along the coast. Disease and forced mission
labor greatly reduced native populations and destroyed most traditional cultural life styles. The
diaries and records kept by early Spanish missionaries, soldiers and explorers provide much of our
knowledge about the native inhabitants in the area at the time of European contact.
Ethnographically, the Grand Avenue project area is within the territorial boundaries of the
Gabrielino Indians. The Gabrielinos were Shoshonean, Takic,language speakers, who resided in the
Los Angeles Basin and adjacent north Orange County. Their name derives from their association
with Mission San Gabriel Archangel. Spanish accounts and historic interviews indicate the
Gabrielino were intensive hunter -gatherers who used both inland and coastal resources. The
Gabrielino lived in either permanent or semi-permanent villages on coastal estuaries or along major
inland watercourses. These villages were the focus of family life, with each individual group linked
to others by paternal kinship.
Historic Setting
The area that later became the City of Santa Ana was originally mission lands and then parts of
large land grants given to Spanish explorers and settlers by the King of Spain. When Mexico won
independence from Spain in 1821, and the missions were secularized, the large grants were broken
into smaller ranchos resulting in title and boundary disputes, and sales, inheritance and financial
difficulties. The 1848 gold rush brought an influx of people from other parts of the United States
and the world to California. California was viewed as a land of promise and opportunity. Conflicts
for land and political upheaval between Mexico and the United States ultimately led to California's
independence from Mexico and statehood admission in 1850.
In the 1860s, periods of successive drought and floods destroyed cattle and crops and led to the
breaking up of the large ranchos into smaller blocks of land. The disastrous events of the 1860s set
the stage for the development of smaller agricultural enterprises. Small settlements were established
to serve the farms and ranches on the fertile soil of the Santa Ana River floodplain. Gradually,
commerce developed in favorable central locations. These centers provided limited but vaned
services to meet local settlers' needs. Developers began to lay out subdivided blocks for towns and
advertised the beauty and opportunity found in this area. In the 1870s and 1880s, there was a land
boom in southern California, and the settlements of Anaheim, Santa Ana and Orange began to grow
and develop. William Spurgeon, the founder of Santa Ana, purchased the land from Jacob Ross in
1869 and started his town on 74 acres. By 1886, Santa Ana had incorporated with 2,000 residents
and covered the area from First Street on the south side to West Street (now Broadway) on the west,
Seventh Street on the north and Spurgeon Street on the east. The Grand Avenue project area is east
of the original townsite.
With the formation of Orange County in 1889 and with Santa Ana chosen as the County seat,
government agencies brought new administrative activity, development and more residents to the
City. The County courthouse, completed in 1901, became the new center for County and City
F: PROJ-ENNGrand eirWew Text - Grand;Section 3 Split&ction 3.7.doc Page 3.7-2
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
activity. The City soon had a Carnegie Library at Fifth and Sycamore Streets and a high school by
1915 that also offered junior college classes. Later, Santa Ana College had its own campus on
North Main Street and by 1946 built an expanded campus on Seventeenth Street between Bristol
and College Avenues.
Between 1906 and 1940, Santa Ana was affected by a number of major events. The Panama Canal
and transcontinental railroads awakened west coast trade and commerce; the oil industry was
developing in southern California; and automobiles and utility networks were beginning to change
the rural character of Santa Ana. The Santa Fe Railroad lines laid in 1888 linked Santa Ana to Los
Angeles and the coast. Pacific Electric lines operated on Fourth Street by 1906 and brought
commerce and new residents to the City.
Following World War I, another building boom began in Orange County and growth intensified.
Men returning from the War settled in new places that offered opportunities for them to provide for
their families. New tracts were planned and developed, where houses could be built close to town.
From about 1915 through the 1920s, the favored architectural style was the California or Craftsman
bungalow. A typical bungalow is wood -sided with an extended front porch supported by columns.
This open and functional plan lends itself to variations in size and detail to suit individual tastes. A
number of examples of this style typify the residential development in Santa Ana during this period.
A few structures in the Grand Avenue project area date to this period. Agriculturally, oranges,
beans, poultry, eggs and truck farming continued to flourish in the area and become more important
as World War H approached and the demand for supplies increased.
After World War 11, another building surge occurred in southern California, especially in Orange
County. The boom of tract house development and bedroom communities became a fact of life. In
the City of Santa Ana, several tracts were laid out beyond the City's original boundaries and several
lots on Grand Avenue were subdivided and houses built following World War 11. By the 1950s,
stores and other businesses were also established on Grand Avenue. The City of Santa Ana, a
center of commerce and government for Orange County, continues these trends to the present.
Cultural Resources in the Grand Avenue Project Area
Archeological Resources
The records review indicated no archaeological or historical survey has been conducted for this
segment of Grand Avenue, except for the segment that crosses under I-5. In 1982, an
archaeological and historical survey of 1-5 from Interstate 405 in Orange County to Interstate 605 in
Los Angeles County was conducted. The 1982 survey found no archaeological or historical
resources at the interchange of Grand Avenue and 1-5. Several archaeological surveys conducted
within two kilometers of the project segment of Grand Avenue recorded several potential historic
buildings or structures and historic sites, but no prehistoric sites.
The records review also indicated that no known prehistoric sites are documented for the Grand
Avenue project area or within a two kilometer radius of this area.
F:IPROJ-ENPIGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 3 Sp1it&ction 3.7.doc Page 3.7-3
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
The field survey for archaeological remains found no indications of prehistoric use of the project
area. There are very few existing open spaces on Grand Avenue between First and Seventeenth
Streets. Landscaping and paved parking lots generally cover the ground where there are no
buildings.
In summary, no previously documented archeological resources are known in the Grand Avenue
project area. However, it is possible that buried, currently unknown resources are present under
existing pavement and structures in the Grand Avenue project area.
Historic Resources
The closest recorded historical archaeological sites, CA -ORA -1030H and CA -ORA -1031H, are 1.5
miles west of the Grand Avenue area, near the Santa Ana Civic Center. No previously recorded
National Register, State Register or local landmarks are identified within the Grand Avenue project
area. The closest National Register building is the Pacific Electric Substation No. 14, 1,500 feet
west of Grand Avenue, on Fifth Street.
The historic map review indicates that the Grand Avenue project area includes the peripheral and
east part of the City of Santa Ana. 1896 and 1901 maps show Grand Avenue extending straight
north from Warner Avenue to Fourth Street. At Fourth Street, Grand Avenue continued north,
however the road alignment on the north side started about 500 feet to the west and then extended
straight to existing Seventeenth Street. After 1942 and before 1981, Grand Avenue was realigned
south of First Street in Santa Ana to pass diagonally to connect at First Street and to match the road
alignment north of Fourth Street. After World War II, the City of Santa Ana changed rapidly and
the 1942 United State Geological Survey (USGS) Anaheim map shows this increased development.
In November 1997, the City of Santa Ana passed Resolution 97-046A that provided a revised list of
the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties. In December 1997, the City Council passed
Ordinance No. NS -2338 that outlined the steps for designating structures to the City of Santa Ana
Register of Historic Properties. The 1997 Register of Historic Properties did not list any structures
along the project segment of Grand Avenue. Previously, the City of Santa Ana had prepared
listings of pre -1940 houses within the City boundaries. That list indicated only two structures on
Grand Avenue that dated prior to the 1940s, a 1880s structure at 902 North Grand Avenue, within
the project area, and a 1910 structure at 614 South Grand Avenue, outside the project area. The
field survey revealed that a multifamily structure was built in 1986 on the site where the Assessor's
records listed an 1880s residence.
Review of construction dates in the Assessor's records indicated that 26 structures that date 50 years
or older are located along Grand Avenue between First and Seventeenth Streets, as summarized in
Table 3.7-1. The historic resources survey reviewed the 26 potentially significant residences
identified as 50 years or older from the Assessor's records. The Primary Form (DPR 52313) for
these structures were completed. Only three of these residences required additional research to
evaluate their significance. In addition, in December 2001, the City conducted additional analyses
for two structures at 702 North Grand Avenue and at 714 North Grand Avenue. These additional
analyses are also provided in Appendix H. The remaining residences and commercial structures
along the Grand Avenue alignment were determined not to be potentially significant as historic
F.- PROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - Gran&Section 3 Spli6Section 3.7.doc Page 3.7-4
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
resources. Based on the field inspection of these properties, none appear to be eligible for listing as
historic resources under federal, state or local programs. Most of these properties are 1930s and
1940s tract houses which are not architecturally significant and lack physical integrity. Collectively,
these individual properties do not comprise an historic district. As such, these properties do not
meet the threshold of significance for historic resources pursuant to CEQA. Primary Records were
prepared for these properties, and no additional evaluation or documentation is required. The
completed Primary Forms and the updated December 2001 forms for 702 and 714 North Grand
Avenue are provided in Appendix H of this EIR.
TABLE 3.7-1
POTENTIALLY HISTORIC STRUCTURES ON GRANDAVENUE
BETWEEN FIRST AND SEVENTEENTH STREETS
Address
Construction Date
Parcel Number
401 N. Grand
1954
398-391-22
415 N. Grand
1955
398-391-21
420 N. Grand
1947
398-383-10
424 N. Grand
1946
398-383-11
501 N. Grand
1953/54
398-383-12
502 N. Grand
1945
398-383-12
504 N. Grand
1952
398-383-12
508 N. Grand
1946
398-372-03
510 N. Grand
1946
398-372-02
516 N. Grand
1939
398-372-01
616 N. Gland
1948
398-371-12
616 %:N. Grand
1948
398-371-12
620A N. Grand
1944
398-371-I1
624 N. Grand
1944
398-371-10
626 N. Grand
1947
398-371-09
702 N. Grand
1925
398-371-08
706-710 N. Grand
1953
398-371-07
714 N. Grand
1927
398-371-06
730 N. Grand
1937
398-371-04
734 N. Grand
1937
398-371-03
738 N. Grand
1948
398-371-02
742 N. Grand
1910
398-371-01
1263 E.14
1955
398-083-10
1301 E. 14m
1952
400-232-15
1301 E.15
1952
400-231-03
1302 E. 15m
1952
400-232-14
FAPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text- Gran&Section 3 SpIMSection 3.7.doc Page 3.7-5
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
The residences requiring additional research were the residences at 742 North Grand Avenue, 714
North Grand Avenue and 702 North Grand Avenue. Additional research was conducted for these
three potentially significant structures identified during the field survey. The City of Santa Ana
pulled the original building permits for these properties. The dates of construction for those
buildings, as shown on the building permits, were later than those provided by the Assessor's
records. Sanborn Maps at the Los Angeles Central Library were also researched regarding these
three structures. The Library has two sets of maps for Santa Ana, 1905 and 1906 with revisions
through 1952. The earlier map included only one block of Grand Avenue, probably indicating that
there were only a few buildings in the area. This additional research provided more detailed
information for these three residences.
The County Assessor's records for 702 North Grand Avenue indicate this building was constructed
in 1915, but the architectural style of the building suggests otherwise. The English Revival style of
the building did not become popular until well after World War I. Additional research was needed
to confirm the date of construction and original use of this building. Based on the additional
research, it appears the structure at 702 North Grand Avenue was constructed in 1925. The building
permit and the Sanborn Map indicate it was designed as a residence for a Doctor D. Jones, Jr. It is
a modest example of the English Revival style and is substantially intact. This building is not
eligible for listing in the National Register or under a landmark ordinance because it is not special or
unique. This building is eligible for special consideration in local planning because it is intact,
greater than fifty years old and displays some architectural characteristics. It appears to be eligible
for listing in the Santa Ana Register of Historical Property because it embodies the
distinguishing characteristics of an architectural building period associated with a specific period
of development, is a nicely detailed example of a modest sized English Revival home,
contributes to the overall character and history of Santa Ana, and has not been substantially
altered.
The 1919 date of construction for the structure at 714 North Grand Avenue seemed early given the
architectural style of the building. The Spanish Colonial Revival style residence is typical of 1920s
housing tracts. The estimated date of construction for this structure, based on the updated
December 2001research, is 1927. It is a nice example of a Mission/Spanish Colonial Revival style
residence, except it lacks the typical clay tile roof commonly found in 1920s housing tracts. This
building is not eligible for listing in the National Register or under a landmark ordinance because it
is not special or unique. This building is eligible for special consideration in local planning because
it is intact, greater than fifty years old and displays some architectural characteristics.
According to the Assessor's records, 742 North Grand Avenue was constructed in 1910, making it
one of the older houses in the neighborhood. Certain aspects of the structure, in particular the
massing and pitch of the roof, are inconsistent with the architecture of the turn -of -the -century.
Additional research was conducted to document the physical integrity of the building and to
determine its historic significance, if any. Building permits indicate that the structure at 742 North
Grand Avenue was moved from 510 East First Street to its current location and remodeled in 1945.
It may very well have been constructed in 1910, but it lacks the integrity to be eligible for listing in
the National Register or under the local landmark ordinance. Moved buildings are automatically
ineligible for listing in the National Register unless they meet the criteria for special consideration.
F: WROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - GranMection 3 SplihSection 3.7.doc Page 3.7-6
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
3.7.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE RELATED TO CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed Grand Avenue Widening will be considered to have a significant impact on
cultural resources if it:
Disrupts or adversely affects a prehistoric or historic archaeological site or a property of
historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group.
2. Conflicts with established recreational, educational, religious or scientific uses of the area.
3. If the cultural resource potential is medium to high, the impact is considered potentially
significant.
4. Involve the demolition of an historic structure listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
5. Involves the demolition of an historic building which has been officially listed by the City of
Santa Ana as a contributing structure to an historic structure.
6. A project, including the alteration or rehabilitation of an historic structure or area, which has
been identified as significant by the criteria identified above, to a level that destroys the
historical significance of such an historic property or area or does not maintain the
architecture and identify of a property or area, is considered to have a significant impact.
Is adjacent to or touching a historically significant structure or area may cause a significant
impact on the historical property. This may include, but is not limited to activities such as
heavy construction adjacent to an historic building which may weaken the structure, new
development adjacent to an historic structure which diminishes the integrity and identity of
the historically significant structure or area, etc.
These thresholds of significance are consistent with the determination of significance process for
historical resources based on the National Register of Historic Resources, the California Register
and the City of Santa Ana Register of Historic Property.
3.7.3 METHODOLOGY RELATED TO CULTURAL
Archival Research and Record Search
An archival review and record search were conducted at the South Central Coastal Information
Center (SCC), at the Fowler Museum, University of California, Los Angeles, on April 9, 1997 and
were updated on September 29, 1998. The archival review and record research were updated again
on February 26, 2001 at the SCC at California State University, Fullerton. The SCC is the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) designated archive for historic and prehistoric site records,
inventory listings and reports for Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura Counties. Historic maps for
Orange County were also reviewed at the SCC. Sources reviewed for the proposed Grand Avenue
widening included:
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.7.doc Page 3.7-7
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
• ' Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File (1/15/97, 7/31/98 and 2/14/01)
including the National Register of Historic Places (1995).
• California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI).
• California Historical Landmarks (1990).
• California Points of Historical Interest (1992).
• Five Views, An Ethnic Sites Survey for California (1988).
• Historic maps reviewed included:
1896 - USGS Anaheim Quadrangle, 1:62,500
1901- USGS Santa Ana Quadrangle, 1:62,500
1902 - USGS Corona Quadrangle, 1:125,000
1942 - USGS Anaheim Quadrangle, 1:62,500
Archaeological and Historical Field Survevs
A field survey for archaeological and historic resources was conducted. The archival research
showed there is potential for significant historic structures in the project area. The archaeological
field survey was conducted on December 23, 1998, and the historical survey was conducted on
January 11, 1999. The archaeological and historical field surveys were limited to the direct area of
potential impact, along either side of Grand Avenue. This area extended from the existing right-of-
way limits to the proposed right-of-way limits for Alternatives I and 2. The historical survey
reviewed any structure that dated to 50 years or older and was identified as a fall take under
Alternatives 1 and/or 2.
The archaeological survey specifically reviewed:
• All undeveloped, open areas adjacent to Grand Avenue between First and Seventeenth Avenues.
Land uses adjacent to the alignment of the project segment of Grand Avenue, to identify any
structures 50 years or older in addition to those structures identified by the review of the County
Assessor's records.
• Past construction and development along the project segment of Grand Avenue.
During the archaeological survey, open areas, road cuts and any visible subsurface disturbance were
examined for any indication of prehistoric activity. Indicators of prehistoric activity include
artifacts, features, shell, charcoal, bone and dark discolored soil resulting from decomposing organic
material and charcoal. These remains would indicate dietary, stone tool manufacturing or
processing activities for prehistoric people. To assess the potential for intact buried remains, the
archaeological survey included a review of land uses along the project segment of Grand Avenue.
F: IPROJ-EW Grand eirlNew Text- GrandlSection 3 Sp1itlSection 3.7.doc Page 3.7-8
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
This review helped determine possible past levels of disturbance such as earlier sewer lines and
water lines on this alignment.
Assessor's Records
Construction dates for those structures identified on the widening plans for Alternatives 1 and 2 as
full takes were reviewed to assess if any structures that date 50 years or older or pre -1950 would be
affected by the proposed project. These records are housed at the County Assessor's office in Santa
Ana.
3.7.4 IMPACTS RELATED TO CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impacts of Alternative 1 Related to Cultural Resources
Impacts of Alternative 1 Related to Archeological Resources
There are no documented archeological resources in the Grand Avenue project limits under
Alternative 1. Therefore, Alternative 1 will not result in adverse impacts on any documented
archeological resources. No mitigation is required.
The construction of Alternative 1 could result in adverse impacts on previously unknown buried
archeological resources. These impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance based on
implementation of measures CR -1 to CR -6, described later in this section.
Impacts of Alternative 1 Related to Historic Resources
As discussed earlier, there are no important significant historic resources as defined by the
thresholds of significance within or adjacent to the project limits for Alternative 1. Therefore,
Alternative 1 will not result in adverse impacts on significant historic resources as defined under the
thresholds.
However, as discussed earlier, the updated analyses conducted in December 2001 indicate that
the residences at 702 and 714 North Grand Avenue appear to be eligible for listing in the Santa
Ana Register of Historical Property. Although not defined as such in the thresholds provided
earlier, properties on and eligible for listing on the Santa Ana Register are considered significant
and important resources in the City. Therefore, the removal of these structures as a result of
Alternative 1 would be a significant adverse impact of the proposed Grand Avenue widening.
Mitigation measure CR -7 is provided later to address the impact of Alternative 1 on these
structures.
The construction of Alternative 1 could result in adverse impacts on previously unknown buried
historical resources. These impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance based on
implementation of measures CR -1 to CR -6, described later in this section.
F.•IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.7.doc Page 3.7-9
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
Impacts of Alternative 2 Related to Cultural Resources
Impacts of Alternative 2 Related to Archeological Resources
There are no documented archeological resources in the Grand Avenue project limits under
Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 2 will not result in adverse impacts on any documented
archeological resources. No mitigation is required.
The construction of Alternative 2 could result in adverse impacts on previously unknown buried
archeological resources. These impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance based on
implementation of measures CR -1 to CR -6, described later in this section.
Impacts of Alternative 2 Related to Historic Resources
As discussed earlier, there are no important significant historic resources as defined under the
thresholds of significance within or adjacent to the project limits for Alternative 2. Therefore,
Alternative 2 will not result in adverse impacts on historic resources as defined under the thresholds.
However, as discussed earlier, the updated analyses conducted in December 2001 indicate that
the residences at 702 and 714 North Grand Avenue appear to be eligible for listing in the Santa
Ana Register of Historical Property. Although not defined as such in the thresholds provided
earlier, properties on and eligible for listing on the Santa Ana Register are considered significant
and important resources in the City. Therefore, the removal of these structures as a result of
Alternative 2 would be a significant adverse impact of the proposed Grand Avenue widening.
Mitigation measure CR -7 is provided later to address the impact of Alternative 2 on these
structures.
The construction of Alternative 2 could result in adverse impacts on previously unknown buried
historical resources. These impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance based on
implementation of measures CR -1 to CR -6, described later in this section.
3.7.5 MITIGATION RELATED TO CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following mitigation measures are recommended during construction of the proposed Grand
Avenue widening, under Alternatives 1 and 2, to reduce potential impacts on cultural resources:
CR -1 The project specifications shall require the project contractor to have an Orange County
Certified Archaeologist present at the pre -grading meeting to discuss cultural resources
monitoring, artifact collecting and safety procedures. At that meeting, the archaeologist will
review the construction plans and schedule.
CR -2 The project specifications shall require the project contractor to retain an Orange County
Certified Archaeologist to conduct part-time monitoring during grading activities to observe
and retrieve any buried artifacts that may be uncovered.
F9PRG✓-ENVI Grand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 3 SolMSection 3.7.doc Page 3.7-10
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
CR -3 The project specifications shall indicate that, if human remains are found during site
preparation, grading or excavation, the Native American Graves Protection Act Guidelines
and State law require that construction personnel:
Initnediately halt work in the immediate area.
Leave the remains in place.
Contact the City of Santa Ana Project Manager and the Orange County Coroner.
Until a representative of the Coroner's office reviews the remains in the field, they must not
be removed. If the Coroner determines the remains are prehistoric, the Coroner will contact
the Native American Heritage Commission and the most likely descendent from the Native
American community will be informed. The final deposition of the remains must be
coordinated between representatives of the property owner and the most likely descendent.
CR -4 The project specifications shall indicate that if prehistoric artifacts or buried deposits are
uncovered during grading, the Orange County Certified Archaeologist shall temporarily halt
construction activities in the immediate area until the Archaeologist can evaluate the
significance of the find. Implementation of a recovery program would follow, if the remains
are determined to be potentially eligible for the California Register.
CR -5 At the conclusion of the cultural resources monitoring, the recovered artifacts shall be
properly collected with photographs, field notes and locations plotted on a USGS 7.5'
topographic quadrangle. Artifacts will be identified, catalogued and stabilized for curation.
Recovered artifacts shall be offered, on a first right -of -refusal basis, to a repository with a
retrievable collection system and an educational and research interest in the materials. For
example, the Anthropology Museum at California State University, Fullerton would be an
appropriate repository to receive any artifacts collected in the Grand Avenue project area.
CR -6 At the conclusion of the cultural resources monitoring, a final monitoring report, including
an itemized inventory of collected artifacts and pertinent field data, shall be prepared and
sent to the City of Santa Ana. Copies of this report will also be sent to the South Central
Coastal Information Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.
CR -7 During final design, the City will refine the design of the selected alterative to avoid
acquisition of the residential structures at 702 and 714 North Grand Avenue, if feasible.
hi the event that the design of the selected alternative cannot avoid the acquisition of
these properties, the City shall offer the residences for sale and relocation to another
parcel. If relocation is not feasible, the City shall prepare photo and text documentation
of these structures prior to removal of the structures, in a report consistent with Historic
American Buildings Survey (NABS) standards. That report shall document the
significance and physical condition of the buildings proposed for demolition with
photographs, written data and text, as follows:
A. A brief written historic and descriptive report in narrative format, including an
architectural data form.
F.1PR0J-ENMGrand eirWew Text- GrandWection 3 Split&ction 3.7doc Page 3.7-11
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0
B. A site plan on 8" x I V paper shows the location of the building. This site plan shall
include a photo -key.
C. A sketch floor plan on 8" x 11" paper shall accompany each architectural data form.
D. Large format (4" x 5" or larger negative size) photographs in accordance with the
HABS guidelines. Views shall include several contextual views, all exterior
elevations, detailed views of significant exterior architectural features and interior
views of significant historical architectural features or spaces (if any).
E. Field photographs (35mm) based on the HABS guidelines. Views as detailed in large
format photographs.
F. The report shall include copies or prints of any available original plans and historic
photographs.
G. Archivally stable reproductions of any available significant historic construction
drawings and photgraphs.
H. Archival copies of the documentation shall be submitted to the City of Santa Ana.
3.7.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION RELATED TO CULTURAL
RESOURCES
The proposed Grand Avenue widening under Alternatives 1 and 2 will not result in adverse impacts
on documented archeological or historical resources. No mitigation is required.
Alternatives 1 and 2 will result in significant adverse impacts on residences at 702 and 714 North
Grand Avenue which appear to be eligible for listing on the Santa Ana Register of Historic
Property. Mitigation measure CR -7 would potentially avoid or partially reduce these impacts. In
the event that the City cannot avoid acquisition of these properties, the impacts of Alternatives 1
and 2 on these resources, even with implementation of mitigation measure CR -7, would be
significant, adverse and unavoidable.
Construction of the proposed Grand Avenue widening under Alternatives 1 and 2 could result in
adverse impacts on previously unknown buried archeological and historic resources. These impacts
will be mitigated to below a level of significance based on implementation of measures CR -1 to
CR -6, above.
F: IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 3 SplitlSection 3.7.doc Page 3.7-12
Section 4.0
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 4.0
SECTION 4.0
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
4.1 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15126(b)
This Section summarizes the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with Alternatives 1 and 2
for the widening of the project segment of Grand Avenue. Specifically, Section 15126(b) of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR):
"Describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated, but not
reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated
without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project
is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described."
Section 3.0 (Existing Conditions, Impacts and Mitigation Measures) documents the analysis of
the potentially significant adverse impacts associated with Alternatives 1 and 2. As discussed
below, these Alternatives are anticipated to result in unavoidable significant adverse impacts
related to land use and planning, population and housing, transportation and noise.
4.2 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS RELATED TO LAND USE AND
PLANNING
As described in Section 3.2 (Impacts Related to Land Use and Planning), Alternatives 1 and 2 will
result in adverse impacts to an established community due to the permanent changes associated
with the removal of existing residential uses which previously buffered interior residential
properties from Grand Avenue. Although the impact to the community character is not
quantifiable, the effect of the disruption due to the removal of existing structures is considered a
significant adverse impact on the existing community in proximity of the project limits along
Grand Avenue which cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance.
4.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS RELATED TO POPULATION AND
HOUSING
As described earlier in Section 3.3.4 (Impacts Related to Population and Housing), Alternatives 1
and 2 will require the acquisition of residences and the displacement of residents. Mitigation
measures LP -1 and LP -4, provided earlier in Section 3.2.5 (Mitigation Related to Land Use and
Planning), would substantially reduce these potential impacts of the proposed widening of Grand
Avenue under Alternatives 1 and 2 related to population and housing. However, based on the
demand for affordable housing and the available housing stock, the cumulative loss of residential
units in the City of Santa Ana cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, as described in
detail later in Section 6.2.4 (Cumulative Impacts Related to Population and Housing). Therefore,
Alternatives I and 2 would result in a significant adverse impact related to population and housing
which cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance.
F.IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 4.0-new.doc Page 4-1
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 4.0
This significant unavoidable adverse impact of Alternatives 1 and 2 can only be avoided if the
widening alternatives are not implemented. Because this part of the City of Santa Ana is largely
developed in urban uses including residential uses, and these uses are very close to the edge of
the existing right-of-way for Grand Avenue, it is not possible to widen Grand Avenue without
the acquisition of some property, including residential uses.
4.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION
As described in Section 3.3.5 (Impacts Related to Transportation), substantial improvements in
traffic operations will result on the project segment of Grand Avenue, if the proposed widening
project is implemented. As discussed earlier, Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in substandard LOS
at the Santa Ana Boulevard/I-5 HOV ramps intersections during the PM peak hour in 2020. The
Traffic Studv recommends the retention of the dual right turn lane with overlap phasing to mitigate
this impact. However, due to the constraints of the I-5 bridge over Grand Avenue, there is not
enough right-of-way to have three through lanes and dual right turn lanes at this intersection.
Further, the City carefully analyzed both options and concluded that more congestion would be
created upstream by reducing the number of through lanes from three to two. Therefore, this is an
unavoidable significant adverse impact of Alternatives 1 and 2 related to transportation that cannot
feasibly be mitigated.
4.5 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS RELATED TO NOISE
As described earlier in Section 3.6.4 (Impacts Related to Noise), the potential short term noise
impacts associated with construction of Alternatives 1 and 2 would be substantially mitigated based
on implementation of mitigation measure N-1. However, the anticipated noise levels of
construction equipment and construction activities cannot be mitigated to below a level of
significance because of the proximity of the proposed widening project to adjacent noise sensitive
land uses. Therefore, in the short term, the construction of the proposed Grand Avenue widening
under Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in significant adverse noise impacts which cannot be
mitigated to below a level of significance.
This significant unavoidable short term adverse impact of Alternatives 1 and 2 can only be
avoided if the widening alternatives are not implemented. Because this part of the City of Santa
Ana is largely developed in urban uses including sensitive residential uses, and some of these
uses would be close to the construction area, it is not possible to construct the widened Grand
Avenue without the resulting in some significant, short term, adverse noise impacts on adjacent
sensitive land uses.
4.6 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS RELATED TO CULTURAL
RESOURCES
As described earlier in Section 3.7.4 (Impacts Related to Cultural Resources), Alternatives 1 and
2 will result in significant adverse impacts on residences at 702 and 714 North Grand Avenue
which appear to be eligible for listing on the Santa Ana Register of Historic Property. Mitigation
measure CR -7 would potentially avoid or partially reduce these impacts. In the event that the
City cannot avoid acquisition of these properties, the impacts of Alternatives 1 and 2 on these
F: IPROJ-EWGrand eirWew Text - GrandWection 4.0-new.doc Page 4-2
Section 5.0
IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE
COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
Grand Avenue Environmental Project Environmental Report Section 5.0
SECTION 5.0
IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
Construction of the proposed. Grand Avenue widening project will require the commitment of a
moderate amount of building materials such as sand, aggregate, concrete and asphalt. There would
be an irretrievable commitment of energy resources such as gasoline and diesel fuel for the
operation of construction equipment. Because these types of resources are available in sufficient
quantities in this region, these impacts are not considered significant under Alternatives 1 and 2.
The widening of the project segment of Grand Avenue will require the acquisition of additional
right-of-way and, therefore, would result in the long term commitment of that land to urban
infrastructure uses. This land would not be available for residential, commercial, industrial or other
land uses. However, as this part of Santa Ana is already largely developed in urban uses and the
proposed road is a compatible land use, this is not considered a significant adverse impact under
Alternatives 1 and 2.
In the long term, vehicles operating on Grand Avenue will predominantly use fossil fuels. However,
as described earlier in Section 3.5 (Transportation and Circulation), the forecast traffic volumes on
this segment of Grand Avenue will occur with or without this proposed widening. With the
proposed widening under Alternatives 1 and 2, the flow of traffic will be improved compared to the
No Project Alternative, which would beneficially affect energy use and demand. Therefore, the
proposed widening will not result in an adverse impact related to energy in the long term under
Alternatives 1 and 2.
F: TRGJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 5.0-new.doc Page 5-1
Section 6.0
GROWTH INDUCING AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
OF THE PROJECT
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 6.0
SECTION 6.0
GROWTH INDUCING AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
6.1 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe the potential growth inducing impacts of a
proposed project. Specifically, Section 15126.2(d) states:
"Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic development or
population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly,
in the surrounding environment.... Also discuss the characteristics of some projects which
may encourage and facilitate other activities that could substantially affect the
environment, either individually or cumulatively. Is must not be assumed that growth in
any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental or of little significance to the
environment."
To assess whether the proposed Grand Avenue widening alternatives may foster spatial,
economic or population growth, four questions were considered:
■ Would the widening of this segment of Grand Avenue result in the removal of an
impediment to growth such as the establishment of an essential public service or the
provision. of new access to an area?
■ Would the widening of this segment of Grand Avenue result in economic expansion or
growth such as changes in the revenue base or employment expansion?
■ Would the widening of this segment of Grand Avenue result in the establishment of a
precedent setting action such as an innovation, a radical change in zoning or a General Plan
amendment approval?
■ Would the widening of this segment of Grand Avenue result in development or
encroachment in an isolated or adjacent area of open space, as opposed to an infill type of
project in an area which is already largely developed?
Policies and plans in the City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element identify fixture
improvements to roads and intersections in the City to accommodate the traffic that would be
generated under buildout of the General Plan Land Use Element and from development in the
surrounding cities. The Circulation Element specifically cites Grand Avenue as one of several
widening projects anticipated by the City to. ensure that the transportation network in the City meets
the needs of the City and the region into the next century. The proposed project would widen the
project segment of Grand Avenue to the Major Arterial designation shown in the Circulation
Element. Therefore, the proposed widening under Alternatives 1 and 2 would be consistent with the
Circulation Element.
F: IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 6.0-new.doc Page 6-1
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 6.0
The widening of Grand Avenue would not be considered growth inducing, based on
consideration of the four questions cited above, as follows:
Grand Avenue is an existing arterial in a largely developed area. Public services, including
streets, are already provided in this area. The existing cross section of Grand Avenue is not
considered an impediment to development and the proposed widening would not provide new
access to any area.
The proposed widening will require the acquisition of privately owned right-of-way.
Remainder parcels are anticipated to be combined and redeveloped in new uses. Those uses
would be required to be consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning designations for
these areas and would be expected to be similar to the existing residential and commercial uses
on Grand Avenue that may be displaced by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed
widening project will not itself result in economic expansion or growth.
The proposed widening is consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element and, therefore,
is not a precedent setting action. As noted, any redevelopment of parcels affected by property
acquisition would be required to be consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for
the area and, therefore, would not be expected to result in a radical change in land use
designations in this area.
The prpposed project would widen an existing
largely developed in urban and suburban uses.
space adjacent to or in the vicinity of this street.
segment of Grand Avenue in an area already
This area is not isolated and there is no open
The General Plan Circulation Element also considers the relationship between transportation and
land use projects and growth management policies and programs in the County. Measure M, a one-
half cent retail sales tax, is a local transportation and growth management initiative approved by
Orange County voters in 1990. Funds generated by Measure M are for use in improving streets and
freeways, stabilizing transit fares and developing rail transit in Orange County. The City of Santa
Ana complies with the requirements of the Measure M program to qualify for revenues generated
through this sales tax. Because the City qualifies for the program, the Circulation Element is
assumed to be generally consistent with the Measure M program. The proposed Grand Avenue
widening, which is explicitly cited in the Circulation Element, is also assumed to be consistent with
the Measure M program. This is additional confirmation that the proposed Grand Avenue widening
project would not be growth inducing.
The proposed project will result in the generation of short term construction related jobs. These
jobs are expected to be filled from the existing work force in this part of Orange County. These
construction workers are not anticipated to relocate to this area from elsewhere in the region and,
therefore, will not generate demand for housing and services in this area. In the long term, the
proposed project is not expected to result in the generation of jobs as it is a road which will be
maintained by existing City of Santa Ana staff. Therefore, the employment related effects of the
proposed Grand Avenue widening are not considered growth inducing.
F.-IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text- GranMection 6.0-new.doc Page 6-2
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 6.0
6.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
6.2.1 DEFINITION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as:
"...two or more individual effects which when considered together, are considerable or
which compound or increase other environmental impacts."
Section 15355 further describes potential cumulative impacts as:
"(a) The individual effects maybe changes resulting from a single project or a number
of separate projects.
(b) The cumulative impacts from several projects is the change in the environment
which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other
closely related past, present and reasonably forseeable probable future projects.
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant
projects taking place over a period of time."
Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual impacts which, when considered together, are
considerable or which compound or increase other impacts. The individual effects may be changes
resulting from a single project or from a number of projects. A cumulative impact refers to the
degree of change in the environment resulting from a particular project, plus the incremental
impacts created by other closely related past, present and reasonably forseeable future projects.
Cumulative impacts may reveal that relatively minor impacts associated with a particular project
may contribute to more significant impacts when considered collectively with other projects tatting
place over a period of time.
6.2.2 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS
Section 15130(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines provides two options for considering potentially
significant cumulative adverse impacts. This analysis can be based on either:
"(A) A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related or
cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of
the agency, or
(B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related
planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been
adopted and certified, which described or evaluated regional or areawide
conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document
shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the
lead agency."
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - GrandWection 6.0 -new. doe Page 6-3
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 6.0
The cumulative impacts analysis requires consideration of other projects in an area, in conjunction
with the proposed project, to assess the potential for significant adverse cumulative impacts. For
this Focused EIR, the potential environmental effects of the proposed Grand Avenue widening were
considered in conjunction with the potential environmental effects of buildout of the City of Santa
Ana General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements. The City of Santa Ana completed EIRs for
proposed modifications to the Land Use and Circulation Elements in 1998. The EIRs for the
proposed Land Use and Circulation Elements were used as the basis for determining the potential
for cumulative significant adverse impacts in the City. These potential cumulative impacts were
then considered with the impacts associated with the proposed Grand Avenue widening, to assess
whether this widening project would contribute to cumulatively significant adverse environmental
impacts. These EIRs for the Land Use and Circulation Elements are:
Revised Final Environmental Impact Report No. 97-01 (EIR 97-01) Final Land Use
Element State Clearinghouse (V) No. 97071058 (Parsons Brinkerhoff, January 21,
1998).
Final Environmental Impact Report No. 97-02 (EIR 97-02) Final Circulation Element
(V) No. 97071055 (Parsons Brinkerhoff, January 5, 1998).
These EIRs are on file at the City and are available for review during regular business hours.
The potential impacts of the proposed Grand Avenue widening are based on the impact analysis
provided earlier in Section 3.0 (Existing Conditions, Impacts and Mitigation Measures) and in the
Initial Study (IS) included in Appendix A of this EIR.
This evaluation of potential cumulative impacts describes the potential impacts associated with the
Circulation and Land Use Elements and the proposed Grand Avenue widening, for each
environmental parameter.
6.2.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO LAND USE AND PLANNING
Construction of the transportation improvements in the Circulation Element could result in changes
in land uses and the full or partial take of property adjacent to the projects, as needed. However, the
property takes are anticipated to be minor acquisitions and can be mitigated to below a level of
significance.
Much of the City of Santa Ana is developed and there is very little undeveloped land remaining in
the City. Buildout based on the Land Use Element is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts
related to zoning conflicts, inconsistencies with regional plans or land use conflicts because all new
development is subject to the City's plan review process.
As described earlier in Section 3.2 (Land Use and Planning), the proposed Grand Avenue widening
will result in a significant adverse impact to an established community due to the exposure of homes
to Grand Avenue that were previously shielded by an existing intervening structure. The acquisition
of property for this widening will be consistent with City policy and State law regarding
compensation for the acquisition of private property for public use. Therefore, the proposed Grand
P: IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirlNew Text- GrandlSection 6.0-new.doc Page 6-4
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 6.0
Avenue widening will not contribute to a cumulative adverse impact in the City of Santa Ana
related to land use and planning.
6.2.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO POPULATION AND HOUSING
The Land Use Element EIR indicated that the proposed changes to the Land Use Element would not
result in adverse impacts in the City related to housing and population. The Land Use Element
includes policies expected to be effective in mitigating adverse impacts of projects in the City on
residential uses and neighborhoods, as shown in Table 6-1. The Housing Element (City of Santa
Ana Planning Department, December 18, 2000) also identifies a number of policies specifically
related to housing as summarized in Table 6-2. The Housing Element also identifies those
segments of the population who may have more difficulty in finding affordable housing. These
populations include low and limited income persons, and special needs groups such as the
elderly, large families, female -headed households, the disabled and the homeless.
Between 1980 and 1990, the housing stock in the City of Santa Ana increased by nearly 7,800
units, according to the United States Census. Between 1990 and 2000, the housing stock
experienced a net decrease of 18 units. Further, although new housing was constructed in the
City between 1990 and 2000, there was no net increase in total housing units. This is because
the removal of housing units throughout the City occurred at nearly the same rate as the
construction of new units. Specifically, the Housing Element indicates that contributing factors
to the loss of housing in the City have included the implementation of state and local
transportation improvements such as the widening of Interstate 5 (I-5) through the City in the
1990s, redevelopment, code enforcement and private development.
According to the City's Housing Element, from 1990 to 2000, the City grew by over 23,943 persons
while at the same time experiencing a net loss of 18 housing units. The City faces additional
challenges in providing residential units for varied income levels because of the level of urban
development already present in the City. Available undeveloped land within the City suitable for
residential development is very limited. This point is noted in the Community Factors section of the
Housing Element as follows:
"Adequate land to meet the housing needs of all income groups is essential to meet the
current and future housing needs. Santa Ana is predominantly "built out" with limited
potential for new residential construction. It is estimated that 153.9 acres of vacant land
remains with the potential for residential development. In addition, 74.6 acres of land has
been identified as underutilized with the potential of being redeveloped as additional
housing. Maximizing opportunities for new affordable housing will require creative
forms of housing development and quality site design." (pp. 10)
This being the case, the replacement of the older affordable housing along Grand Avenue may
not be replaced with comparable units in the City's general housing stock. No parcels along
Grand Avenue are identified as either vacant or underutilized parcels in Exhibit C-2 of the
Housing Element. Therefore, there is no identified policy or plan to replace the existing housing
on the remainder parcels that would be created by the either Alternative 1 or 2. This does not
necessarily indicate that the redevelopment of these parcels would not be residential. It only
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 6.0 -new. doe Page 6-5
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 6.0
indicates that there are no current intentions of doing so at the time of the Housing Element was
updated.
According to recently published United States Census 2000 findings (Los Angeles Times,
Orange County Edition, July 11, 2000), the housing shortage in Orange County affects Santa
Ana dramatically for a number of reasons. Santa Ana is the most populous city in Orange
County and over the last decade its population increased, while it had a net loss of housing units.
Santa Ana also has the highest average population per household (4.33) in the State (State
average is 2.59 per household). In addition, with the overall shortage of housing in Orange
County, the price of housing in all price categories is relatively high because of the demand.
This pricing problem causes increases in densities in available housing especially in areas where
there is an unmet need for low income and affordable housing. For these reasons, the loss of
single and multiple family housing, and the displacement of over 260 residents as a result of the
proposed Grand Avenue widening would only contribute to the already existing
housing/rent/density problems that Santa Ana is already experiencing.
Based on information from the City's Community Preservation Division (Housing Element, page
A-18), approximately 8,000 multiple family and 8,600 single family units in the City are
estimated to be substantially substandard and in need of repair. Finally, as discussed in the
Housing Element, the cost of housing in much of southern California increased dramatically in
the late 1980s and early 1990s. In addition, since the late 1990s, housing costs in southern
California have again risen dramatically and, in early 2002, are continuing to experience regular
substantial increases throughout much of southern California.
As a result of this wide range of factors, the availability of moderately priced housing in the City
of Santa Ana is substantially limited. Housing unit characteristics for the City for 1990 and
2000, for a variety of types of housing, are provided in Table 6-3.
The Land Use Element EIR recognizes that public projects, such as the proposed Grand Avenue
widening, may result in the acquisition of property which could result in the acquisition of
residential units and the displacement of residents. The Land Use Element EIR specifically states
that "Displacement impacts created by publicly funded projects under the proposed Land Use
Element will be lessened by local and State relocation regulations." In summary, the Land Use
Element EIR determined that the proposed Land Use Element would not result in any significant
unavoidable adverse impacts related to population and housing.
In support of the goals and policies in the Land Use and Housing Elements related to housing,
there are a number of programs available through the City of Santa Ana and/or the County of
Orange related to the provision and protection of decent and safe housing for all groups in the
City, including:
Section 8 Rental Assistance: This Federally funded program subsidizes rents to low
income families, individuals, seniors and the disabled.
F.-WROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 6.0-new.doe Page 6-6
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 6.0
Senior Shared Housing_ Programs: This local program is designed to alleviate housing
shortages for the elderly by matching seniors with extra rooms with seniors who either do not desire
to, or who for medical reasons cannot, live alone.
TABLE 6-1
SUMMARY OF LAND USE ELEMENT POLICIES
RELATED TO POPULATION AND HOUSING
Policy
Number
Policy Language
1.1
Promote medium density housing in and around the downtown area.
1.2
Support high density residential development within the City's District Centers as part of a master -
planned mixed use development.
1.3
Support development of single-family residential lots on a minimum area of at least 6,000 square
feet.
1.4
Maintain and foster a variety of housing types in the City.
3.4
Continue proactive Building and Health and Safety Code enforcement programs and activities.
3.5
Encourage new development and/or additions to existing development that are compatible in scale,
and consistent with the architectural style and character of the neighborhood.
5.1
Promote development that has a net community benefit and enhances the quality of life.
5.2
Protect the community from incompatible land uses.
5.4
Support land uses that are consistent with the Land Use Plan of the Land Use Element.
5.5
Encourage development that is compatible with, and supportive of, surrounding land uses.
6.1
Support legislative and regulatory changes to the law concerning safe occupancy standards.
6.2
Support reducing the number of units in multiple -family developments by allowing the property
owner to combine two or more units into a larger unit.
Source: Land Use Element Santa Ana General Plan City of Santa Ana (Adopted February 2, 1998).
TABLE 6-2
SUMMARY OF HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES RELATED TO
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Policy
Number
Policy Language
1.1
Promote and encourage the rehabilitation of owner -occupied and rental housing units.
2.1
Facilitate the preservation of housing through reinvestment in private property.
2.2
Utilize code enforcement resources to assist in neighborhood preservation efforts citywide.
2.3
Discourage the intrusion of incompatible land uses into residential neighborhoods.
3.1
Develop strategies to preserve historically significant residential structures in the community.
4.1
Target areas in the City for the creation of new housing units and opportunities for all segments of
the community.
5.1
Facilitate the preservation of government subsidized housing.
6.2
Encourage a balance of land uses that promote livable communities.
Source: Housing Element (City of Santa Ana Planning Department, December 18, 2000).
F: IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 6.0 -new. doe Page 6-7
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 6.0
TABLE 6-3
SUMMARY OF HOUSING STOCK BY UNIT TYPE IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA FOR
1990 AND 2000
Unit Type
1990
2000
Chane 1990 to 2000
Number of
Units
Percent of
Total
Number of
Units
Percent of
Total
Change in
Number of
Units 1990.
to 2000
Percent
Change
1990 to
2000
Single family, detached
32,990
44
33,056
44
66
0.
Single family, attached
6,077
8
6,169
8
92
0
Multiple family, two or four units
7,304
10
7,094
10
-210
0
Multiple family, five or more
units
24,772
33
24,806
33
34
0
Mobile homes
3,830
5
3,830
5
0
0
Total
74,973
100.0
74,955
100.0
-18
0
Source: Housing Element, City of Santa Ana, prepared by the planning Center (December 18, 2000). Estimates from the
California Department of Finance.
Neighborhood Improvement Program: This local program provides neighborhood
associations and organizations with opportunities for involvement in sponsoring
improvements to the local housing stock.
Residential Rehabilitation: This federally and locally funded program provides low
interest loans for the rehabilitation of mobile homes, and single and multiplefamily
properties.
Historical Rehabilitation Program: This State program offers deferred loans and rebates
for the rehabilitation of historic structures, including structures used as residences.
Homebuyer Assistance Programs: The City participates with the County to offer the
federal mortgage credit certificate (MCC) program in the City. Local funds have been
used to finance a loan-loss reserve fund, which assists qualifying homeowners in
purchasing homes.
Homeless Assistance Programs: This program, administered by the City of Santa Ana
Housing Division, is based on the Comprehensive Homeless Assistance Plan. This Plan
outlines a strategy developed by the City to address homeless issues at the local and
regional levels.
Density Bonus Program: This program allows developers to increase the density of their
residential projects in exchange for the provision of affordable units over a specified
period of time.
Code Enforcement. The City has an active code enforcement program to identify zoning
violations and code deficient housing units designed to reduce overcrowding, preserve
F: IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - Gran&Section 6.0-new.doc Page 6-8
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 6.0
the existing housing stock in a safe and standard condition, and preserve and enhance the
quality of life.
Tax Exempt Bond Financing: This program provides financial incentives for the
construction of new single and multiplefamily residential projects or the acquisition and
rehabilitation of multiple family properties to developers who provide affordable housing
units.
Infill Acquisition and New Construction: This local program is designed for the
purchase of underutilized or blighted parcels for the purpose of developing affordable
housing.
These housing programs are described in more detail in the Housing Element (page 28).
Consistent with the goals in the Housing Element, the City has actively pursued the construction of
new housing and the preservation of existing housing throughout the City. Some of these efforts
have included:
■ The acquisition and sale of land by the City of Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency for new
multiple and single family housing including units to meet the special needs of the elderly.
■ The issuance of tax exempt bonds to finance the development of new housing for renters and
owners.
■ The operation of a locally financed rehabilitation program targeted to homeowners.
■ The operation of a code enforcement program and a neighborhood improvement program which
include graffiti removal; entryway treatments for neighborhood identification; marketing of
rehabilitation loans in neighborhoods throughout the City; organization of neighborhood groups;
and the preparation of neighborhood plans.
■ Financing and support of non-profit organizations for the construction and rehabilitation of
residential units for low and moderate income residents.
■ The continued implementation of Federal and locally financed programs such as Section
Housing Assistance and Residential Rehabilitation to meet other special housing needs.
■ The continued implementation of the density bonus program for housing units designated for
low and very low income households.
The City's active pursuit of various strategies to provide new housing and preserve/rehabilitate
existing housing contributes beneficially to the amount and quality of housing throughout the City.
The proposed Grand Avenue widening Alternative will require the acquisition of 20 single family
residential units and 41 multiple family residential units and Alternative 2 will require the
acquisition of 23 singe family residential units and 41 multiple family residential units, as shown in
Table 6-4. Although the impacts on these housing units can be substantially reduced based on
F.-IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirlNew Text- GrandlSection 6.0-new.doc Page 6-9
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 6.0
mitigation measures LP -2 and LP -5, described earlier in Section 3.2 (Land Use and Planting), the
cumulative effect of the Grand Avenue project and other projects which result in the removal of
housing in the City is significant and adverse. The City's proactive and extensive programs to
provide new housing and protect existing housing will further mitigate adverse impacts on housing
stock associated with projects throughout the City. Nonetheless, without continued additions of
housing to the total housing stock, the cumulative effects of other projects and the Grand Avenue
widening on the total number of housing units could result in a net reduction in the total number of
housing units in the City. Therefore, it appears there is potential for the proposed Grand Avenue
widening, when considered with other projects throughout the City, to contribute to a cumulative
significant adverse impact on housing in the City which cannot be mitigated, with certainty, to
below a level of significance, even with the benefits of the extensive housing related programs at the
City.
TABLE 6-4
SUMMARY OF TAKE OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND PARCELS FOR THE PROPOSED GRAND
AVENUE WIDENING ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Type of Parcel Full Takes Partial Takes
Full Takes
Partial Takes
Single Family Residential Units 20 0
23 [3]
0
Multiple Family Residential Units [11 41 0
41
0
Multiple Family Residential Parcels [2] 5 0
5
0
Total Takes (Residential Parcels) 25 0
26
0
Total Takes (Dwelling Units) 61 0
64
0
[1] Estimated number of affected individual housing units.
[2] Number of assessor's parcels containing multiple family residential units; each parcel contains at least two
multiple family residential units.
3 This includes the parcel with Map reference No. 44 that has three single family units on one parcel.
6.2.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
Like the rest of seismically active southern California, the City of Santa Ana is subject to ground,
shaking and other seismic hazards during an earthquake. Buildout of the Circulation and Land Use
Elements would not introduce any new risks or hazards that are not already present in the City. In
the event of a major earthquake, substantial damage to transportation and other public facilities
could occur. These earthquake related impacts can be reduced by project specific mitigation, design
standards and emergency preparedness programs. Other potential impacts related to geology,
including liquefaction, subsidence, erosion, unstable soil, landslides, mudflows, fault rupture,
ground failure, seiche, tsunami, volcanos and expansive soils, can also be avoided or substantially
reduced based on project specific mitigation and design standards. Therefore, the Circulation and
Land Use Elements will not result in cumulative adverse impacts related to geologic hazards.
As discussed in the IS, the Grand Avenue area would be subject to seismic impacts similar to the
rest of the City and southern California. The Grand Avenue widening would not result in
significant adverse impacts related to liquefaction, subsidence, erosion, unstable soil, landslides,
mudflows; fault rupture, ground failure, seiche, tsunami, volcanos and expansive soils. Therefore,
the proposed widening of Grand Avenue would not contribute to significant cumulative adverse
impacts related to geologic hazards.
F.-IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 6.0-new.doc Page 6-10
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 60
6.2.6 . CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO WATER
Buildout of the Land Use Element would increase the population and intensity of development in
the City which would result in a greater demand for water. Significant reductions in groundwater
resources may occur unless there is adequate recharge of groundwater or the use of imported water
is increased.
New development under buildout of the Land Use Element will be subject to flood hazards posed
by the Santa Ana River, upstream dams and deficient storm drains. Implementation of storm drain
improvements and planned River flood control projects would reduce these impacts. Therefore,
these impacts are not anticipated. to be significant.
The transportation improvements in the Circulation Element will not by themselves create demand
for water. However, these projects will be exposed to flood hazards posed by the Santa Ana River,
upstream dams and deficient storm drains. These impacts can be reduced with mitigation and are
not anticipated to be significant. Therefore, the Land Use and Circulation Elements will not result
in significant cumulative adverse impacts related to water resources.
As discussed in the IS, the widening of Grand Avenue will not result in significant adverse impacts
related to water quality and water related hazards. Therefore, this proposed widening project will
not contribute to a significant cumulative adverse impact related to water quality and water hazards.
6.2.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO AIR QUALITY
Implementation of the transportation improvements in the Circulation Element would improve the
flow of traffic in the City. This is expected to beneficially reduce regional emissions from vehicles
using the new or improved transportation facilities compared to the future baseline emissions
without these circulation improvements. However, new land uses under the Land Use Element
would increase traffic in the City which may lead to increased mobile source emissions near
sensitive receptors. Specifically, these land uses would result in increases in long term regional
emissions which exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) quarterly
standards for carbon monoxide (CO), total organic gas and nitrogen oxides. In addition, increased
traffic associated with new development could increase congestion and, therefore, CO levels, and
could impact sensitive receptors near heavily traveled streets. Overall, buildout of the Land Use and
Circulation Elements could contribute to significant cumulative adverse impacts on air quality in the
region.
There are not anticipated to be significant short term construction related emissions associated with
construction of transportation improvements under the Circulation Element. In the short term,
construction related pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the Land Use and Circulation
Elements may exceed the AQMD quarterly thresholds if multiple projects are constructed
simultaneously. Sensitive receptors such as schools, hospitals and residences in close proximity to
construction sites could be impacted by these emissions. Therefore, the short term air quality
impacts associated with buildout of the Land Use Element are anticipated to be significant.
Alternatives 1 and 2 will result in the generation of short term air emissions during construction
which can be mitigated to below a level of significance. However, overall, buildout of the Land
F.9PROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - Gran&Section 6.0-new.doc Page 6-11
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report - Section 6.0
Use Element and the construction of the widened Grand Avenue could potentially result in
cumulative short term significant adverse impacts related to air quality if multiple projects are under
construction at the same time.
The cumulative air quality analysis for the proposed Grand Avenue widening, described earlier in
Section 3.4 (Air Quality) compared the air emissions under this proposed project with the future No
Project conditions and existing air quality. The analysis focused on CO emissions because CO is
the pollutant of primary concern on roads. Future year CO concentrations are expected to be
slightly higher under the No Project Alternative than under the proposed widening project for both
the one and eight hour periods. CO concentrations at area intersections will be slightly lower in the
future under the widening alternatives, compared to both the No Project Alternative and the existing
CO levels at these intersections. Construction of the proposed widening would result in pollutant
emissions that would not exceed the quarterly AQMD standards. The proposed project, which
would result in improved traffic flows and level of service, would not result in significant adverse
short or long term air quality impacts. Therefore, the proposed Grand Avenue widening would not
contribute to significant cumulative adverse impacts on air quality in the region.
6.2.8 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION
The transportation improvements under the Circulation Element would result in increases in traffic
volumes in and through the City of Santa Ana. Traffic congestion is anticipated to occur at 31
intersections in the City. Mitigation would reduce these impacts, but not to below a level of
significance.
Buildout of the Land Use Element will increase the number of vehicle trips traveling in and through
the City which would contribute to traffic congestion on many roads and intersections in the City.
Although road improvements and trip reduction programs would mitigate these impacts, traffic
generated by buildout of the Land Use Element will result in a significant cumulative adverse traffic
impact on roads in the City of Santa Ana and neighboring cities. Therefore, the cumulative traffic
impacts associated with buildout of the Land Use and Circulation Elements are anticipated to be
significant.
As discussed earlier in Section 3.5 (Transportation and Circulation), the widening of Grand Avenue
will not result in significant adverse impacts related to transportation and circulation except at one
intersection which would operate at level of service F in the PM peak hour.
The acquisition of partial parcels to accommodate the proposed cross sections under Alternatives 1
and 2 could result in the removal of some or all of the off street parking for the affected land uses.
These impacts on parking can be mitigated to below a level of significance as described in Section
3.2 (Land Use). Therefore, the proposed Grand Avenue widening will not result in significant
cumulative adverse impacts related to transportation and circulation.
6.2.9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The future transportation improvements and land uses assumed under buildout of the Circulation
and Land Use Elements in the City of Santa Ana would result in the loss of native and non-native
F: IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - Gran&Section 6.0-new.doc Page 6-12
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 6.0
plant and animal habitats in the area. The potential impacts on biological resources will be site
specific and would require case by case evaluation. Compliance with applicable laws, including
implementation of appropriate mitigation, would avoid these adverse impacts on biological
resources or reduce them to below a level of significance. Therefore, buildout of the Land Use and
Circulation Elements is not anticipated to result in significant cumulative adverse impacts on
biological resources.
As discussed in IS, the proposed widening of Grand Avenue will not result in impacts on biological
resources. Therefore, buildout of the Land Use and Circulation Elements and the proposed Grand
Avenue widening will not result in significant cumulative adverse impacts on biological resources.
6.2.10 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Land use and transportation projects under the Land. Use and Circulation Elements would result in
increased demand for energy and mineral resources for construction and operation of the various
land and transportation uses. This increased energy consumption may cumulatively contribute to
the depletion of regional resources. However, this additional demand is not anticipated to be
significant when compared to the demand generated from development in all of southern California.
In addition, energy consumption in the future will be more efficient as a result of a reduction in
wasteful use and increased conservation consistent with the requirements of Title 24. Therefore, the
cumulative energy and mineral resources impacts associated with buildout of the Land Use and
Circulation Elements are not anticipated to be significant.
As discussed in the IS, the construction of the proposed Grand Avenue widening would result in the
use of fuel and energy in the short term. In the long term, energy resources would be required for
lighting and motor vehicles travelling on Grand Avenue. These increases in demand are not
anticipated to be significant and would be within the available capacity of existing energy resources
in the region. In addition, the widening of Grand Avenue is anticipated to beneficially affect the
demand for energy, particularly fossil fuels, as a result of increased operating efficiency on this road
segment. The proposed widening of Grand Avenue will not result in significant adverse impacts on
energy and mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed Grand Avenue widening, in conjunction
with other land use and transportation projects, will not contribute to a cumulative adverse impact
on energy and mineral resources.
6.2.11 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO HAZARDS
Buildout of the Land Use and Circulation Elements will require emergency and disaster planning.
Hazardous material explosions or spills may occur with commercial and industrial uses and other
land uses that handle these materials, and during transportation of these materials on streets in Santa
Ana. The handling, transport, storage and disposal of hazardous materials are strictly regulated.
Monitoring by the City and other local agencies will ensure compliance with applicable regulations
and the prevention of such hazards. Therefore, the potential impacts associated with buildout of the
Circulation and Land Use Elements related to hazardous materials are not anticipated to be
significant.
F.- PROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text- GranWection 6.0-new.doc Page 6-13
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 6.0
Evacuation and emergency routes may be temporarily blocked during construction associated with
buildout of the Land Use and Circulation Elements. These temporary impacts are not anticipated to
be significant and are not expected to pose a risk to public health and safety. In the long tern, the
transportation improvements in the Circulation Element will beneficially affect evacuation plans.
Therefore, buildout of the Land Use and Circulation Elements will not result in significant adverse
impacts related to emergency access and evacuation routes.
The potential risks associated with the transport of hazardous materials on the project segment of
Grand Avenue will not be substantially greater than the existing risk associated with the existing
transport of hazardous materials on Grand Avenue and elsewhere in the City. Further, the handling,
transport, storage and disposal of hazardous materials are strictly regulated. Therefore, the potential
impacts of the proposed Grand Avenue widening related to hazardous materials are not anticipated
to be significant. During construction, there is a potential for temporary impacts related to
emergency and evacuation plans. However, in the long term, due to improved traffic flows, the
widening of Grand Avenue will beneficially affect evacuation plans. Therefore, the proposed
Grand Avenue widening, in conjunction with other land use and transportation projects, will not
contribute to significant cumulative adverse impacts related to hazards.
6.2.12 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO NOISE
Buildout of the Land Use and Circulation Elements would result in short term noise impacts
associated with demolition, excavation and other construction activities. These impacts are
temporary and can be partially mitigated with controls on construction time periods and equipment
use. In the long term, buildout of the Land Use and Circulation Elements would increase noise
levels on roads in the City and would adversely impact some sensitive land uses adjacent to these
roads. Therefore, the Land Use and Circulation Elements would result in significant cumulative
adverse noise impacts.
As discussed earlier in Section 3.6 (Noise), noise levels in the Grand Avenue area will increase
through 2020, with or without the proposed widening. Noise levels will increase 0.8 dBA by 2020
along Grand Avenue under the No Project and the build alternatives. Therefore, the proposed
Grand Avenue widening will contribute to increased noise levels in the future in the Grand Avenue
area to the same extent as would occur under the No Project Alternative.
6.2.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO PUBLIC SERVICES
The transportation improvements under the Circulation Element will require additional street
maintenance by the City of Santa Ana and additional crossing guards at intersections to provide for
the safety of school children at intersections with heavier traffic volumes. However,'as discussed in
Circulation Element EIR, these impacts are not anticipated to be significant.
Buildout of the Land Use Element will increase the demand for fire protection, police, school and
other government services in the City. The Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD) and the Santa
Ana Fire Department (SAFD) will need to periodically review their needs and increase staffing and
equipment, as the Land Use Element is built out. The increases in housing under the Land Use
Element will result in adverse impacts on school services. Although these impacts will be reduced
F.IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 6.0-new.doc Page 6-14
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 6.0
with the payment of impact fees, they will not be reduced to below a level of significance.
Therefore, the Land Use Element will result in cumulative significant adverse impacts related to
public services.
As discussed in the IS, the proposed Grand Avenue widening project is not anticipated to result in
significant adverse impacts related to public services. There is anticipated to be a minor increase in
the demand for fire protection and police services in the area as a result of the greater number of
vehicles on this segment of Grand Avenue. This demand is within the service capacities of the
SAFD and SAPD and, therefore, will not result in an adverse impact. The widening of Grand
Avenue will not generate the demand for housing and, therefore, will not lead to an increase in the
demand for school facilities. As documented in the IS, the Grand Avenue widening will not result
in significant adverse impacts on public services. Therefore, the Grand Avenue widening will not
contribute to a cumulative significant adverse impact on public services in the City of Santa Ana.
6.2.14 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The transportation improvements under the Circulation Element would not result in significant
adverse impacts related to natural gas, water, power, sewer, solid waste or communication services.
Incremental increases in storm water runoff are anticipated. However, these increases are not
anticipated to result in flooding and, therefore, are not significant.
Buildout of the Land Use Element would increase the use of imported water and groundwater
resources. Water conservation measures will reduce these impacts. New development will also
increase sewage flow and may require the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County to expand
its treatment facilities, which is a significant unavoidable impact of the Land Use Element.
Buildout of the Land Use Element is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts on natural gas,
storm drain or solid waste facilities.
As discussed in the IS, the proposed widening of Grand Avenue is not anticipated to result in
significant adverse impacts on public utilities. Therefore, the Grand Avenue widening will not
contribute to a cumulative significant adverse impact on public utilities.
6.2.15 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO AESTHETICS
Buildout of the Land Use Element will result in changes to the overall visual quality of the area and
will create a more urban character in the City. Changes in land uses may result in new sources of
light and glare which may impact adjacent sensitive uses. Compliance with the City's design and
development standards would avoid or substantially reduce these potential adverse aesthetic
impacts. Transportation improvements under the Circulation Element would result in wider roads
and more paved areas which would change the visual quality of the area. City required setback
requirements and the provision of landscaped medians would improve the visual quality of streets in
the City. These potential aesthetic impacts under the Land Use and Circulation Elements are not
considered to be cumulative significant adverse impacts.
As discussed in the IS, the proposed Grand Avenue widening may result in new sources of light
associated with new development and off street parking facilities. These impacts are not anticipated
F: IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text - Gran&Section 6.0-new.doc Page 6-15
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 6.0
to be significant because all light fixtures and exterior finishes would be subject to the City's
required design standards, development standards and landscape setback requirements. Therefore,
the proposed Grand Avenue widening would not contribute to a cumulative significant adverse
impact related to aesthetics, light and glare.
6.2.16 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO CULTURAL RESOURCES
Buildout of the Land Use and Circulation Elements may result in the removal or disturbance of
historic, archaeological and/or paleontological resources. These impacts will be substantially
mitigated based on implementation of existing City policies regarding the preservation and
protection of cultural resources. Therefore, the Land Use and Circulation Elements will not result in
cumulative adverse impacts on cultural resources.
As discussed in the IS, the proposed widening of Grand Avenue is not anticipated to result in any
impacts on paleontological resources. As discussed earlier in Section 3.7 (Cultural Resources), the
proposed Grand Avenue widening will not result in adverse impacts on archeological resources.
As described in Section 3.7.4 (Impacts Related to Cultural Resources), Alternatives 1 and 2 will
result in significant adverse impacts on residences at 702 and 714 North Grand Avenue which
appear to be eligible for listing on the Santa Ana Register of Historic Property. Mitigation
measure CR -7 would potentially avoid or partially reduce these impacts. In the event that the
City cannot avoid acquisition of these properties, the impacts of Alternatives 1 and 2 on these
resources, even with implementation of mitigation measure CR -7, would be significant, adverse
and unavoidable. However, because the Land Use Element will not result in a cumulative
adverse impact on cultural resources, the removal of these two structures under Alternatives 1
and 2 would not be expected to contribute to a cumulative significant adverse impact on historic
resources throughout the entire City. Therefore, the proposed widening will not contribute to
significant cumulative adverse impacts on cultural resources.
6.2.17 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO RECREATION
Buildout of the Land Use Element would result in population increases which would increase the
demand for parks and recreational facilities in the City. Existing recreational facilities in the City
would accommodate some of this new demand. However, cumulatively, the demand for parks
under buildout of the Land Use Element is anticipated to be significant because demand is
anticipated to exceed the capacities of existing recreation facilities in the City.
The transportation improvements proposed. under the Circulation Element will not result in
significant increases in the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. During construction
of transportation improvements, the continuity of bike paths and connectivity of recreational
facilities may be affected. However, these impacts are temporary and are not anticipated to be
significant. The potential extension of State Route 57 along the Santa Ana River greenbelt corridor
could adversely affect this resource.
As discussed in the IS, the proposed widening of Grand Avenue is not anticipated to increase the
demand for recreational facilities as the project by itself will not increase population in the area.
Therefore, although buildout of the Land Use and Circulation Elements will result in a significant
F.- PROJ-ENVIGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 6.0-new.doc Page 6-16
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 6.0
cumulative adverse impact on recreation resources, the proposed widening of Grand Avenue will
not contribute to this impact.
F.-TROJ-ENVIGrand eirlNew Text- GrandlSection 6.0 -new. doe Page 6-17
Section 7.0
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 7.0
SECTION 7.0
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
7.1 PURPOSE
On January 1, 1989, California State Assembly Bill 3180 (AB 3180) became effective. AB 3180
requires state and local agencies to adopt programs for monitoring and reporting of implementation
of mitigation measures addressing significant adverse environmental impacts of projects agencies
approve subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Consistent with the
requirements of AB 3180 and the CEQA Guidelines, this Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP)
was developed by the City of Santa Ana for use in monitoring the implementation of the proposed
Grand Avenue widening project.
The City of Santa Ana has the authority to require and enforce the provisions of AB 3180 and the
CEQA Guidelines consistent with its existing police powers. As lead agency for the environmental
documentation for the proposed Grand Avenue widening, the City is also responsible for approving
the MMP and for accepting the written report documenting completion of the implementation of the
project mitigation measures. In general, the City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency (PWA) and
Planning Department would be responsible for overseeing the implementation of these mitigation
measures and for approving measures as complete.
7.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE MMP
The basis of the MMP is the mitigation measures identified as follows:
■ By environmental impact category in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, as documented
in Section 2.0 (Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Based on the Initial Study).
■ By environmental impact category as documented in Section 3.0 (Existing Conditions, Impacts
and Mitigation Measures) of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
After the circulation of the Draft EIR, these measures may be modified and/or new measures added,
based on comments received during the public review period. The mitigation measures in the Final
MMP will include all the mitigation measures in this Draft EIR as modified based on the responses
to comments received on the Draft EIR, if any.
7.3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE PROPOSED GRAND
AVENUE WIDENING
Table 7-1 provides the following information:
A list of all mitigation measures from Section 3.0 of this EIR. Unless otherwise noted in the
language of the measure, each of these measures applies to both Alternatives 1 and 2 for the
proposed Grand Avenue widening.
F.9PR0J-EA10Grand eiHNew Text- Gran&Section ZO-new.doc Page 7-1
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental LTeact Report Section 7.0
The schedule for implementation of each measure. The "Timing of Implementation" column
specifies when each measure should be implemented. The timing of implementation may vary
based on actual field conditions and the applicable laws, rules and/or regulations in effect at the
time the proposed intersection enhancements are constructed.
The City of Santa Ana Department or Departments responsible for reviewing and approving the
documentation regarding implementation of each measure.
The final report on the NUVT for the proposed Grand Avenue widening will be kept in the relevant
project files at the City of Santa Ana PWA.
F.IPRO.7-ENMGrand eirIMew Text- GrandlSection 7.0-new.doc Page 7-2
❑
Y N
U
N O N
N
U O y
0
p U
N O N
O b
N
O O
N O N
C O Q
N ti
0 0
N •� "�' 'Ud
o ai
o ci
o ai
o ai
o ai
Sj
l
ro
j N
V.1
O ,�
zu
o
UroU
%
�
N
to
bo
w
w
A)w
qw
w
2 F Q'
D q
v ° •�
ro U
O
P4 d a"i •5 'v U
ro °j rOii A
•�1 A
A �
m A
l3
FG �
U
p U y
o a' '�
N
3 b
,p
y Yl y
,O
�
'� 4
b o °p'
po +�
coi
U.
`� 'o � c`°i
U
o
o
Cow F2 •"SZ
.� H d 'n
ro m .� m
o .a
y b•,�2
R. q °ro
0
U ti
ro
�'�
.p�A0ag.
�
a° w
O -A i5
A
�' .�U•
q '� titiOF4
p.� p
.� •[+
p ry c0J
•'
6 «�
tc
TUU" G
o
'n
" ro
m
.,� � � �en
0
o F+ 3 oro
cn .P
ro m' ° �-"
'y o
0
•° ,.�
�'
3 o•kv
3 o 0.°C as
2
3��•�
0
0' 0o
°
a
qbso>k�
A�A
}
U
U
y
b o
;1"0 ani CU +O+
O V °r, "
O 15 6'
o m o
4. m w
h Po U °+§'
,tiro
Vi y
Vi
❑ m N
41''�"C
U .O {: O
itl
U .O p .G O
'-1" ?� aOai
0p
`�•R
U O pq
'+moi .f� .q
C q �.M
,a' 7 V
�O
.ti N O
O M°
x'17° Q. ��
O N p O O ty
'�
0
U O .o
N N
..�. .
� O
Q N
QU^o U
UPi�
,fs
UQ{ U? m':�F
g
F P,
U W'� o
i
d
n
�°o
W T
W
•�o
W T
aQ. 00
o
.�o
W T
�o
W T
�o
W T
Ow
�o
1-0 U
S to
�o
p J
to
�
d
d
14
bu
o
W
J
°
^cy
q
DA
CJj 9l
AS
Ac°i
Qv
cqa
r�°
r�°
a°
N b
m
=7
o "' °�q°�
o
VO
bu��°
.0 ai Pam
E•-� o°
''�
�5roU
qm
oa�U
phao��ppb
o
'A
•-'
W
Jy o
4 Z
1p�
v] N
"
4C
q °J
.�y° b0
T
Fj +N '.d
u
J U f°.l cC
�0A'
4'a w •O
°W
m
0
•�
a
C
Jbq
aOpi, nnJyOy..��
W b
N
o
°� t°i
w
`�
g
60
b r0 N
U
Y cy� .p ,�°
> •p
.A
p
pU
T �0
y� 7b]0
dW
y �
.,oOu.L
0v�
o
o
U
V
HAg�o
V O
u0
8
0O
O
r.
bo
'O,p
pF1
Gp °
N
H
A° p
y
N 4� r U
J C .o O
ay
O
J
bo
y
00 O N H 0
U O
ro N° a
J N
ttl
b➢
'q
p q
U q N
iC U •ted O�
U b0 vi .J7 �
p^'� 0.i
H N n
'� U u a>
� U
�
,Z
�
ao.• W J rn y .y�'
U O ltl '� v� a n
y •� y O
H� � �i
y U li
O
l A
+.`
J � �
':.
.� .�roY. •o .3 o
'd b N ?•c�" y
F'' � �
m ai°a
u p
^" y'' � a� ^`°' ..oma ^�
.2 0 � °•�.
a
..
aJi
.�dJy
'�
, ro�io
S
•Jqpp.No wy
+ppN+
o 'ayi
o
o�
a
pP,O
G O b
'Uq U
°yU
�
y.oy
o w
Oq J
m 3
A Uro
.ppi
4
37
.fid
U
.'°�
'�
o q tv1 a� ;p+5
'p U G '_" N
•�Y "F21
21 O [
o v
b0
" q.
•N w O '.°77
�•ti ° pJp a
O A
J�.�
N b0
q'
,S
�d � a�.�a J
�
0
moay v
ro>
t1
,C
aop y
tl
d
• vi
`�
w°
ami J7 0 0
K bJt�0
'�+
J•
900
Nlidfiq'
q
•p.
i
o�
o�a
bo
O
.pa
bNOo
oN
o b9d yNH
nqq°=1
P ay�b
o aUp o
o aj�gy
o b
a `�
•
A
>
J N
Jo��
b
to0
I
A aai
.y ,y
Y°
v�
P
Q ❑
a� a°i
y0 U
d5
y tl
4.
O U
00
OU
❑
O
y b
N
ONC
� U
w
a �
LR
y
O N ro
°UN y
d N
•��ya
bA m ^i�O• Oq C �" � b9 �
'� '� � �
V ,�Oy
U 'T
U O
U .p
Oro
,CO
SV.
bOA
i3+ a > ❑ p
�
� �,
N
•
� �ro o ti
o
d
w
�
p
.0
Z;O!
N
q
�❑
U OL
gOpgp .0
�. ro
4J N
Y V
to
0
w
to
v> o q Y aroi y O
w .O
W
VO 0.9
ahi
•.F
"'
o t
o ro
tv q
0
.� ro o .°
°
Op, 914
•o .� `� g' > aki �`" q v
N
a ld
p U
H a
A � h�
H'
O p�
O U
H
^
I. � •�
h
21
wa,:2
O J
�
Q y.� •�
�3b
N�
,Aa:
w;�
O U
Q � .�
�gbyy
N"P'.
aA
p >'
y ❑
^ M .��Q
F�>ja
„O ur
b
o 0
0 0
0 0 0
1
�.
v
nu •' v o
;q� o�a.�x-•w�
m w id �
ro Y ,.q a
o�uo
ro $y m
v �a
v� o� U '�
•�•�wyo.�
oZ'
ro
w
O
O 0 x a O
FT Q w N
O N U
A
O O
N
o.� a
�'..'0
6arC�
'
B
oz
I
p^O' w
R o o.?
y.4•
W H E
q N
5 A
o
s> A
ew
q
o
C
v o
•2 0 U
m U w
0 U o
N
.�
UrGO w
y o U
�>' N
COC LL ANS
.d .,vy� 'C
• U O
ro m o
0600 m
UU N 'yO' y d
0 F� a a o
iy A U
�j W CJ y S9
v a p 4
0o � h
�e o
m ai o. o °
ami o .�
q❑.
y
w '.p w rJ ti '•” y
a bq y G y
•G A ,,
O N
'`xi a p o >� U
b0 O O •,'Hd
Go
O
,�
N p 'rJ' �i a%a
y
N ni
roO
�Qog
.
�j
OO
nad
�Oro�w
4bY`�
°>w'
�
0
aO
q
o
��Y
.�3oo
od
6.oc.�
�ow
tu
O >, v
W
.GA
NO
A
N ro F
b
O�''
w
•'�' '.�'
d
q O�
0 ro
O O >�'d
.O. O ai
•tJ O.''
$ •o °' O
N 'O RJ O £i 9
FL m _v
v ami
w
O
t.'
0 42
•-. aOA
O •a V] ', +�-. y Y
�0 U O
Y N A,
a O m O w
N ro❑❑ O
y �❑' .� o
w
P
y H co
O p iO" O u�
O a o t0 W w
wl
:� O O rn > m
.� N
N
.y
N iCd
%� v"•i N NT''
~.O. D .�o°5'u
�'.Y�yyoa
b,❑'�S
a
ZiN on
ya
qaA�
OA�.'nri
U N d8
�•O�>k
UHD
4
:bbC9
a
oOU
oOOpp
p
i-yai7
U .a.
.ha' oI0,
o o
•
w,
}9
U"0'
t'''�!
4;8
Uo4w
ro oro
�
O
9aso�ao>ti
M
U
U
Vt
U
iO
h
A
a�
a A
a
0
nm
aai y
H
6
° °
O
L7 U y
nod
8
C
A
en
�
w°
y
0
by
'U
N �
�❑Q
V�,
Vy
t0
N
�
Y•i
�
.°
�
N
d
�TN� y
H
•17
�
°;
N
y
Ry
�q'
O O
0
O
P U
O
y
•w
'''�
•�
o
.0
a
.
k .�
�
.�
a
0 °
a
�
.04�
Y �
o
ro
077
L
U
U
00
O y y0y
h
N
2
UO
b
•
X
p
X �
U
o
.�
.�
,�
qq
3
T
id
Y
b m
o
P
°
a
a
t
'C w°
d 4
9
�C
ttl
U
A
ul
u;
C7
kC
Section 8.0
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 8.0
SECTION 8.0
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
8.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
The No Project Alternative assumes the project segment of Grand Avenue would retain the existing
four lanes in a cross section that varies in width from 80 to 110 feet wide and that no widening, bike
lanes or other physical improvements would be constructed. Under this Alternative, existing
conditions on the project segment of Grand Avenue would continue. The resulting cross section
would not be consistent with the Major Arterial designation for this segment of Grand Avenue in
the City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element or with the adopted Bikeway Master Plan.
This Section describes the potential environmental impacts associated with the No Project
Alternative, focussing on the potential impacts of this Alternative for each environmental parameter.
The Initial Study (IS) identified several environmental parameters which could potentially
experience significant adverse impacts if one of the widening alternatives is implemented. These
parameters are land use and planning, population and housing, air quality, transportation, noise and
cultural resources, as evaluated earlier in Section 3.0 (Existing Conditions, Impacts and Mitigation
Measures) for the widening alternatives. The following Sections describe the potential impacts of
the No Project Alternative for these same parameters. The existing conditions in the study area, the
analysis methodology and thresholds of significance for each parameter were described earlier in
Section 3.0. At the end of this Section, the parameters determined in the IS not to be impacted
under the widening alternatives are evaluated for potential impacts under the No Project Alternative.
8.2 IMPACTS OF THE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE RELATED TO LAND USE
/\u179 A\u►1l�CeJ
The No Project Alternative does not include any widening of the project segment of Grand Avenue.
Therefore, this Alternative would not result in any right-of-way takes on this segment of Grand
Avenue. No mitigation is required.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) land use policies from the Region
Comprehensive Plan and Guide were shown earlier in Table 3-3. The No Project Alternative was
evaluated for consistency with each of these policies. As shown in Table 3-3, the No Project
Alternative is consistent with each policy, except for Policy 3.03 and certain policies determined not
to apply to this Alternative. Policy 3.03 is related to the timing of public improvements to
implement regional growth policies. Because the No Project Alternative is not consistent with the
City's General Plan Circulation Element, which is the City's plan for implementing transportation
policies, it is not consistent with this SCAG policy. Mitigation to avoid this impact is the
implementation of a widening alternative consistent with the Circulation Element.
F: IPROJ ENVIGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlSection 8.0-new.doc Page 8-1
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 8.0
8.3 IMPACTS OF THE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE RELATED TO POPULATION
AND HOUSING
The No Project Alternative does not include any widening of the project segment of Grand Avenue.
Therefore, this Alternative will not result in the acquisition of any residential units on this segment
of Grand Avenue or in the displacement of any residents. No mitigation is required.
8.4 IMPACTS OF THE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE RELATED TO AIR QUALITY
The No Project Alternative would not include any construction on Grand Avenue and, therefore,
would not result in short term, construction related air emissions. No mitigation is required.
As shown earlier on Table 3.4-2, existing carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations in the Grand
Avenue area do not exceed the one and eight hour standards. In 2020, the No Project Alternative
will result in increased CO levels, with the eight hour concentration at the intersection of Grand
Avenue and Fruit Street approaching, but not exceeding, the standard. CO concentrations under the
No Project Alternative would be greater at all three intersections for both the one and eight hour
periods, compared to the with project conditions.
The SCAG air quality policies, from the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, were shown
earlier in Table 3.4-4. The No Project Alternative was evaluated for consistency with each of these
policies. As shown in Table 3.44, the No Project Alternative is consistent with policy 5.11. Policy
5.07 was determined not to apply to the No Project Alternative.. Therefore, the No Project
Alternative will not result in adverse impacts related to SCAG air quality policies. No mitigation is
required.
8.5 IMPACTS OF THE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE RELATED TO
TRANSPORTATION
As shown earlier in Table 3.5-6, the No Project Alternative will result in levels of service E or F in
the PM peak hour in 2020 at the following intersections on Grand Avenue:
Seventeenth Street
I-5 northbound ramps
Fourth Street
There is no on street parking on the project segment of Grand Avenue. Therefore, the No Project
Alternative will not result in impacts related to on street parking. No mitigation is required.
The SCAG transportation policies, from the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, were shown
earlier in Table 3.5-7. The No Project Alternative was evaluated for consistency with each of these
policies. As shown in Table 3.5-7, the No Project Alternative is consistent with each policy, except
for policy 4.60 and certain policies determined not to apply to the No Project Alternative. Policy
4.60 is related to the projects that reduce dependency on single occupant vehicle travel. Because the
No Project Alternative is not consistent with the City's General Plan, which is the City's plan for
implementing transportation and land policies in the City, it is not consistent with this SCAG policy.
FIPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - Gran&Section 8.0-new.doc Page 8-2
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 8.0
Mitigation to avoid this impact is the implementation of a widening alternative consistent with the
Circulation Element.
8.6 IMPACTS OF THE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE RELATED TO NOISE
The No Project Alternative includes no construction on the project segment of Grand Avenue.
Therefore, the No Project Alternative will not result in short term noise impacts. No mitigation is
required.
The No Project Alternative would result in increased noise exposure along the project segment of
Grand Avenue in 2020, compared to existing conditions, as shown in Table 8-1 which compares the
distances to the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contours for existing conditions, the
2020 No Project Conditions and the 2020 with project conditions. The noise exposure under the No
Project Alternative would be the same as under the with project conditions in 2020, as shown in
Table 8-1. This level of increase would be perceptible to many listeners and would, therefore, be
considered a significant adverse impact of the No Project Alternative.
8.7 IMPACTS OF THE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE RELATED TO CULTURAL
RESOURCES
The No Project Alternative will require no construction and will not result in an adverse impacts on
cultural resources. No mitigation is required.
8.8 IMPACTS OF THE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE RELATED TO OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS
As described earlier, the IS Checklist, included in Appendix A of this Environmental Impact Report
(EIR), indicated that the proposed Grand Avenue widening was determined to not result in a
significant adverse impact or to result in an adverse impact which would be mitigated to below a
level of significance for a number of environmental parameters. These parameters were evaluated
for the No Project Alternative, to determine if the No Project Alternative could result in significant
adverse impacts related to these parameters.
Water: The No Project Alternative will not result in adverse impacts related to changes in
absorption, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff; the exposure of
people or property to flooding; the quality and quantity of surface waters; changes to river or
stream channels or currents; changes to surface water bodies; changes in the flow or
direction of groundwater, the quality and quantity of groundwater, or groundwater recharge;
or the use of groundwater supplies for public water uses. No mitigation is required.
Air Quali : The No Project Alternative will not result in adverse impacts related to the
alteration of air movements, moisture, climate or temperature in the area; and the creation of
objectionable odors. No mitigation is required.
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text- Gran&Section 8.0-new.doc Page 8-3
N }y
W
N
N
N
N
N
0
z
O
b
OA
L7
A3
C-4
00
xk'
N
N
N
N
W
(W�
�
N
O
�z
a
fa
�
b
N
F�[[
N
a
W
N
N
° V
°
O �^
O
N
•�
W
7
VMl
Vl
�
v
0.l
�
�Fw
b
GO
C4
W
H
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 8.0
Transportation: The No Project Alternative will not result in adverse impacts related to the
Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines and adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation modes; compatibility with adjacent land uses; impacts related to design
hazards and emergency access; and rail, waterborne or traffic services or facilities. No
mitigation is required.
Biological Resources: The No Project Alternative will not result in adverse impacts related
to endangered, threatened or rare species, locally designated species and natural
communities, wetland habitats, or wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. No mitigation is
required.
Energy and Mineral Resources: The No Project Alternative will not result in adverse
impacts related to adopted energy conservation plans or mineral resources. No mitigation is
required.
Hazards: The No Project Alternative will not result in adverse impacts related to vehicles
carrying hazardous substances; risks associated with explosions or release of hazardous
substances; emergency and evacuation plans; hazardous materials sites and other health
hazards; asbestos containing building materials and lead based paint; and increased fire risk.
No mitigation is required.
Public Services: The No Project Alternative will not result in adverse impacts related to the
demand for police and fire protection services and facilities; school facilities or school
attendance; road maintenance costs for the City; and transit services. No mitigation is
required.
Utilities and Service Systems: The No Project Alternative will not result in adverse impacts
related to existing electric, natural gas, telephone and cable communication lines, facilities
and services; local or regional water treatment and/or distribution facilities; , sewage
treatment facilities; domestic water pipelines, sewer lines and stormwater collection
facilities; and solid waste disposal. No mitigation is required.
Aesthetics: The No Project Alternative will not result in adverse impacts related to scenic
vistas, scenic highways, light and glare. No mitigation is required.
Cultural Resources: The No Project Alternative will not result in adverse impacts related to
paleontological resources and unique ethnic cultural values. No mitigation is required.
Recreation:. The No Project Alternative will not result in adverse impacts related to
recreational facilities. No mitigation is required.
8.9 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the proposed Grand Avenue widening project and the ability of the No Project
Alternative to meet these objectives are described below:
F:TROJ-ENVIGrand eirlNew Text- GrandlSection 8.0-new.doc Page 8-5
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 8.0
Objective 1: Improve the segment of Grand Avenue between Seventeenth Street on the north and
First Street on the south to the City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element and the Orange
County Master Plan of Arterial Highways designations of Major Arterial for this road segment.
The No Project Alternative would not meet this objective because it would not improve the project
segment of Grand Avenue to the Major Arterial designation.
Objective 2: Improve the flow of traffic on this segment of Grand Avenue in the City of Santa Ana,
consistent with existing and forecasted traffic demand.
The No Project Alternative would not meet this objective because it would not improve the flow of
traffic on the project segment of Grand Avenue, consistent with existing and forecasted traffic
demand.
Obiective 3: Provide bike lanes on this segment of Grand Avenue, consistent with the adopted City
of Santa Ana Bikeway Master Plan and the Orange County Master Plan of Bikeways.
The No Project Alternative would not meet this objective because it would not provide bike lanes
on this segment of Grand Avenue.
Objective 4: Provide a cross section on the project segment of Grand Avenue compatible with the
existing cross sections on Grand Avenue north and south of the project segment.
The No Project Alternative would meet this objective because it would provide a cross section on
the project segment of Grand Avenue compatible with the existing cross sections on Grand Avenue
north and south of the project segment.
Obiective 5: Provide a cross section on the project segment of Grand Avenue compatible with
recent improvements at local intersections with Grand Avenue and the recent improvements to
I-5.
The No Project Alternative would meet this objective because it provides a cross section on the
project segment of Grand Avenue compatible with recent improvements at local intersections
with Grand Avenue and the recent improvements to I-5.
F.- PROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - GrandlSection 8.0-new.doe Page 8-6
Section 9.0
LIST OF PREPARERS
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 9.0
SECTION 9.0
LIST OF PREPARERS
9.1 CITY OF SANTA ANA
David Biondolillo, Project Manager, Public Works Agency
Dan Bott, Environmental Coordinator, Planning and Building Agency
Maya DeRosa, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Agency
Vince Fregoso, AICP, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Agency
Manuel Gomez, Transportation Analyst, Public Works Agency
Vicki Uehli, Redevelopment Project Manager III, Community Development Agency
Cristine L. Shaw, Assistant City Attorney, City Attorney's Office
Ruth M. Smith, Associate Engineer - Transportation, Public Works Agency
Kylee Odette, Deputy City Attorney, City Attorney's Office
9.2 P&D CONSULTANTS, INC.
Sylvia M. Salenius, AICP, Principal -in -Charge
Christine Huard -Spencer, Senior Project Manager
Romi Archer, Senior Environmental Planner
Tony DeJuho, Environmental Analyst (No longer with P&D)
Michele Goldman, Word Processing (No longer with P&D)
Greg Graber, Environmental Analyst (No longer with P&D)
Daryl Fisher, Word Processing
Jose Mortero, Traffic Analyst (No longer with P&D)
Jeff Post, Graphics
Ron Siecke, P.E., Traffic Engineer (No longer with P&D)
Shambhavi Rao, Environmental Analyst (No longer with P&D)
9.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
9.3.1 DISCOVERY WORKS, INC.
Beth Padon, Archeologist
Theresa Grimes, Architectural Historian
9.3.2 SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
Leslie J. Heumann, Architectural Historian
9.4 MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES (Air Quality)
Fred Greve, P.E.
Tanya Moon
F: IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text- GrandlSection 9.0-new.doc Page 9-1
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Section 9.0
9.5 BRIDGENET CONSULTING SERVICES INTERNATIONAL (Noise)
Paul H. Dunholter, P.E.
Ted Lindberg, INCE
F.IPROJ-ENVIGrand eirWew Text- GranMection 9.0-new.doc Page 9-2
Section 10.0
REFERENCES
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Report Section 10.0
SECTION 10,0
The following references were used in this preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
for the proposed Grand Avenue widening project:
Archaeological Assessment of the Main Street Widening Project, City of Santa Ana, Orange
County, California. Manuscript (Ms). on file, South Central Coastal Information Center (SCC),
University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), OR602 (Adella Schroth, 1981).
Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Santiago Creek Specific Plan. Ms. on file, SCC, UCLA,
OR778 (C. Drover, 1976).
Archaeological Report on the Surveyed Logan Area of Santa Ana, California. Ms. on file, SCC,
UCLA, OR332 (David M. Van Horn, 1978).
Archaeological Survey Report for the Route 5/Route 55 Interchange in the Cities of Tustin and
Santa Ana, Orange County, California. Ms. on file, SCC, UCLA, OR760 (John Romani, 1982).
A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 11(3) (W.J. Wallace, 1955).
California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit. "Table 2: City/County Population
and Housing Estimates, January 1, 1998, County of Orange, Official State Estimates."
California's Gabrielino Indians. Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund 8,
Southwest Museum, Los Angeles (B.E. Johnston, 1962).
Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County, The Case from CA -ORA -119-A. Pacific Coast
Archeological Society (PCAS) Quarterly 19 (2):1-34 (H.C. Koerper and C.E. Drover, 1983).
Cultural Resources Survey Report for a Pacific Bell Mobile Services Telecommunications Facility:
CM 001-15 in the City of Tustin, California. Ms. on file, SCC, UCLA, OR1655 (Roger D. Mason,
1997).
Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptations on the Southern California Coast. Eastern New
Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1-4 (C.N. Warren, 1968).
Department of Transportation Archaeological SurvU Report for Category 4B and 5 Projects: Ramp
Metering, By -Pass Lane, Auxiliary Acceleration Lane and Sound Walls in the City of Santa Ana
Northbound Route 5 between Route 55 and Route 22 Interchanges. Ms. on file, SCC, UCLA,
OR508 (Gene Huey, 1979).
Description and Evaluation of Cultural Resources with the United States Army Corps of Engineer's
Santa Ana River Project. Ms. on file, SCC, UCLA, OR270 (N. Nelson Leonard III and Matthew C.
Hall, 1975).
F: IPROJ-ENVIGrand ei,Wew Text - GranMection 10.0-new.doc Page 10-1
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Report Section 10.0
Early Holocene Human Adaptation on the Southern California Coast: A Summary Re ou rt of
Investigations at the Irvine Site (CA -Ora -64), Newport Bay, Orange County, Califomia. PCAS
Quarterly 19 (3&4): 1-84 (C.E. Drover, H.C. Koerper and P. Langenwalter H, 1983).
Excavations in Early Santa Ana: the OCTD Terminal Site (CA -ORA -1031H). Ms. on file, SCC,
UCLA, OR797 (James P. Brock, 1985).
Final Environmental hnyact Report No. 97-02 (EIR 97-02) Final Circulation Element State
Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 97071055 (Parsons Brinkerhoff, January 5, 1998).
Final Housing Element of the City of Santa Ana General Plan GPA 00-01 (December 18, 2000).
"Gabrielino" in Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp.
538-549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (L.J. Bean and C.R. Smith, 1978).
Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 78.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (A.L. Kroeber, 1925; Reprint, Dover Publications, New
York, 1976).
Historic Property Survey Route 1-5 Santa Ana Transportation Corridor, Route 405 in Orange
County to Route 605 in Los Angeles County. Ms. on file, SCC, UCLA, OR814 (John Romani,
1982).
In A Hundred Years of Yesterdays: A Centennial History of the People of Orange County and Their
Communities, edited by Esther Cramer, Keith Dixon, Diann Marsh, Phil Brigandi and Clarice
Blamer, pp 176-181. The Orange County Centennial, Inc., Orange County Register (Francelia B.
Goddard and Allen W. Goddard, 1988).
Phase It Archaeological Studies, Prado Basin and The Lower Santa Ana River. Ms. on file, SCC,
UCLA, OR801 (Paul Langenwalter and Jim Brock, 1985).
Post Pleistocene Archaeology 9000-2000 B.C. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8,
California edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 25-36. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (W.J.
Wallace, 1978).
Preliminary Report on Archaeological Monitoring at the Orange County Transit District Santa Ana
Transit Terminal Site, Santa Ana California (ORA -1031H). Ms. on file, SCC, UCLA, OR660
(James P. Brock, 1983).
Preliminary Report of the Potential hnpact on Archaeological Resources of the Proposed Gas
Transmission Pipeline from Los Angeles Harbor to Yorba Linda -Southern California Gas Co.:
Environmental Analysis. Ms. on file, SCC, UCLA, OR1596 (William C. Clewlow,1974).
F.IPROJ-ENMGrand eirlNew Text- GranMection 10.0 -new. doe Page 10-2
Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Report Section 10.0
Proto-Gabrielino Patterns of Territorial Organization in Southern Coastal California. PCAS
Quarterly 7(2): 449-476 (D.T. Hudson, 1971).
Results of an Archaeological Resource Literature Review, Field Survey and Report for the AT&T
Anaheim to Mission Viejo Lightguide System, Santa Ana P.O.P. Diversity. Ms. on file, SCC,
UCLA, ORI 703 (Michael E. Macko,1994).
Revised Draft Circulation Element, City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency (January 21,
1998).
Revised Final Environmental Impact Report No. 97-01 (Elk 97-01) Final Land Use Element SCH
No. 97071058 (Parsons Brinkerhoff, January 21, 1998).
The First Angelinos, The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum PressBallena Press
Cooperative Publication, Novato, California (William McCawley, 1996).
The Village of Garden Grove, 1870-1905. Pioneer Press, Santa Ana, California (Leroy Doig,
1962).
F.IPROJ-ENMGrand eirWew Text - Gran&Section 10.0-new.doc Page 10-3