HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2014-069ROH - 10/21/14
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -069
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NO. 2014 -01, AND APPROVING
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM,
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, AND STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PREPARED FOR THE
PROPOSED HARBOR MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP -2)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines
and declares as follows:
A. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and Title XIV, California Code of
Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq. (CEQA Guidelines), the City of Santa
Ana has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to analyze the
environmental impacts of the Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific
Plan (SP -2).
B. An extensive public outreach campaign was conducted throughout the
project to provide opportunities for all stakeholders to play a meaningful
role in the development of the plan. Beginning in December of 2010 with
an informational open house held at the Plumbers & Steamfitters Union
Building there have been a total of 25 community meetings and public
hearings.
C. CEQA also requires that when a Draft EIR is submitted to the State
Clearinghouse for review by state agencies, the public be given an
opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR for a period of not
less than 45 days. In accordance with this requirement the Draft EIR
began its 45 -day public review and comment period on April 18, 2014,
with the review period ending on June 2, 2014.
D. In response to written comments received, the City provided formal
Response to Comments and EIR clarification or revision. In addition to
fulfilling CEQA's requirement for public review, the City conducted a public
meeting on May 12, 2014 in order to allow the public to provide oral
testimony on the Draft EIR.
E. The City received a total of 11 written comment letters and evaluated all
comments received from the persons or agencies that reviewed the Draft
EIR. The City provided written responses to all agencies and members of
Resolution No. 2014 -069
Page 1 of 8
the public commenting on the Draft EIR at least ten days prior to
certification of the EIR.
F. The Draft EIR, comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR,
Responses to Comments, and revisions made to the Draft EIR in response
to those comments constitute the Final EIR.
G. On August 25, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing and voted to recommend that the City Council:
1. Adopt a resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 2014 -01, to approve the mitigation monitoring program, findings
of fact, and statement of overriding considerations for the Harbor
Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan.
2. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2014 -02.
3. Adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No.
2014 -01.
4. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2014 -01.
H. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing
on the above said actions for the Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific
Plan (SP -2) on September 16, 2014. At that meeting, the City Council
continued the matter to October 7, 2014, so that the plan could be revised to
reflect the City Council's new policy decisions. The October 7, 2014 City
Council meeting was postponed, and all matters were continued to the next
meeting. On October 21, 2014, the City Council resumed the public hearing,
and at that time considered all testimony, written and oral.
I. The City Council also adopts as findings all facts presented in the Request
for Council Action dated September 16, 2014, and the Request for Council
Action dated October 7, 2014, accompanying this matter.
J. The City has prepared Findings of Fact in compliance with Public
Resources Code Sections 21081 and 21081.5 and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091 for every significant impact of the Harbor Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Specific Plan (SP -2), including an explanation of the rationale for
each finding.
K. While the Draft EIR determined that most potential impacts could be
mitigated to a less than significant level, it did find that, under a long -term,
full build -out scenario, implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would
result in significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality.
L. The City has prepared a Statement of Overriding Considerations in
compliance with Public Resources Code Sections 21081 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093, which finds that specific economic, legal,
social, technological or other benefits of the Harbor Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Specific Plan (SP -2) outweigh the significant and unavoidable
impacts identified in the EIR.
Resolution No. 2014 -069
Page 2 of 8
M. The City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in
compliance with Public Resources Code Sections 21081.6 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15097 to ensure compliance with the mitigation
measures identified in the EIR during project implementation and
operation.
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana further finds, determines
and declares as follows:
A. The City Council certifies that:
1) The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.
2) The Final EIR was presented to the City Council of the City of Santa
Ana, which reviewed and considered the information contained in the
Final EIR prior to approving the project, and is incorporated herein by
this reference as though set forth in full herein.
3) The Final EIR, attached as Exhibit A, reflects the City of Santa Ana's
independent judgment and analysis.
B. The City Council adopts the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, attached to this Resolution as "Exhibit B" and incorporated
herein by this reference as though set forth in full herein.
C. The City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
attached to this Resolution as "Exhibit C" and incorporated herein by this
reference as though set forth in full herein.
D. All attached documents, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, the CEQA Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, are hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in
full.
Section 3. Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section
753.5(c)(1), the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole,
there is no evidence that the Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan (SP -2) will
have the potential for any adverse effect on wildlife resources or the ecological habitat
upon which wildlife resources depend. The Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific
Plan (SP -2) exists in an urban environment characterized by paved concrete, roadways,
surrounding buildings and human activity. Therefore, pursuant to Fish and Game Code
711.4(c)(2) and Title XIV, CCR § 753.5, the payment of Fish and Game Department
filing fees is not required in conjunction with this project.
Section 4. This Resolution shall not be effective unless and until Resolution
No. 2014 -070, Ordinance No. 2014 -2871, and Ordinance No. 2014 -2872 become
effective. If said Resolutions and Ordinance are for any reason held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise do
not go into effect for any reason, this is Ordinance shall be null and void and have no
further force and effect.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
Resolution No. 2014 -069
Page 3 of 8
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that
it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
Section 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately after its adoption by the
City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting
this Resolution.
ADOPTED this 21st day of October 2 '
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia F prvaAo, City Attorney
By"
Ryan
Mayor
AYES: Councilmembers: Amezcua Benavides, Martinez, Pulido, Reyna,
Sarmiento Tinajero (7)
NOES: Councilmembers: None (0)
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None U
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers: None (0)
Resolution No. 2014 -069
Page 4 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify that the
attached Resolution No. 2014 -069 to be the original resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Santa Ana on October 21, 2014.
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
Resolution No. 2014 -069
Page 5 of 8
Exhibit "A"
SEE LASERFICHE
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -069 FOR EXHIBIT
Resolution No. 2014 -069
Page 6 of 8
October 2014 1 Final Environmental Impact Report
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE
TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN
for City of Santa Ana
Preparedfor:
City of Santa Ana
Contact: Melanie G. McCann, AICP
Associate Planner
20 Civic Center Plaza, M -20
Santa Ana, California 92701
714.667.2746
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Contact: Nicole Morse, Esq.
Associate Principal
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
info@placeworks.com
www.placeworks.com
0 PLACEWORKS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR:
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO: 2013061027
Proaredfor.
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Contact:
Melanie G. McCann, AICP
Associate Planner
20 Civic Center Plaza, M -20
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Tel: 714.667.2746 • Fax: 714.973.1461
Proared by:
PLACEWORKS
Contact:
Nicole Morse, Esq.
Associate Principal
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Tel: 714.966.9220 • Fax: 714.966.9221
Website: www.placeworks.com
SNT -11.0
OCTOBER 2014
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Table of Contents
Contents
1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ ............................1 -1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... ............................1 1
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ............................................................ ............................1 1
1.2.1 EIR Format ............................................................................................. ............................1 2
1.2.2 Type and Purpose of This EIR ............................................................ ............................1 4
1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES .................................................................................... ............................1 5
1.4 PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................... ............................1 5
1.5 PROJECT SUMMARY ........................................................................................ ............................1 5
1.6 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ............................................... ............................1 6
1.6.1 No Project /NHSP Alternative ............................................................. ............................1 6
1.6.2 Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative ........................................... ............................1 7
1.7 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED ............................................................................. ............................1 7
1.8 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY ........................................................................... ............................1 7
1.9 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT'S, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND
LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION ............................. ............................1 8
2. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... ............................2 -1
2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ............... ............................2 1
2.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY ............................ ............................2 2
2.3 SCOPE OF THIS EIR ......................................................................................... ............................2 2
2.3.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant ........................................ ............................2 2
2.3.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts .............................................. ............................2 3
2.3.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts .......................................... ............................2 3
2.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE .......................................................... ............................2 3
2.5 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION ........................................................................ ............................2 4
2.6 MITIGATION MONITORING ....................................................................... ............................2 4
3. Project Description ......................................................................................................... ............................3 -1
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................... ............................3 1
3.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES ..................................................................... ............................3 1
3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................... ............................3 1
3.3.1 Project Background and Overview ...................................................... ............................3 9
3.3.2 Description of the Project ................................................................... ...........................3 -11
3.4 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR ................................................................... ...........................3 -17
4. Environmental Setting .................................................................................................... ............................4 -1
4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ ............................... 41
4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................ .............................41
4.2.1 Regional Location .................................................................................. .............................41
4.2.2 Regional Planning Considerations ....................................................... .............................41
4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..................................................... .............................43
4.3.1 Location and Land Use ......................................................................... .............................43
4.3.2 Environmental Resources and Infrastructure ................................... .............................43
4.3.3 Local Planning Considerations ............................................................ .............................47
4.4 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .................... .............................47
4.5 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... .............................49
5. Environmental Analysis ................................................................................................ ..........................5.1 -1
October 2014 Page i
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Table of Contents
Contents
5.1 AESTHETICS ...................................................................................................... ..........................5.1 1
5.1.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... ..........................5.1 1
5.1.2 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................... ..........................5.1 2
5.1.3 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................ ..........................5.1 5
5.1.4 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... ..........................5.1 9
5.1.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ......................... ............................... 5.1 -10
5.1.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.1 -10
5.1.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ............................... 5.1 -10
5.1.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 5.1 -10
5.2 AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................... ..........................5.2 1
5.2.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... ..........................5.2 1
5.2.2 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................... ............................... 5.2 -12
5.2.3 Environmental Impacts ................................................................ ............................... 5.2 -15
5.2.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................... ............................... 5.2 -21
5.2.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ......................... ............................... 5.2 -22
5.2.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.2 -22
5.2.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ............................... 5.2 -23
5.2.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 5.2 -27
5.2.9 References ....................................................................................... ............................... 5.2 -28
5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... ..........................5.3 1
5.3.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... ..........................5.3 1
5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................... ..........................S.3 6
5.3.3 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................ ..........................S.3 7
5.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... ..........................5.3 9
5.3.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ......................... ............................... 5.3 -10
5.3.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.3 -10
5.3.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ............................... 5.3 -10
5.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 5.3 -10
5.3.9 References ............................................................................................. .........................5.3 11
5.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................. ............................... ...........................5.41
5.4.1 Environmental Setting .......................................... ............................... ...........................5.41
5.4.2 Thresholds of Significance ................................... ............................... ...........................5.49
5.4.3 Environmental Impacts ................................................................ ............................... 5.410
5.4.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................... ............................... 5.412
5.4.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ......................... ............................... 5.413
5.4.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.413
5.4.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ............................... 5.413
5.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 5.413
5.4.9 References ....................................................................................... ............................... 5.413
5.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................... ..........................5.5 1
5.5.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... ..........................5.5 1
5.5.2 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................... ............................... 5.5 -11
5.5.3 Environmental Impacts ................................................................ ............................... 5.5 -13
5.5.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................... ............................... 5.5 -16
5.5.5 Existing Plans, Policies, and Programs ....................................... ............................... 5.5 -16
5.5.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.5 -16
5.5.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ............................... 5.5 -16
Page ii PlaceWorkr
Contents
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Table of Contents
October 2014 Page in
5.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 5.5 -17
5.5.9 References ....................................................................................... ............................... 5.5 -17
5.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ......................................... ..........................5.6 1
5.6.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... ..........................5.6 1
5.6.2 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................... ............................... 5.6 -17
5.6.3 Environmental Impacts ................................................................ ............................... 5.6 -18
5.6.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................... ............................... 5.6 -22
5.6.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ......................... ............................... 5.6 -23
5.6.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.6 -23
5.6.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ............................... 5.6 -23
5.6.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 5.6 -24
5.6.9 References ....................................................................................... ............................... 5.6 -24
5.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................... ..........................5.7 1
5.7.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... ..........................5.7 1
5.7.2 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................... ............................... 5.7 -16
5.7.3 Environmental Impacts ................................................................ ............................... 5.7 -19
5.7.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................... ............................... 5.7 -27
5.7.5 Existing Regulations ............................................................................ .........................5.7 28
5.7.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.7 -28
5.7.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ............................... 5.7 -29
5.7.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 5.7 -30
5.7.9 References ....................................................................................... ............................... 5.7 -31
5.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING ....................................................................... ..........................5.8 1
5.8.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... ..........................5.8 1
5.8.2 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................... ..........................5.8 3
5.8.3 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................ ..........................5.8 4
5.8.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................... ............................... 5.8 -16
5.8.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ......................... ............................... 5.8 -17
5.8.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.8 -17
5.8.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ............................... 5.8 -17
5.8.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 5.8 -17
5.8.9 Reference ............................................................................................... .........................5.8 17
5.9 NOISE 5.9 1
5.9.1 Terminology and Noise and Vibration Descriptors ......................... ..........................5.9 1
5.9.2 Regulatory Framework .......................................................................... ..........................5.9 5
5.9.3 Exis Ling Noise Environment ............................................................... ..........................5.9 7
5.9.4 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................... ..........................5.9 7
5.9.5 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................ ..........................5.9 8
5.9.6 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................... ............................... 5.9 -19
5.9.7 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ......................... ............................... 5.9 -20
5.9.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.9 -20
5.9.9 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ............................... 5.9 -21
5.9.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 5.9 -23
5.9.11 References ....................................................................................... ............................... 5.9 -23
5.10 POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................................... ............................... 5.10 -1
5.10.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. ............................... 5.10 -1
5.10.2 Thresholds of SiPnificance ........................................................... ............................... 5.10 -6
October 2014 Page in
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Table of Contents
Contents
5.10.3 Environmental Impacts ................................................................ ............................... 5.10 -7
5.10.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................... ............................... 5.10 -9
5.10.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ....................... ............................... 5.10 -10
5.10.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................... ............................... 5.10 -10
5.10.7 Mitigation Measures .................................................................... ............................... 5.10 -10
5.10.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.10 -10
5.10.9 References ..................................................................................... ............................... 5.10 -10
5.11 PUBLIC SERVICES .................................................................................... ............................... 5.11 -1
5.11.1 Fire Protection and Emergency Services ................................... ............................... 5.11 -1
5.11.2 Police Protection ............................................................................ ............................... 5.11 -4
5.11.3 School Services ............................................................................... ............................... 5.11 -6
5.11.4 Library Services .................................................... ............................... ........................5.11 10
5.12 RECREATION ............................................................................................ ............................... 5.12 -1
5.12.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. ............................... 5.12 -1
5.12.2 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................... ............................... 5.12 -2
5.12.3 Environmental Impacts ....................................... ............................... .........................5.12 2
5.12.4 Cumulative Imnacts ....................................................................... ............................... 5.12 -4
5.12.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ......................... ............................... 5.12 -4
S. 12.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.12 -4
5.12.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ............................... 5.12 -4
5.12.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 5.12 -4
5.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC .................................................. ............................... 5.13 -1
5.13.1 Methodology .......................................................... ............................... .........................5.13 1
5.13.2 Environmental Setting .................................................................. ............................... 5.13 -5
5.13.3 Thresholds of SiPnificance ......................................................... ............................... 5.13 -10
5.13.4 Environmental Impacts .............................................................. ............................... 5.13 -13
5.13.5 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................... ............................... 5.13 -24
5.13.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ....................... ............................... 5.13 -24
5.13.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation. ................................................................. 5.13 -24
5.13.8 Mitigation Measures .................................................................... ............................... 5.13 -25
5.13.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.13 -26
5.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................. ............................... 5.141
5.14.1 Environmental Setting ........................................ ............................... ..........................5.141
5.14.2 Thresholds of Significance ......................................................... ............................... 5.14 -12
5.14.3 Environmental Impacts .............................................................. ............................... 5.14 -13
5.14.4 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................... ............................... 5.14 -21
5.14.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ....................... ............................... 5.14 -22
5.14.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................... ............................... 5.14 -22
5.14.7 Mitigation Measures .................................................................... ............................... 5.14 -23
5.14.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.14 -24
6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................................................................... ............................6 1
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project ............................................................................ ............................7 1
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ ............................... 7 -1
7.1.1 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................. ............................7 1
7.1.2 Project Objectives ................................................................................... ............................7 2
Page iv PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Table of Contents
Contents
7.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE
SCOPING /PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS ........................................... ............................7 2
7.2.1 Alternative Development Areas ........................................................... ............................7 3
7.2.2 Reduced Nonresidential Intensity Alternative . ............................................................... 7-3
7.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS .................. ............................7 4
7.4 NO PROJECT /NHSP ALTERNATIVE ......................................................... ............................7 4
7.4.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................. ............................7 4
7.4.2 Air Quality ................................................................................................ ............................7 5
7.4.3 Cultural Resources .............°-................................................................. ............................7 5
7.4.4 Geology and Soils ................................................................................... ............................7 5
7.4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................. ............................7 5
7.4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................ ............................7 6
7.4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................... ............................7 6
7.4.8 Land Use and Planning .......................................................................... ............................7 6
7.4.9 Noise ......................................................................................................... ............................7 6
7.4.10 Population and Housing ........................................................................ ............................7 6
7.4.11 Public Services ......................................................................................... ............................7 7
7.4.12 Recreation ................................................................................................. ............................7 7
7.4.13 Transportation and Traffic .................................................................... ............................7 7
7.4.14 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................. ............................7 8
7.4.15 Conclusion ............................................................................................... ............................7 8
7.5 REDUCED RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE .................... ............................7 8
7.5.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................. ............................7 8
7.5.2 Air Quality ................................................................................................ ............................7 9
7.5.3 Cultural Resources .................................................................................. ............................7 9
7.5.4 Geology and Soils ................................................................................... ............................7 9
7.5.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................. ............................7 9
7.5.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................ ............................7 9
7.5.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................... ............................7 9
7.5.8 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................... ...........................7 10
7.5.9 Noise ........................................................................................................ ...........................7 10
7.5.10 Population and Housing ....................................................................... ...........................7 10
7.5.11 Public Services ........................................................................................ ...........................7 10
7.5.12 Recreation ................................................................................................ ...........................7 10
7.5.13 Transportation and Traffic ................................................................... ...........................7 11
7.5.14 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................ ...........................7 11
7.5.15 Conclusion ...............................................................°............................. ...........................7 11
7.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ............................. ...........................7 11
8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant ............................................................................ ............................8 -1
8.1 ASSESSMENT IN THE INITIAL STUDY .................................................... ............................8 1
9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project ................................. ............................9 -1
10. Growth- Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project .................................................... ...........................10 1
11. Organizations and Persons Consulted ........................................................................ ...........................11 1
12. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR ..................................................................... ...........................12 1
CITY OF SANTA ANA .................................................................................................... ...........................12 1
October 2014 Page v
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Table of Contents
Contents
PLACEWORKS.................................................................................................................. ...........................12 -1
IBIGROUP .......................................................................................................................... ...........................12 -2
13. Bibliography ................................................................................................................... ...........................13 -1
APPENDICES
Appendix A NOP and Initial Study
Appendix B NOP Responses
Appendix C Ain Quality and GHG Emissions Modeling Data
Appendix D Cultural Resources Records Searches
Appendix E Hazardous Materials Data (EDR Report)
Appendix F Drainage Study
Appendix G Noise Modeling Data
Appendix H Traffic Impact Study
Appendix I Service Letters
Appendix J Water and Sewer Studies
Page m PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Table of Contents
Figure 3 -1 Regional Location. 3 -3
Figure 3 -2 Local Vicinity. 3 -5
Figure 3 -3 Aerial Photograph. 3 -7
Figure 3 -4 Proposed Land Use Districts and Zoning Designations. 3 -15
Figure 4 -1 Current Zoning Designations. 4-11
Figure 5.1 -1 Existing Visual Resources -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-1 -3
Figure 5.1 -2 Conceptual Renderings------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-1 -7
Figure5.4 -1 Geologic Map----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54-5
Figure5.4 -2 Fault Map----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-4 -7
Figure 5.7 -1 Santa Ana River Watershed ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-7 -5
Figure5.7 -2 Regional Drainage --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-7 -7
Figure 5.7 -3 Main Orange County Groundwater Basin ........................................................ 5.7 -13
Figure5.7 -4 Flood Hazard Zones ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.7-17
Figure 5.13 -1 Study Area Intersections and Turn Lane Geometries ........... ......................... 5.13 -11
Figure 5.14 -1 Existing Water System Pipe Sizes----------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.14 -5
October 2014 Page vii
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Table of Contents
Table
Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of
Significance After Mitigation . 1 -9
Table 3 -1 Land Use Districts and Buddout Projections for the Harbor Corridor Plan . 3 -13
Table 3 -2 Buddout Projections for Parcels Proposed to Be Converted to Conventional
Zoning. 3 -14
Table 4 -1 North Harbor Specific Plan Land Use Summary . 4 -7
Table 4 -2 General Plan Projections. 4 -9
Table 52 -1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants ..................................... ......................... 52 -7
Table 52 -2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin-------- ------------------------- 52 -10
Table 52 -3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------- 52 -11
Table 52 -4 Existing Land Uses------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------- 52 -12
Table 52 -5 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds-------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 52 -13
Table 52 -6 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds ................................................. ......................... 52 -14
Table 52 -7 SCAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds-------------- ------------------------- 52 -14
Table 52 -8 Construction Regional Emissions ....................................................................... ......................... 52 -16
Table 52 -9 Maximum Daily Operational Phase Regional Emissions ............................... ......................... 52 -17
Table 52 -10 CARB Recommendations for Siting New Sensitive Land Uses-------------------- ------------------------- 52 -19
Table 5.4 -1 Estimated Relationship between Peak Ground Acceleration and Intensity-- ------------------------- 5.4 -3
Table 5.5 -1 GHG and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2------------------------------- 5.5 -2
Table 5.5 -2 Summary of Global Climate Change Risks to California ................................. ......................... 5.5 -5
Table 5.5 -3 Scoping Plan GHG Reduction Measures and Reductions toward 2020 Target-------------------- 5.5 -8
Table 5.5 -4 Annual Operational Phase GHG Emissions .................................................... ......................... 5.5 -14
Table 5.6 -1 Environmental Database Listings within the Project Area------------------------------------------------------- 5.6 -7
Table 5.6 -2 Offsite Environmental Database Listings within 0.25 Mile of the Project Site ......................... 5.6 -12
Table 5.7 -1 Existing Project Area Drainage System and Capacities ............................................................. 5.7 -9
Table 5.7 -2 Beneficial Uses of Receiving Waters ........................................................................................... 5.7 -11
Table 5.7 -3 Water Quality Impairments --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.7 -12
Table5.7 -4 Future Pipe Capacity--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.7 -22
Table5.7 -5 Construction BMPs----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.7 -23
Table 5.7 -6 Anticipated and Potential Pollutants Generated by Land Use Type------------------------------------- 5.7 -24
Table 5.7 -7 Categories of BMPs in WQMPs------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.7 -25
Table 5.8 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.8 -5
Table 5.8 -2 Consistency with SCAG's 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy Goals---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.8 -12
Table 5.8 -3 SCAG Compass Growth Vision Consistency Analysis .................................. ......................... 5.8 -14
Table 5.9 -1 Change in Sound Pressure Level, dB ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5-9 -2
Table 5.9 -2 Typical Noise Levels from Noise Sources .......................................................... ......................... 5.9 -3
Table 5.9 -3 City of Santa Ana Noise Element Standards ............................................................................... 5.9 -5
Table 5.9 -4 City of Santa Ana Exterior Noise Standards ............................................................................... 5.9 -5
Table 5.9 -5 Ground home Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria: Human Annoyance--- ------------------------- 5.9 -6
Table 5.9 -6 Ground Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria: Structural Damage ---- ------------------------- 5.9 -6
Table 5.9 -7 Project- Related Traffic Noise, Existing Conditions ................................................................... 5.9 -9
Table 5.9 -8 Long Term Traffic Noise Increases ................................................................... ......................... 5.9 -11
Table 5.9 -9 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ....................................................... ......................... 5.9 -15
Table 5.9 -10 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ............................................................. ......................... 5.9 -18
Table 5.10 -1 Population Projections, 2010 - 2035 .................................................................... ......................... 5.10 -1
Table 5.10-2 Housing Units and Households, Santa Ana and Orange County, 2013, CDF
Estimate--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.10 -2
Table 5.10 -3 Housing Units Projections, 2010 - 2035 ............................................................. ......................... 5.10 -2
Page viii PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Table of Contents
Table
Table 5.10 -4 Employment by Industrial Sector, Santa Ana, 2011 ........................................ ......................... 5.10 -3
Table 5.10 -5 Employment Projections, 2010 - 2035 ....................................... ................................. ....................... 5.10 -4
Table 5.10 -6 Jobs - Housing Balance------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- -------------- 5.10 -5
Table 5.10 -7 Jobs- Housing Balance in Santa Ana, 2035, with Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout--------------- 5.10 -8
Table5.11 -1 Fire Stations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.11-1
Table 5.11 -2 Schools 5.11 -7
Table 5.11 -3 Student Generation by Grade Level ................................................................... ......................... 5.11 -9
Table 5.13 -1 Level of Service Descriptions ....................................................................................................... 5.13 -2
Table 5.13 -2 Maximum Average Daily Traffic and LOS for Arterial Roads---------------------- ------------------------- 5.13 -3
Table 5.13 -3 HEM 2000 Level of Service Descriptions ......................................................... ......................... 5.13 -4
Table 5.13 -4 Existing Roadway Segment LOS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.13-8
Table 5.13 -5 Existing Intersection LOS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.13-9
Table 5.13 -6 Existing Year 2013 With Project Roadway Segment LOS --------------------------------------------------------- 5.13-14
Table 5.13 -7 Harbor Corridor Plan Land Uses ..................................................................... ......................... . 5.13 -15
Table 5.13 -8 Existing With Project Intersection LOS: AM Peak Hour ----------------------------------------------------------- 5.13-16
Table 5.13 -9 Existing With Project Intersection LOS, PM Peak Hour ------------------------------------------------------------ 5.13 -17
Table 5.13 -10 Future Year 2035 With Project Roadway Segment LOS ------------------------------------------------------------- 5.13-19
Table 5.13 -11 Future Year 2035 Intersection LOS Without and With Project: AM Peak Hour ------------------- 5.13 -20
Table 5.13 -12 Future Year 2035 Intersection LOS Without and With Project: PM Peak Hour ------------------ 5.13-21
Table 5.1 -13 CMP Arterial LOS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.13 -22
Table 5.13 -14 CMP Intersection Year 2035 LOS- AM Peak Hour ...................................... ......................... . 5.13 -23
Table 5.13 -15 CMP Intersection Year 2035 LOS- PM Peak Hour ............... ................................. ...................... 5.13 -23
Table 5.14-1 Existing and Forecast Water Supplies ...................................... ............................ . . . . .. .......................5.14-2
Table 5.14-2 Projected Normal Year Water Supply and Demand for the City of Santa Ana (ACY) ----- 5.14-3
Table 5.14-3 Projected Single Dry Year Water Supply and Demand for the City of Santa Ana
ACY) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.14-3
Table 5.14-4 Existing Storm Drain Pipe Deficiency--------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.14-9
Table 5.14-5 Landfill Capacity --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.14-11
Table 5.14-6 Estimated Existing Electricity Demands ................................ ............................ . . . . .. ......................5.14-12
Table 5.14-7 Forecast Project Wastewater Generation ............................... ............................. . . . . .. .....................5.14-13
Table 5.14-8 Existing and Future Water Demands Based on Population ------------------------ - - - - -- -------------------------5.14-15
Table 5.14-9 Existing and Future Water Demands Based on Existing Water Usage Rates . .........................5.14-15
Table 5.1410 Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Year Demands ( ACY) -------------------- ------------------------- - 5.14-16
Table 5.14-11 Future Pipe Capacities --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- ------ --------------- ----------5.14-18
Table 5.14-12 Estimated Net Increase in Solid Waste Generation by Harbor Corridor Plan
Buildout------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.14-19
Table 5.14-13 Estimated Electricity Demands by Specific Plan Buildout ---------------------------------------------------------- 5.14-20
Table 5.14-14 Estimated Natural Gas Demands by Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout ............ . . . . .. ....................5.14-21
Table 8 -1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant . 8 -1
October 2014 Page ix
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Table of Contents
Table
Tbisliage intentionally left blank.
Page x PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB Assembly Bill
ACM asbestos - containing materials
ADT average daily traffic
amsl above mean sea level
AQMP air quality management plan
BAU business as usual
BMW best management practices
BRT bus rapid transit
CaIARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program
Cal /EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGieen California Green Building Code
Cal /OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
CalRecycle California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDF California Department of Finance
CDR Center for Demographic Research (CSU Fullerton(
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and liability Act
cfs cubic feet per second
CGS California Geologic Survey
CGV Compass Growth Vision
CMP congestion management program
CO2C carbon dioxide equivalent
Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers
CRS community rating system
CUPA certified Unified Program agency
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
October 2014 Page i
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Abbreviations and Acronyms
dBA A- weighted decibel
DEIR draft environmental impact report
DOF Department of Finance
EHD Environmental Health Department
EIR environmental impact report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency (US)
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act
FDPA Flood Disaster Protection Act
FEIR final environmental impact report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM flood insurance rate map
FIS flood insurance study
FTA Federal Transit Administration
g acceleration of gravity
GCP general construction permit
GGUSD Garden Grove Unified School District
GHG greenhouse gases
GWP global warming potential
HAP hazardous au pollutant
HCD Housing and Community Development Department (CA)
HCP habitat conservation plan
HQTA high quality transit area
HRA health risk assessment
HVAC heating, ventilating, and au conditioning system
ICU intersection capacity utilization
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District
Lan day night noise level
Leq equivalent continuous noise level
Lm. maximum noise level
I. minimum noise level
LBP lead based paint
Page ii PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Abbreviations and Acronyms
LCFS low carbon fuel standard
LEPC local emergency planning committee
LOS level of service
LST localized significance thresholds
Mw moment magnitude
MMI modified Mercalli intensity
MMT million metric tons
MT metric ton
MTCOze /year SP metric tons of CO2-equivalent emissions per year per service population
NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NHSP North Harbor Specific Plan
NOP Notice of Preparation (of an EIR)
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
OCFA Orange County Fire Authority
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
OCTAM Orange County Traffic Analysis Model
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration (US)
POTW publicly owned treatment works
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RHNA regional housing needs assessment
RMS root mean square
RPS renewable portfolio standard
RTP regional transportation plan
RWQCB regional water quality control board
SAFD Santa Ana Fire Department
SAPD Santa Ana Police Department
SARMP Santa Ana River Mainstem Project
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
October 2014 Page in
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Abbreviations and Acronyms
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCS sustainable communities strategy
SFHA special flood hazard area
SHMA Seismic Hazard Mapping Act
SIP state implementation plan
SoCAB South Coast Air Basin
SRA source receptor area
TAC toxic air contaminants
TAZ traffic analysis zones
TDM travel demand model
TDS total dissolved solids
TTCP traditional tribal cultural places
UST underground storage tank
UWMP urban water management plan
V/C volume -to- capacity ratio
VdB velocity decibels
VMf vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds
VPHPL vehicles per hour per lane
WCI Western Climate Initiative
WQMP water quality management plan
ybp years before present
Page iv PlaceWorkr
1. Executive Summa
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the environmental effects associated with the
implementation of the proposed Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor. The California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that local government agencies, prior to taking action on
projects over which they have discretionary approval authority, consider the environmental consequences of
such projects. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a public document designed to provide the public
and local and State governmental agency decision makers with an analysis of potential environmental
consequences to support informed decision making. This document focuses on those impacts determined to
be potentially significant as discussed in the Initial Study completed for this project (see Apendix A.
This EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and the City of Santa Ana's CEQA
procedures. The City of Santa Ana, as the lead agency, has reviewed and revised as necessary all submitted
drafts, technical studies, and reports to reflect its own independent judgment, including reliance on applicable
City technical personnel from other departments and review of all technical subconsultant reports.
Data for this EIR was obtained from on -site field observations, discussions with affected agencies, analysis of
adopted plans and policies, review of available studies, reports, data and similar literature, and specialized
environmental assessments (air quality, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation and traffic, and
utilities and service systems).
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
This EIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA to assess the environmental effects associated with
implementation of the proposed project, as well as anticipated future discretionary actions and approvals.
The six main objectives of this document as established by CEQA are listed below.
1) To disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed
activities.
2) To identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage.
3) To prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation
measures.
4) To disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental
effects.
October 2014 Page 1 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
1. Executive Summary
5) To foster interagency coordination in the review of projects
6) To enhance public participation in the planning process.
An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines and provides the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a
proposed project, to the extent feasible. EIRs are intended to provide an objective, factually supported, full
disclosure analysis of the environmental consequences associated with a proposed project that has the
potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts.
An EIR is also one of various decision making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and
disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Prior to approving a proposed project,
the lead agency must consider the information contained in the EIR, determine whether the EIR was
properly prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, determine that it reflects the
independent judgment of the lead agency, adopt findings concerning the projects significant environmental
impacts and alternatives, and must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the proposed project
would result in significant impacts that cannot be avoided.
1.2.1 EIR Format
This EIR has been formatted as described below.
Section 1, Executive Summary. Summarizes the background and description of the proposed project, the
format of this EIR, project alternatives, any critical issues remaining to be resolved, and the potential
environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified for the project.
Section 2, Introduction. Describes the purpose of this EIR, background on the project, the Notice of
Preparation, the use of incorporation by reference, and Final EIR certification.
Section 3, Project Description. A detailed description of the project, the objectives of the proposed
project, the project area and location, approvals anticipated to be included as part of the project, the
necessary environmental clearances for the project, and the intended uses of this EIR.
Section 4, Environmental Setting. A description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of
the project as they existed at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, from both a local and
regional perspective. The environmental setting provides baseline physical conditions from which the lead
agency determines the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project.
Section 5, Environmental Analysis. Provides, for each environmental parameter analyzed, a description of
the thresholds used to determine if a significant impact would occur; the methodology to identify and
evaluate the potential impacts of the project; the existing environmental setting; the potential adverse and
beneficial effects of the project; the level of impact significance before mitigation; the mitigation measures
for the proposed project; the level of significance of the adverse impacts of the project after mitigation is
incorporated and the potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project and other existing,
approved, and proposed development in the area.
Page 12 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
1. Executive Summary
Section 6, Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. Describes the significant unavoidable adverse
impacts of the proposed project.
Section 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Describes the impacts of the alternatives to the proposed
project, including the No Project Alternative, and a Reduced Intensity Alternative.
Section S, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant. Briefly describes the potential impacts of the project
that were determined not to be significant by the Initial Study and were therefore not discussed in detail in
this EIR.
Section 9, Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project. Describes the significant
irreversible environmental changes associated with the project.
Section 10, Growth - Inducing Impacts of the Project. Describes the ways in which the proposed project
would cause increases in employment or population that could result in new physical or environmental
impacts.
Section 11, Organizations and Persons Consulted. Lists the people and organizations that were contacted
during the preparation of this EIR for the proposed project.
Section 12, Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR. Lists the people who prepared this EIR for the
proposed project.
Section 13, Bibliography. A bibliography of the technical reports and other documentation used in the
preparation of this EIR for the proposed project.
Appendices. The appendices for this document (presented in PDF format on a CD attached to the front
cover) contain the following supporting documents:
Apendix A: NOP and Initial Study
Apendix B: NOP Responses
Apendix C: Au Quality and GHG Emissions Modeling Data
Apendix D: Cultural Resources Records Searches
Apendix E: Hazardous Materials Data (EDR Report)
Apendig F: Drainage Study
Apendix G: Noise Modeling Data
Apendix H: Traffic Impact Study
Apendix I: Service Letters
Apendix J: Water and Sewer Studies
October 2014 Page 13
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
1. Executive Summary
1.2.2 Type and Purpose of This EIR
This EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and
the City's Rules for the Implementation of CEQA. In accordance with Section 15121(a) of the State CEQA
Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3):
An EIR is an informational document which mill inform public agency decision - makers and thepubhcgenerallA of the
significant envimnmental effects of a project, identify possible mays to mzmmz e the significant effects, and describe
reasonable alternatives to theproject
As provided in Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of
actions that may be characterized as one large project that are related either 1) geographically; 2) as logical
parts of a chain of contemplated events; 3) in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other
general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or 4) as individual activities carried out under
the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and have generally similar environmental effects that
can be mitigated in similar ways. The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15168[b]) encourages the use of Program
EIRs, citing five advantages:
1. Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be
practical in an EIR or an individual action.
2. Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case -by -case analysis.
3. Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations
4. Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and programwide mitigation measures
at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative
impacts
5. Allow reduction in paperwork
Although the legally required contents of a Program EIR are the same as those of a Project EIR, Program
EIRs are typically more conceptual and may contain a more general discussion of impacts, alternatives, and
mitigation measures than a Project EIR. Once a Program EIR has been prepared, subsequent activities within
the program must be evaluated to determine whether an additional CEQA document needs to be prepared.
However, if the Program EIR addresses the program's effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible,
many subsequent activities could be found to be within the Program EIR scope and additional environmental
documents may not be required (Guidelines Section 15168[c]). When a Program EIR is relied on for a
subsequent activity, the lead agency must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed
in the Program EIR into the subsequent activities (Guidelines Section 15168[c][1]). If a later activity would
have effects that were not examined in the Program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared
leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration. In this case, the Program EIR still serves a valuable
purpose as the first tier environmental analysis.
Page 14 PlaceWorks
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
1. Executive Summary
1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been established for the Harbor Corridor Plan project and will aid decision
makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts:
Provide for the development of the site consistent with City's General Plan.
Provide for new housing and mixed use development opportunities.
Expand development opportunities that respond to transit investments.
Create economic vitality by providing new opportunities for businesses and residents.
Provide a variety of safe and efficient travel choices and access to multi modal transportation.
Create a sense of place.
Enhance community health and wellness by creating safer street design for multiple modes of travel,
increase walkability and encourage live /work along the corridor.
1.4 PROJECT LOCATION
The project area comprises approximately 425 acres oriented to Harbor Boulevard in Santa Ana, located in
central Orange County. The project area generally includes parcels adjacent to Harbor Boulevard between
Westminster Avenue and Gloxinia Avenuel 6e AX ay and parcels along Westminster Avenue, 1st Street, and
5th Street one -half mile east of Harbor Boulevard. The corridor's northern and southern ends are adjacent to
the city boundaries of Garden Grove and Fountain Valley, respectively. The project areas consists of two
areas 1) an approximately 305 -acre portion that directly fronts Harbor Boulevard or perpendicular arterial
streets and 2) 120 acres consisting of the Willowick Golf Course and Campesmo Park, residential properties
along Jackson Street, and commercial properties along 5th Street. The 120 -acre site is east of the Harbor
Boulevard corridor and abuts the Santa Ana River to the east.
1.5 PROJECT SUMMARY
The City of Santa Ana, as lead agency and project applicant, is processing the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use
Transit Corridor Plan, a specific plan, zoning amendment, zone change, and general plan amendment. The
specific plan is available for review at the City of Santa Ana, Planning Division, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa
Ana, CA 92701.
The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would replace the existing 425 -acre North Harbor
Specific Plan ( "NHSP "). The plan would change the boundaries of the NHSP so that the project would
consist of two separate areas: 1) 305 acres within the boundaries of the existing 425 -acre NHSP generally
along Harbor Boulevard ("Harbor Corridor Plan" or "Specific Plan"), and 2) 120 acres within the existing
NHSP in the Willowick Golf Course area (or "Conventional Zoning Area'). Both of these areas constitute
the "project" for purposes of CEQA.
The Harbor Corridor Plan would allow up to 4,623 dwelling units and 1,954,261 square feet of commercial
units within four zones: Transit Node (TN), Corridor (CDR), Neighborhood Transitional (NT), and Open
October 2014 Page 15
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
1. Executive Summary
Space (OS). Buildout would allow for a net increase of 3,884 dwelling units and 13,721 square feet of
commercial uses.
The Conventional Zoning area would be removed from the NHSP and redesignated to match the existing
land uses. The intensity of development is not expected to change and buildout would match the existing
uses with 92 dwelling units and 3,700 square feet of commercial.
A detailed project description is provided in Section 3.3.2, Desaip ion of the Project, of this MR.
1.6 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[a]) state that an EIR must address "a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of
the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate
the comparative merits of the alternatives." The alternatives were based, in part, on their potential ability to
reduce or eliminate the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable for the proposed project. The
following two alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives which have
the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but which may avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in
Section 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project.
No Project /NHSP Alternative
Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative
Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to the proposed project and determined to be
environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only those impacts found significant and unavoidable
are used in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to
the proposed project. Impacts involving air quality were found to be significant and unavoidable. Section 7.6
identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
1.6.1 No Project/NHSP Alternative
The No Project /NHSP Alternative assumes that the Harbor Corridor Plan would not be adopted, the NHSP
would remain in effect, the Conventional Zoning Area would remain within the NHSP, and the existing
onsite buildings would remain. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), where a project is the
revision of an existing regulatory plan the "no project" alternative assumes continuation of the existing plan,
policy or operation into the future. Therefore, this alternative assumes that new development and
redevelopment would continue to occur in the project area consistent with the adopted NHSP land use
designations, development standards and design guidelines. Buildout of the NHSP would allow for
320 residential units and 4,867,789 square feet of nonresidential land uses. Note that the NHSP results in a
reduction of residential units compared to existing uses since some residential uses were existing in the area
prior to adoption of the NHSP. As compared to the proposed project, buildout of the NHSP would result in
Page 16 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
1. Executive Summary
a reduction of 4,395 residential units and an increase of 2,896,107 of commercial and other nonresidential
square footage.
1.6.2 Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative
The Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative would reduce permitted residential units by 25 percent in the
Transit Node district and by 50 percent in the Corridor district; the permitted number of residential units in
the Neighborhood Transition district would be the same as in the proposed project. Total permitted
nonresidential development intensity in this alternative would remain the same as in the proposed project.
The total number of residential units permitted by this alternative would be 2,908, or 37 percent less than
that of the proposed project.
1.7 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an FIR contain issues to be resolved including the
choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the proposed
project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the lead agency as to the following:
1. Whether this FIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project.
2. Whether the benefits of the project override those environmental impacts which cannot be feasibly
avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance.
3. Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area.
4. Whether the identified goals, policies, or mitigation measures should be adopted or modified.
5. Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the project besides the
Mitigation Measures identified in the FIR.
6. Whether there are any alternatives to the project that would substantially lessen any of the significant
impacts of the proposed project and achieve most of the basic project objectives.
1.8 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
An FIR scoping meeting was held on June 25, 2013 to determine the environmental concerns of interested
parties regarding the Harbor Corridor Plan. The meeting was held at Santa Ana Union Hall, 3904 West First
Street, Santa Ana. Several issues were raised during the scoping meeting including: the increase in traffic and
effect on Harbor, eminent domain, creating jobs for the local labor force, impacts on adjacent land uses of
high density and affordable units, noise, public services (police, schools, parks, and libraries), pedestrian and
traffic circulation. Responses to the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation are included in Apendix B of this
FIR. These and other environmental issues are frilly addressed in Chapter 5 of this FIR. No other areas of
controversy are known to the Lead Agency.
October 2014 Page 1 -7
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
1. Executive Summary
1.9 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION
MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Table 1 -1 summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis contained in this EIR. Impacts are
identified as significant or less than significant and for all significant impacts mitigation measures are
identified. The level of significance after imposition of the mitigation measures is also presented.
Page 18 PlaceWorkr
zw
a
zzLL¢
LLJoa}
O U
K
OO
6
E
E
7U)
N
U
xW
r
Q
dUC
Uw
O
N
7
J
C
N
N
Nm
Cd
C
CW
Na
H
o `a
asJ
o
d mJ
Ec
Sw
m
m o " t m 0> '0 m Q m ° _
o Q O o ° Emm
2
m
m a ° ° m .' .m ..
m
Om 0. m
E
E
2 0` c°+ U m o s¢ m ° o E o
a m o N o o .
Lm. `
o m m m 1E t `0 2 o.0 o
moo U o 2
m m o o E c m vmE ° oa .m
m m m F E .U+. i '-m-o m -mo `m v Q m aEi v 3 w o m o 2 E o a inm
o_Q ._ m VE ' E
Q d W d oI aEi o d O C
m m
E E
C C Umm _
C C LJ1mmH
T
L L F C
m N
J J a
Om
C N d O N L O N
O 0I (i C m m 'O
O i -O 2E
m o
m~
m m o m o m
w O NrHOC L6 0- 0I O' 2> m O m v m m ao
a o 0N>' `o N
Y.
N
G
m
am
om
m m
w w
m m
o 2 E m m
o
L L U
o m m _° EE E
Q_
J J N
m o " t m 0> '0 m Q m ° _
o Q O o ° Emm
2
m
m a ° ° m .' .m ..
m
Om 0. m
E
E
2 0` c°+ U m o s¢ m ° o E o
a m o N o o .
Lm. `
o m m m 1E t `0 2 o.0 o
moo U o 2
m m o o E c m vmE ° oa .m
m m m F E .U+. i '-m-o m -mo `m v Q m aEi v 3 w o m o 2 E o ainm
o_Q ._ m VE ' E
Q d W d oI aEi o d O C
m m
E E
C C Umm _
C C LJ1mmH
T
L L F C
m N
J J a
Om
C N d O N L O N
O 0I (i C m m 'O
O i -O 2E
m o
m~
m m o m o m
w O NrHOC L6 0- 0I O' 2> m O m v m m ao
a o 0N>' `o N
Y.
N
G
m
Z O E. ai "L d 0 C m U - 2 >. 0 L - `m nI V+
m 4
40
y
Mo
U o m `
i
o o o >. om-O o m> a m m m
o
o 2 E m m
oo m
o m m _° EE E
C m L N m 0 C m C N Q
C C Umm _
C C LJ1mmH
T
L L F C
m N
J J a
Om
C N d O N L O N
O 0I (i C m m 'O
O i -O 2E
m o
m~
m m o m o m
w O NrHOC L6 0- 0I O' 2> m O m v m m ao
a o 0N>' `o N
Y.
N
G
m
Om
C N d O N L O N
O 0I (i C m m 'O
O i -O 2E
m o
m~
m m o m o m
w O NrHOC L6 0- 0I O' 2> m O m v m m ao
a o 0N>' `o N
Y.
N
G
m
oQ
xz
o z
mr¢nK000
r
xo
W.
6
E
E
7U)
N
UNXW
Q
dUCAUw
O
N
J
a
N
N
Um
C
U
CO
CWwO
Ua
H
J
O N O-5 O W N Vl O >j +t-. CO JC O U yO
m `o,o m Z- 3 Vl
o m o >.E o a m o `odEm >° m m> . m m m m o o' `m > -oo —° > 0 3mmymo- w d' m o r> m s m m 0 `m OEd> m o O a w`o - o E `' 3 o t
co+
m° o f o -- o Q mmom . O— " ° E c m `o m E
s °m o a
go
y m N E m o o fC a o w° o E L° E a o O i o
o c -° Z o o aEi m e 0 0 0. o w m o c E o o- o— m `m r. E m o c°+ . . x _ °- m
mss`,
c s 2 0 o
c m m m -
so-
o o, I o o 'm' U a 'o' 0 2 >' 0 2 m o o-Z = o ocomotm ° m o f $i m c o E a mootUommt20m ° m° 'm o E ° E ° m o 5
m° E o . m o m~ c t .a o m o a-Oi 'c E Eo . .E
o c L° a m o-Z o
ox
z o m o o E `o , o E o s E c o m m a
w' mmam om m oOo mo o.E "*nm o
m 'o '- I >
o E c o m o_ o o° "_ E E o m m m m s E
rn c T :-
c c m o c Ea o D_t E m° O d' -s O `
m" o4. Ti o o
v2i
Co
O `o c c a ° c m o o m ' m o f o f o o I
y m o 3 a m m o 2E o o _ m o c a 3
coi o -p o o_: N D_ ` o m >. m m o 6 — mt.. " a o o aor. o= m m. c m-o c m U
m m o m e o o oEEc 'o-' F a o w m O o o O E `o D o t O> o f m m
1° o m a m -=o = E r c o Q m o o ommcTQ = m `o
co+
w > o Q = ..s.. .
nc0
m
mh
v m
nE
c
Ec0
cw
0
zw
aZZ
LL Q
Z Q LLOLL }
O U
KK0v
6
CE
C
V!
U
xW
r
Na
H
Y.
N
G
m
nm
d n
2 Om
N C
QdJ U
C
LJ1V!
a t~ o m a
s
Oa °-5 m toaFCi d E -_6
o
ac o o m m
o a o a m m> m m o_ m m o o m m a o¢ `m
m° °o
a F 0 oEl
oI
d E N
N o,
o
Oomm :o `-' d r U°> ' U is ° Uo m o a m
Ow -Z a 0 oc o l [_ m m m wo t
m m ow o
mo=oao_m
8 -F2 o.
mN ' >_
c co .mO m - a ° v ° m
o
m m aE2a. o> N O a m mL > O N C C w J m° -o mUCOICw E y E> mOOa
O O U N L wO C -O O . O ° Om 'O N C !O !O
a m m N mai
o c o a `mNOIO ._ m >. m m.
mQ3. m m o m acJO C= U °. mO oo m o P? m
O C oI N N O > O O am° d m Q a L N mms !° N N
a mmmtma0o - do a m
s s
a oo_ " `a' o o . m ° o E m m m -moom °- - m>
m> >.
m m
m
o m E o_ `o_ 4eu 2 E m o m a c>+ m O m t
E m `m O c°o+
m m o m m o a U ooom `°'
oa
E[
o a s> a o
o E. N Q FaO Q m Q a.f 'oao Q-o m >O QF E a
n n n n n
cA U
C C
O1 = Ll1
p o T
mJ yOa
t o
a a m a o
mm> U D cmc N c
m0_ N
C
O
W
N -
E m cE° Lri Q a 2m
o O
Y.
N
G
m
co
W.
E
Q
2
Z
ri
e,
6m
f
M, i- m~ f
j OR
r,E w —
G) 22 z){
C w 3 a§ Z
z
wa
Zz
Z Q LLOLL }
O U
KKOO
cc
E
E
U)
U
xW
r
Q
dUCAUw
O
N
J
a
N
N
Um
UE
0
WwO
Ua
H
C _O) wrC
N OI
O w N
J
O d N p
c O O d
E m a a x
0 ° c - t 2
t U o 0 m o O
e6
W
m L° -o E o_ m m ? E -o
m t o_ 0 0€ m m E O
m o m o Umoymm
g m a¢ tvI
02'EU°msa.- N O O U C N
E c 2 oO E x o3UOU0O -O !p E
C w x° o m m E 2
EOE a
m ° `m C aEi
may o y W `
o 2 _>. O Q
m mo
moo °- S-° O 0CE 5 ca E O
0 0 . m 0dmtwmNamO4E °-moo m m
Q ? E 2 °m - m
o
dmJ
C
E
0
w
CNU
0
Ll1V!
m
0
NOa
o EU 'xO
E2F mmm
a x d U
m
m C0om '
N O O O0m0'mm2 `o
n m ma EEF
C 0 N
W
0 o m= o c x O
o Q 0 n ¢ moo o x 2
2 -°
cm+
m m o
x am _ oCOOO OEEdom0 >0
m mUm
c m mX' CNomad
m m m W U -o
O d C O C- = E .m m
N d U N.0 L2E `o
W m m
m o'
cc
a o m ow c C a cW -Z o O m m
o m0
m > o a mo > Q
m o E
Lnm °5 > O o
2E
o 0 m m
m m
E -0 °
E
a o
E °'c osmEo»- m
s> _m s
p C !O OI Vl
o m : - 0
oo 2 a > > a
2 C N a
0- C F C
a m o m c o
m ° > e+
m m w moEW
m ° >
Ewam w
a E U smm
m E ° > o
F d Elt
C O
ma mo `
mNOma
mm o
amm
d Om
m
m`oa °
m
m P3
m -OP3
o mo
M.
O o
O d
m m0 0
C E XmEm
C E `omox
o cEEn+ a
d y
m
w C
m m
E Oo_ E EEm m2 m
E oO3ol
d N E C
oo om °
mmF5P? E o
P3mc o mo0
W 2EF`o
U `o2
o
o
U m EmmoQms
E
c E `o3E
m E '- E m o
o2 momo
o 0 0
EmE
oo 'oQm
mO o
2 ELo a
oco o
U
Y.
N
G
0
a
o z
m r¢nK
m 0
rQ ~ S (J
W.
co
E
E
7U)
N
UNXW Na
H
C
wCO_IN
N
F
NJ
O N i 'f/) C N O O •F i
V
QQQQ -O O N
C o m m o e a°
at.
m o 0
U '"°
1
c m Tv
o m z_
Qm O> U = o'a -
Ooc
O._Ucm 2'oo
a o ° t O d t -U ° m- s... m ° m
a
6Q- ,2m -w. z c.o w o c
i o _-o `-
cc°+
a m° o m o c m m o m U
m t o t m 2 m> 0002cuE d U - m E m
ca o m o m 4cao
oa'o s m o
ow >
o -o ° a
m
m o E~ m E o o m v m °m m 6,
o o? m o m m m -° `o m m m mOOVm -ca
m m o moaom2EmC7mm `m '-,-o t v '--o `m . co-
cc+
m m 5
m
U
0
V!
Tm
Oa
m a a X ox v
o `m o
3 m m m
aoE m
O m
w s ° c=°+ oUo
K0 x m m
0 osLL maNwEoaooa -o
m U mmm
MJL6 O C m
U E [2 OOUEFm
L6 E U m U
LL m N
Y
a
n
O O Oq
N C
Q
J
U
0
V!
N E2 NtNNC
O2EE
s
E c
a s3cm - mm
3 W F m
N 2E aCoO
m a
r c o o rn
m C E K N
E m
E 0.-0 sm
o 0
2m -omazm n
w m n
m mE `o o wm
c0
m
cOA U
C m C
m = 01
p o T
mJ yOa
o m m oUos moUE - t o
E2 m E c m o
x
m o 0o
o
w 0.0 M'> > m
C° m m o s aNO
F LL U O mt
C
wCO_IN
N
F
NJ
O N i 'f/) C N O O •F i
V
QQQQ -O O N
C o m m o e a°
at.
m o 0
U '"°
1
c m Tv
o m z_
Qm O> U = o'a -
Ooc
O._Ucm 2'oo
a o ° t O d t -U ° m- s... m ° m
a
6Q- ,2m -w. z c.o w o c
i o _-o `-
cc°+
a m° o m o c m m o m U
m t o t m 2 m> 0002cuEdU - m E m
ca o m o m 4cao
oa'o s m o
ow >
o -o ° a
m
m o E~ m E o o m v m °m m 6,
o o? m o m m m -° `o m m m mOOVm -ca
m m o moaom2EmC7mm `m '-,-o t v '--o `m . co-
cc+
m m 5
m
U
0
V!
Tm
Oa
m a a X ox v
o `m o
3 m m m
aoE m
O m
w s ° c=°+ oUo
K0 x m m
0 osLL maNwEoaooa -o
m U mmm
MJL6 O C m
U E [2 OOUEFm
L6 E U m U
LL m N
Y
a
E
E
Q
2
J kf)
LU
ca
2
5 \ \ \ \k
ox c
Mi` \(\! §(
3( #Az{
Z
r.
ow
i2 i)} 2))
w
5 \ \ \ \k
ox c
Mi` \(\! §(
3( #Az{
Z
r.
oQ
xzQ
o z
K 0m
xo
W.
Co
C
E
7U)
N
UNXW
Q
dUC
Uw
O
N
J
a
N
N
Nm
NE
C
LU
Na
H
o `a
N aJ
o 42
dmJ
EE
c
E
0
cw
w
m
L
NJ
c E `m U.; F o i m$ o -m
d t c+ c+ m a s U U'
2 -
o
o
m
c
o
m
o
N
y `
O m ` co
2 E m o m o m
m o c m m m c 'E m ¢ m- o- w g c umr. m m m. m- m m m Q mom =ma E -o m oQ 3 0 o m m a o mL
m °¢ o-oc°+Q w °"m... m°- ^oomoacmviNdmo- o- m m t r m fO E °¢ o m _ _ m >
o - m'E °-m cSm "w, °mwc`o WE O -m yc° m m - 2 `o o I
v
m H m E-1 0 wo > o -o -o m a s m m m a-c m `oa o d F o d m m m o U m
o f c m m t o m m >> N m s m >. ¢ o E c E2 o
m-o --w'Em wom °`m ° mmm "`o moved m0
o> m i° m m IE o m N - m co E o° Q o° R n m °o m- m
w o-2
oNEacowc m e c m
w
o_ c m m m m J a m m - o °- c E -o c z d o EommmmoommmmmEomE
m -o m -° `o c m m F c m m E o o o No.m 0 " a Q El m m E cc m¢ o
u
o._ o o 0 ccmco--' -- m
o'
Ulcm+
m v o w rn m"ma -
o>>om NW m mm-
o P3 aa' m m -w -6 E. o am m m oa'> aL n O- E mo
c m m= m v 'c r c iE m e - o m m
m c m ma P3 `o c m m x w o w N E o a an dofo...a `o am mUa m m -O U w e
o° m U m o m E m t¢iI m a c w '
m EoEom. E m .- m
m-mo mt .
Lm.
o-m m'a vIN `o- 'a m s
oD_
o o '°-' -oyw m `' o
o m t o Q. m o m m E E
0 0 od33U m o m d 2 m m F m¢ Q a a m o o
CNU
E
N
A
C
WOa
N 2 `o
J
2am
Q d m0UNN
moCm
Op
Q o
m 00 y t
o c m6E `
moNomN
I m -c E
oE m oimo
U x C N
4n
c m mEILm2 '- L
b
z
wa
zz
z
Joa}
o
OJ
cc
E
E
U)
UNXW
r
M
6CrCr
K
6
DZ6
0O
OKDT2
w w w
m m m
mJ mJ mJ
L t a
cacmo a o a E
wm om
m m - m E
d E
0 02
1.0
0 ma0 o
o
0_
a
o y m
o42 '
o E
m m o - m m m Eoaom.
0
m
0
m
d2t axi `o_E E
E E
o O
CN CN U
w CCCLJ1
mN mN V!
C C T
L LF
CNO
J J a
o E E C Co'x O
0,2 N
o Z E amEUm 'm U m m
m`m
mmo
E ='0
o o
m o
Lm..
E m° . m d> m m c m
o O 2" O mm
M. m 0
0
m d L waoE oEod a
vi E 0 Z L5° Lri
o_
0Eom ° vi E o 3
is o 3 oa aO tis o m 3 o miio ° E
mn m Em - o o mn mm mM n t
E EL E EL
r.
N
G
m
oQ
xz
Q
o z
m r¢nK
m 0r
xo
W.
co
E
E
7U)
N
UNXW Na
H
Y
ro
CUO C
N OI
O a N
a L
J
NJ
d O m !O o m O O C C O O O LL m
o m ... E 2 m m
at.
oac wt
m
m U c m o cOo o
a
domE0a 3r .0 o
e
E C
o E xm C cO mC c c O
N d
C m d 2 V l O O O
E O C d
momiomm E o d
42 a o m m m E
o E= m o" o a
m o LLayLL mm' c 2 oo o mt N
m 0 2 o E m° m o n o w m
E U N
m mm m m `m a o °- m m m Ea ° m c -o U a c m a o o o_'o c E a m 1E
o o E o t" o m m t ° Z m o m a o >> I o a mW °m m c-a c= d m c C
D o t m o m -- c mQL y o c Lm oat m LL c oOCLL !O !O N LL U `O m m i O O N O Lam' m C O i C N f/°) m LL
E 2 m I
o m O m o m `O m
m `o ° daNao
o oE m
m
o o c s m E `oa c 3 m
m ._ o mo .f m m m c m E c€ v E o v m c o m
m mSE E
am momm m
cNI ' mr' vr'
C C C
A U
p m
O1 = D7
p O Am
yOa
m E Zam > m m
a o Q o
o c mo
Em
o 2 `m o
o mc o mo -os
E ocr. m
2°a E
t E o m 3L6
o E d .-_•
C c> v s E
Y
ro
z
wa
Z ~ LL Q
Z Q LL10LL }
K F
O U
KOU
cc
CE
C
V!
U
xW
r
Na
H
Y.
N
G
m
CO C C CENNN
C
N COI COI COI
o d N N N
ry a L L L
NJ NJ NJ
E o 00of
16
H E o[2 o am m
E a o
C o IL O-
ommogo U
E pma E O o a °°
y`o E
v°i Oc moa o." S 3 to mo og
m E t '- t c-o -Q
oo_ga2mto_a
2E o a12E
o E °mm
c E `o Eo a t m
m O - m a d
ow
c°+ o m E~
E o
E y o
E o_ E
E m t- = E m o oo'E m E o. m E m
E m gy m mE- _ o
c
E E
a m o
E 2 o r E E t E E
ti a o d o m o f a U oo F 0 2 >> c o-
E m-o m mM oo [
E o 0
0
E sao_.f E
m
m E
n o 0
C C C
C pf E C w
m = LJ1 LJ1 C
m 3 EaUmF
J y y
O O E
a a J
o `m =E o c
0 ova O o 3:
m t E
oof `o m o o mE EEcmEOpMoo ° y, U oE> oo E mE
C O o E E C O oEm
o E m am m E
C 5 m E E- o o E m o
W U° OI
46 m O >i F Q C !O
r E E Eo r E a oE r E°
vi o vi
o
vi E ._ Eii a ii p ii i a
n ai E m C. c m Ca> o
E EoU Ea03V2E o:E
Y.
N
G
m
IV
Z
Z
0O
0O
F
Z
0
X ¢
o z
m r¢n
0 0mr
xo
W.
co
C
E
U)
UNXW
d
Q
dUC
Uw
O
N
7
J
C
N
N
Nm
C
Cd
C
W
O
Na
H
o `a
J
d mJ
nE
c
E0
w
C7ZZZ
J
aDZ6
N
D
6
mw
m
L
d
m
m
E
mw
N
LH
NJ
J $ m U
m U OX . O m
0
c
o E
o c
C
N m O mD_ m m
O m
co o moo Emo
m Mmmcmm -- oEEFm
NOz
L6
mw mw mw
m m m
mL
NJ
mL
NJ
mL
NJ
m m m- N N N' 'O OI O U OI N N OI
o.o ° m°-cm m o0'c oamm > >°
m e m m E ami a c s mo OymOOOmooao. c $i - L c m L' o m o
m m o. o m
S' S' 3m 'oa ' 0o d m E° °- m m co_ E m m '-CU, mmoo' 15 E m o _° m m 0 o y o o m tmmooao `m 'c E a m m z, o d m
3 o m °-' m m mmE c U m
c
c mm `o oa o m Eo
o o m c .o L° %. n ° m o r m a m o a >
m m o L c T=i -o a s L° `oa °oa
ca
12 m o .o m o m.
a F
m -O c m€ o s o 0 0 o `o m> dL
m m L a F m m oE£ c .m aCtL !O m FE -O y m 0 EN7'00 IaCO Vl NoymooQc - -_a
a
aCi Y ami
m 42 c
m o U- c m O m
aEi
S, O 2-Z -°
E m 2 o m m 12 m oaaZcmcmaa
cm+
m m m m'E_ o
c L5° D om mpQj P3 m'9Lm c om o E 2 to
v
o o Q5
o- c£ c -o Z m m t m ° m -o m nmmma -o m2Zmmm o r m e
m 42 °o aXi a0 E w U` 2 mscoa
o E t
m
m c o .n m o w oo
E
NoZmm
mw C CCLJ1LJ1
my V! V!
Cm
T T
LF m
C
m
C
N N
O O
J a a
oOoNjp oOO
N° L
w C'O2iN2iC
UmoFLmOU
O O N NEE ° o oEQ
o m WU a `m
o U E U o c
a c IK o d° m
2 0 12 m
mm o_ o o.._ m o
o 0 o c
c _
m m o d> 0mVlo o - w m m W
m aEi v a t_ m
E E oEE o o a" E o oo mZz U
N
z
wQ
Z ~ LL Q
Z Q LLOLL }
O U
KOJ
6
CE
C
V!
U
xW
r
Na
9
N
r.
N
g'
G
m
CO C C
O ry UJ UJ
ry a L L
J
NJ NJ
OI ` O N OCdOdL N L = !O = N N O ONL !O O C O L O O L N N C N N
o .f E2
v s vi o `mEc
o m 2
m o_ a m E' -E c v Q E m3:omy:
m m'oE
m m m oa
o mm
m o .o t co `o U
a"mmmxo _
o '_' -o m `o -o d LLJ m o ° d
t
m
o m_am Eoa0odmo .a m° m 5 c mw - O .
m2 Qm=-o o In
oo a... m.°m Lr
o a2o _ ch ai
m ° mE °- -2 m m c°+ L o m o- o o" _ m m
E
m m E
E m
m
o m°
oa
c w o -o
o t-o
E
o mm 2
m
6Ooam
m E 3 m s 2 2 E ° m L°
o m `" o_ Q
m
m ommm
Lo.
m mmO1E> a o . aEi o
m m o
m 5 m > o E m -O m Q oaLo .> o m L m 0 0 m. o_
m °O = o oL m mmm> E o E mmo -
LE
S6.- 47 C
LoofaL-2 a-oo U> o °>' a o c :- c a m m 2,
m o — m - a
oa
m r.
m e a
3
O
o_ 2 2 m °- m O m a o ' t oa Q o a co a '`' o. o . o o o m
c o cQ' c- o ri c m 2, a >" m-o mm m E
c o? c U o m -°o m m m c-° m -c ri ° m oaZ.w d 3 c.E c a o m o o c o z m m42
s c c m o c E 50 L° ° m 'o o L° °` m e° m m c v
E E a ° i oa o o .E E v° o m o E 2 o d o LL m Eas =o_=o
o m .°_ o> a -m E'o m. -co `m me yDoomQQmm° oo a -a -Eo mc om> m am m o m0 m' d2 m'> m' >Q-oo o'>1 d ° `o
mm v
C m C C
m= Nrn Nrn
p O T T
A Am
d d
O O
a a
z d
o o.
oamsaEi
m mL
m Ei `o
E m
oo m
o m 4(u m
w v m m mOE
o a oo m
Ld
m ccc2U `o c o o2Uo `oa
N
r.
N
g'
G
m
IV
W.
co
E
Q
2
Z
Ld
ZJ Zk§ 5 CL
Em
0 FL Mtoo EF
j\
Z
Ld
ZJ Zk§ 5 CL Z
z
wQ
zz
LL¢
LLJoa}
O U
KKOOF
ZQKF
O
X
O
ttO
ttQx
6
E
E
7U)
N
U
xW
r
o `a
N aJ
d
Q
dUC
U
w
O
fN E
wO
NU7UJ
C
N
7N
U
E
C
CU
0Ac
o
m
J
mw
my
m
F
mJ
C
mw
my
m
F
mJ
O
L E
W
II
w
III
mCpEOEd
E C Q
n E mC0
j oCw Co
EE m
N p C
a
OI
H aLoa
mw
mN
LH
mw
my
LF
mw
my
LF
mw
my
LF
E I I E I I E I I E
mw
my
m
F
mJ
mw
my
m
F
mJ
mw
my
m
F
mJ
mw
my
m
F
mJ
III II III
m m
E I I E I I E I I E
mw
my
m
F
mJ
mw
my
m
F
mJ
mw
my
m
F
mJ
mw
my
m
F
mJ
m m
N p C
Ei O OI OI U w O
O
Z m 3 m c
E m CU:
o
w `oa °°
U2
v cn m a a— t w
m m Q
0oF mo d
L6 OQ 1 i O vi o U vi a oac
m m o m m m mmomE2
F °oa E F" `O F m° E F m m- wm¢ tq m to vi
U4
ZQ
6
K
a
N
QZ
K
M
mw
mti
LH
m
Ld
Ld
U
E
N
Y.
N
G
m
oQ
xz
QOFZ
0 (nK
m 0r
xo
W.
6
E
E
7U)
UNXW
Q
dUCAUw
O
N
J
a
N
N
Um
C
U
CO
CW
O
Ua
H
J
A 0
m
mh
v m
E
0
CW
m E
CC
m
m - o_ ° E
0 3m o
momm
m O
mO1 Xp_ NN
Nm Omm
m E0L `O
Nm
N
U -o m W -o
o m ai t .? vie a
E
d d d> >. 2 0 _ U E o a m Et
QE,
m O E
a o EL a o m m o a o oa m ms
m
Lm
o E E E
z o Em a oo v0 m m E c E -2 0- mm
E m o o a m m m .
C O O d >
w EsE2Emt E o m m
m E c 2 2
m~ ti_ E O Z c UmaO
oom
o.°
m
E m mo
2
m ° m m c
m m
Omos
m
m '
ao0
E:E
o
E c
4 o E `E0 o U o
o
E0 EE o ° O
oU
m m° o o t
E a m a o oN E c E EO ' a o m m " m m m
U
E~ oE E
m E
o O= m c o . aE —
R
o
m.- = o E o o E o
mU5E m
s
0
o
E m o o
m m . a m _ t E E
pw
t t y U o mm E m
o Q ° ow
o
R °
mmwd EE U fC wom
o m m E
ma ao' Ea
E°
C6 'F w
a z oUL ° m Ec a
U i Eo. Q c E Q E_aE o mmU .°_-
A 0
m
mh
v m
E
0
CW
m E
CC
m
m - o_ ° E
0 3m o
momm
m O
mO1 Xp_ NN
Nm Omm
m E0L `O
Nm
N
z
wQ
Z ~ LL Q
Z Q LLOLL }
O U
KOv
6
CE
C
V!
U
xW
r
Na
H
hN
Y.
N
G
m
A O2 C C
N r2 O_I O_I
O a N N
ry a L L
J
NJ NJ
w o E° m HE `> o v " -o E E 0o
0 2 ooa ° o m m mEomEE > m oLnO
m m
m m. 0 0 m
c m
o 0 o m m 0 -° Oo m a s
2- E o m E EO
V d C dO E Vl - C Nd E CO OC CO
o S m m
a 0 S c UE H m a m a
a m E b
E o O
rn r 0.Em°mE m tc°
c -Eo E `o E o o E o. m m
m m mo t `o ° o m m E LL mm LL mmmmaasm122io-`- E m E r EEm" E o mai -o 'o co. m m o O o
m m E cam' °_ m m m o o 1 m mEEm
mmy `oa S a o m Y a oa o
o o c
m oaamm mm
M E E
m oZ 0Z
nco m m
m w w
y y
s sum
J
F
mJ
F
mJ
L C'O COCO
moo00om
o ooU mm
o >
m
IE
m °
o O1 wo ...
c
coo+
o cmm
p C 0 o E
hN
Y.
N
G
m
0
xaz
Q
O FZ
0 (n
0 0mr
xo
W.
co
E
E
7
V!
UNXW
J
Q
d +
C 3
A q
Uw
O
N
7
J
C
N
N
U
n° O
d
v mJCU
E
CO
CW
O
Ua
H
E
CO
CW
d Ea
0 0o
m -oOCo_ m
N CO
o _r
mL oo_E
N
w
N
aN
U
N
QN
f
r
Ld
w w
m m
L
NJ
L
NJ
E - m E `o
v° mcamE o- o o° o m o =- omaEE0- E O m o. a o -o a m LL °-
m m m E m t wimU a 0 m m
o
m ooo m m0EE= ' o
EEE
0
mX °? mma 0mo ama02E,
O
c
E> o- m m o. o ... m m m o ° E o UmEmom -o E mmaEosoo E U m m° r.
m
o_.N o m 3 ... o- E m >. m a m
E? o m m° m m E m m -mo 2 --2 m E
d 7Oi
fm/)
O N N 'O f=/) N O C O
E m m m° 1 m `m o °oa
axi o mE2 an d E
m
m E °m m m t w m o o E a>'i m m m °_ > m d m a>'i
cv° omm m oE m ` d
m m o m m °' m E
m° -mo -mo m m
o m m
y 0 o 3 m m m
o
o m F
2m
Ed
m , a E
m
0S° ri o L° E2 mom `m ¢
m
o .m o" Q m o m ooL o m omo mdNU `oa axi `oaF v -
O
d `oa oam `m m w
Em
m w' `oa 0
d d d
c
U U
0 0
rn rn
in N
Tm Tm
0
N
0
N
O O
a a
m m o
Iwo 2 mm
a
mmo
m0 m
v' 2 ° m
m m m
o m t
m > OoO N N
N a t
0 o m o 2EME `o_-o o EE
N
z
wQ
Z ~ LL Q
Z Q LLOLL }
O U
KOO
6
CE
C
V!
U
xW
r
Na
H
N
Y.
N
G
m
CO C C C
firN COI COI COI
o d N N N
ry a L L L
NJ NJ NJ
3
O
O)
r' m
m
g
0
am
m
am
m
O
o C0mm C0mm
mm E E
O O
n O C CVNN
C O1 C w w
O1 r LJ1 C C
v T N N
C f f
J
yOa J J
N N N N N N -
3 EEoms o`o
m m m
E EU m mmEmm
E E E
4
C
d O m —
N d N do
O Q O O dp_!O OO- dOOd2OOO
D o Eo
m m m m vi O °J L6 O E o- ri m 0. uimoEmE
o m w o
N
Y.
N
G
m
0
x=
o
J=
m
K000
mr
a s
W.
co
E
E
U)
UNXW
a
0
H
N
2. Introduction
2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local governmental agencies
consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority prior to
taking action on those projects. This environmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared to satisfy CEQA,
as set forth in the Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14
California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et seq. The environmental impact report (EIR) is the public
document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects
of the proposed project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage, and to identify
alternatives to the project. The FIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be
avoided; growth inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of
all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.
Pursuant to CEQA Section 21067, the lead agency means "the public agency which has the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the
environment" The City of Santa Ana has the principal responsibility for approval of the Harbor Boulevard
Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan. For this reason, the City of Santa Ana is the CEQA lead agency for this
project.
The intent of the EIR is to provide sufficient information on the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan to allow the City of Santa Ana to make an
informed decision regarding approval of the project. Specific discretionary actions to be reviewed by the City
are described later in Section 3.4, Intended Uses of the EIR.
This FIR has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq)
State Guidelines for the Implementation of the CEQA of 1970 (herein referenced as CEQA Guidelines),
as amended (California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq.)
The overall purpose of this FIR is to inform the lead agency, responsible agencies, decision makers, and the
general public of the environmental effects of the development and operation of the proposed Harbor
Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan. This FIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the
project, including effects that may be significant and adverse; evaluates a number of alternatives to the
project; and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse effects.
October 2014 Page 2 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
2. Introduction
2.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY
The City of Santa determined that an EIR would be required for this project and issued a notice of
preparation (NOP) and initial study on June 13, 2013 (see Appendix A. Comments received during the
public review period, which extended from June 13 to July 15, 2013, are in Appendix B.
The NOP process is used to help determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the
EIR. Based on this process and the initial study for the project, certain environmental categories were
identified as having the potential to result in significant impacts. Issues considered potentially significant are
addressed in this EIR. Issues identified as less than significant or of no impact are not addressed beyond the
initial study. Refer to the initial study in Appendix A for discussion of how these initial determinations were
made.
2.3 SCOPE OF THIS EIR
Based upon the initial study and environmental checklist form, the City of Santa Ana staff determined that a
EIR should be prepared for the proposed project. The scope of the EIR was determined based upon the
City's initial study, comments received in response to the NOP, and comments received at the scoping
meeting conducted by the City. Pursuant to Sections 15126.2 and 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the
EIR should identify any potentially significant adverse impacts and recommend mitigation that would reduce
or eliminate these impacts to levels of insignificance.
The information in the project description establishes the basis for analyzing future project related
environmental impacts. However, further environmental review by the City may be required as more detailed
information and plans are submitted on a project- by-project basis.
2.3.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant
Three environmental impact categories were identified as not being significantly affected by or affecting the
proposed Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan and are not discussed in detail in this EIR. This
determination was made by the City of Santa Ana in its preparation of the initial study. The following topical
issues are not addressed in the EIR:
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Biological Resources
Mineral Resources
Page 2 -2 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
2. Introduction
2.3.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts
Fifteen environmental factors were identified as potentially significant impacts if the proposed project is
implemented. These factors are:
Aesthetics
An Quality
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation /Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
2.3.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts
This EIR identifies one significant and unavoidable adverse impact, as defined by CEQA, that would result
from implementation of the proposed project. Unavoidable adverse impacts may be considered significant on
a project specific basis, cumulatively significant, and /or potentially significant. If the City, as the lead agency,
determines that unavoidable significant adverse impacts will result from the project, the City must prepare a
statement of overriding considerations" before it can approve the project. A statement of overriding
considerations states that the decision making body has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against
its unavoidable significant environmental effects and has determined that the benefits of the project outweigh
the adverse effects; therefore, the adverse effects are considered to be acceptable. The impact that was found
in the FIR to be significant and unavoidable is:
An Quality
2.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The following documents are incorporated by reference in this EIR, consistent with Section 15150 of the
State CEQA Guidelines, and are available for review at the City of Santa Ana, Planning Division, 20 Civic
Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701.
October 2014 Page 2 -3
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
2. Introduction
City of Santa Ana GeneralPlan, adopted February 2, 1998, reformatted January 2010
2.5 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION
The Draft EIR (DEIR) was circulated for public review for a period of 45 days. Interested agencies and
members of the public provided written comments on the EIR to the City address shown on the title page of
this document. Upon completion of the 45 -day review period, the City of Santa Ana reviewed all written
comments received and prepared written responses for each comment. This final EIR (FEIR) incorporates all
of the comments received, responses to the comments, and any changes to the DEIR that result from the
comments received. This FEIR will be presented to the City of Santa Ana for potential certification as the
environmental document for the project. All persons who commented on the DEIR were notified of the
availability of the FEIR and the date of the public hearing before the City.
The FEIR is available to the general public for review at the following locations:
City of Santa Ana, Planning Division
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Santa Ana Public Library
26 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
City of Santa Ana Website:
http: //w ..ci.smta- ana.ca.us/
2.6 MITIGATION MONITORING
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that agencies adopt a monitoring or reporting program for
any project for which it has made findings pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081. Such a program is
intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an
EIR.
The mitigation monitoring program for the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan will be
completed as part of the FEIR and prior to consideration of the project by the Santa Ana City Council.
Page 24 PlaceWorkr
3. Proiect Description
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project area comprises approximately 42S acres oriented to Harbor Boulevard in Santa Ana in central
Orange County (see Figure 3 -1, Regional Location, and Figure 3 -2, Local Vicinity). The project area generally
includes parcels adjacent to Harbor Boulevard between Westminster Avenue and Gloxinia Avenuelkilfte Ix
and parcels along Westminster Avenue, 1st Street, and Sth Street one -half mile east of Harbor Boulevard.
The corridor's northern and southern ends are adjacent to the city boundaries of Garden Grove and
Fountain Valley, respectively. The project areas consists of two areas 1) an approximately 30S -acre portion
that directly fronts Harbor Boulevard or perpendicular arterial streets and 2) 120 acres consisting of the
Willowick Golf Course and Campesino Park, residential properties along Jackson Street, and commercial
properties along Sth Street. The 120 -acres is east of the Harbor Boulevard corridor and abuts the Santa Ana
River to the east. Minor adjustments were made to the conventional zoning area to add parcels at Hazard
Avenue /Elm Park Drive and residences west of South Figueroa Street. The project site and surrounding uses
are illustrated on Figure 3 -3, AerialPhotograph.
3.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been established for the Harbor Corridor Plan project and will aid decision
makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts:
Provide for the development of the site consistent with City's General Plan.
Provide for new housing and mixed -use development opportunities.
Expand development opportunities that respond to transit investments.
Create economic vitality by providing new opportunities for businesses and residents.
Provide a variety of safe and efficient travel choices and access to multi -modal transportation.
Create a sense of place.
Enhance community health and wellness by creating safer street design for multiple modes of travel,
increase walkability and encourage live /work along the corridor.
3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Project," as defined by the CEQA Guidelines, means "the whole of an action, which has a potential for
resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment, and that is any of the following: (1) ... enactment and amendment of zoning
ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to
Government Code Sections 65100- 65700" (14 Cal. Code of Reg. 1S378[a]).
October 2014 Page 3 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
3. Project Description
This page intentional# left blank.
Page 3 -2 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Figure 3 -1 Regional Location
3. Project Description
Ana
Villa
Park
Tustin
Irvine
Project Area Boundary D 3
Scale (Miles)
PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
3. Project Description
This page intentional# left blank.
Page 34 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Figure 3 -2 Local Vicinity
3. Project Description
Q Project Boundary
CityI........i Y BoundarY
o
Scale (Mile)
PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
3. Project Description
This page intentional# left blank.
Page 3 6 PlaceWorkr
Westminster Ave
Resi:. °ntial
Hazard Ave
W 5th St
W 1st St
McFadden Ave
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Gloxinia Ave '
yJ,
Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Conventional Zoning
Basemap Source: Google Earth Pro 2012
Figure 3 -3 Aerial Photograph
3. Project Description
Lr
14
T
ssCn
i
C/I
Rwldeldlal 3
in
M
a
o 1,500
Scale (Feet)
PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
3. Project Description
This page intentional# left blank.
Page 3 -% PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Project Description
3.3.1 Project Background and Overview
Harbor Boulevard is one of the primary corridors in the City of Santa Ana. The corridor offers a variety of
services and businesses for residents and visitors and provides regional connectivity for cars and alternative
modes of transportation. A combination of vacant and underutilized land, bus rapid transit (BRT)
investments, future fixed guideway facilities, and desirable ficeway and regional access make Harbor
Boulevard an ideal candidate for reinvestment and new development opportunities. The City reevaluated
zoning designations along transit corridors throughout Santa Ana to expand land use options and establish an
urban fabric that takes advantage of these transportation improvements, and Harbor Boulevard provides the
ideal location for these improvements.
The City of Santa Ana conducted an extensive outreach program over the course of roughly three years:
2010 to 2013. The City's motto, "Creating Community Together," carried through as an overarching theme
for each event. Events included an open house, an idea fair with bus tour, attendance at neighborhood
meetings, a focus group of property and business owners, a coordinated workshop with the Circulation
Element Update, study sessions with the City Council and Planning Commission, and a scoping meeting for
the FIR.
Significant input was obtained from residents, property owners, local business owners, community
organizations, the local police and fire departments, the county transportation authority, and local developers.
Feedback was collected through several methods, including individual conversations, group discussion,
question and answer sessions, comment cards, and visual preference surveys.
Overall, thousands of people in western Santa Ana were contacted and informed about the project to reflect
the current makeup of residents around Harbor Boulevard, many materials were distributed in English,
Spanish, and Vietnamese, and translators were present at multiple meetings. Hundreds of people participated
directly in all three languages at the various meetings and workshops. The proposed Harbor Boulevard Mixed
Use Transit Corridor Plan (described throughout as "Harbor Corridor Plan') is built upon the direct input
from this public outreach.
North Harbor Specific Plan
In 1994, the City adopted the North Harbor Specific Plan (NHSP) to create a strong and viable commercial
district along Harbor Boulevard supported by well maintained neighborhoods. This plan addressed the
Harbor Corridor Plan area, as well as the Willowick Golf Course and adjacent residential neighborhoods (as
described in Section 3.1). The NHSP established six goals:
To retain and upgrade the area's commercial character while improving and expanding its role as a
significant regional commercial district.
To enhance and support the residential neighborhoods surrounding Harbor Boulevard.
To improve vehicular and pedestrian circulation in and around the Harbor Boulevard area.
To achieve an aesthetic visual consistency throughout the Harbor Boulevard area while improving and
upgrading the visual image of the adjacent areas.
October 2014 Page 3 -9
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
3. Project Description
To enhance the economic viability of the Harbor Boulevard area.
To create a secure atmosphere within which business and residential communities can thrive.
The NHSP identified the opportunity to capitalize on its proximity to Disneyland and other major
commercial recreation and tourist attractions. As the NHSP was being prepared in the early 1990s, the Walt
Disney Company announced plans to develop a new theme park named WestCOT adjacent to Disneyland.
WestCOT was officially announced in 1991, and the NHSP identifies focus areas in the specific plan area that
could capitalize on what the plan considered to be the largest private development project in the United
States.
Unfortunately, financial constraints led the Walt Disney Company to cancel the development of WestCOT. In
2001, the site was developed as Disney's California Adventure Park, but the cancellation and delay of the
Disney theme park negatively impacted the NHSP's ability to attract and incentivize development. Very few
uses along the corridor are currently tied into the region's major commercial recreation and tourist activities.
The NHSP also recognized the existing Vietnamese community and proximity to Little Saigon in Garden
Grove. When the NHSP was adopted in 1994, the Vietnamese Catholic Church at Harbor Boulevard and
17th Street was already (and remains) a regional destination for Catholics in the Asian Community. The
NHSP supported the development of a new ethnic commercial center adjacent to the Catholic church, but it
never came to fruition.
Although the NHSP envisioned a revitalized corridor with quality commercial uses compatible with
neighborhoods, progress has been limited, and land uses did not transition as planned. The dominant use
along Harbor Boulevard became auto sales and service.
City of Santa Ana Housing Element
In its housing element, the City of Santa Ana identifies three key transportation corridors, including Harbor
Boulevard, that could support higher density housing. The selected corridors are consistent with the City's
Go Local" vision to promote sustainable multimodal transportation options. The Harbor Corridor Plan
supports the City's housing element by creating the zoning framework to allow for new, compact, transit
supportive housing combined with nonresidential uses along Harbor Boulevard.
Former Redevelopment Project Area
The Harbor Corridor Plan area was included in a former City of Santa Ana Redevelopment Project area
adopted in 1982). The North Harbor Boulevard Redevelopment Plan comprised approximately 428 acres,
generally located along Harbor Boulevard from Westminster Avenue to Kent Avenue, and along 5th Street,
1st Street, and McFadden Avenue from Harbor Boulevard to the Santa Ana River.
The North Harbor Boulevard Redevelopment Project area was substantially developed and included a mix of
older residential and strip commercial uses fronting Harbor Boulevard, with newer commercial uses
developed near 1st Street and 5th Street.
Page 3 -10 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Project Description
As part of California's 2011 Budget Act, the State Legislature approved the dissolution of the state's 400 plus
redevelopment agencies. After a period of litigation, redevelopment agencies were officially dissolved as of
February 1, 2012.
3.3.2 Description of the Project
The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would replace the existing 425 -acre NHSP. The plan
would change the boundaries of the NHSP so that the project would consist of two separate areas: 1) 305
acres within the boundaries of the existing 425 -acre NHSP generally along Harbor Boulevard ("Harbor
Corridor Plan" or "Specific Plan'), and 2) 120 acres within the existing NHSP in the Willowick Golf Course
area (or "Conventional Zoning Area'). Both of these areas constitute the "project" for purposes of CEQA,
but are described separately below.
Harbor Corridor Plan
Specific Plan Land Uses
The Harbor Corridor Plan introduces land use and circulation changes to approximately 305 acres of land
within the boundaries of the existing 425 -acre NHSP, including approximately 50 acres of right- of-way
outside of parcels. The Harbor Corridor Plan lays the foundation for a more livable and sustainable corridor
by creating zoning to allow for new housing and mixed use development opportunities, providing
development flexibility to meet market demands, using a multimodal approach to circulation, and creating a
stronger identity for the area. The Harbor Corridor Plan creates a land use and development framework to
support from 1,700 to 4,600 residential units and 2 million square feet of commercial and employment space.
The project area may attract a variety of new retail stores, restaurants, office buildings, hotels, museums, and
housing options in a more walkable, safe, and attractive environment.
Land use changes under the Harbor Corridor Plan would involve replacing the NHSP's zoning districts with
four Harbor Corridor Plan land use districts: Transit Node, Corridor, Neighborhood Transitional, and Open
Space (described below). Each district has its own development standards, preferred building and frontage
types, and strategies promoting integration between new development and the existing neighborhood.
Circulation improvements introduced by the Harbor Corridor Plan emphasize a multimodal approach to
circulation and a dynamic relationship between the transportation corridor and adjacent land uses.
Development of the Harbor Corridor Plan was guided by the following five principles:
1) Expanded development opportunities that respond to transit investments
2) A variety of safe and efficient travel choices
3) Economic vitality and new opportunities for businesses and residents
4) A sense of place
5) Community health and wellness
October 2014 Page 3 -11
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
3. Project Description
The four Harbor Corridor Plan land use districts are described below.
Transit Node (TN). The Transit Node district is intended to provide standards for compact, transit -
supportive mixed use and residential development with a focus on creating pedestrian activity at the street.
This district offers the most significant opportunities to respond to the regional and local transit investments,
with direct access to three existing BRT stations and proximity to one or more future fixed guideway stations.
The district allows for a wide range of building types, including mixed use flex blocks, liners, stacked flats,
courtyard housing, and live work units. The district accommodates shops, restaurants, and active commercial
uses at street level, with office and residential uses permitted on upper floors.
Corridor (CDR). The Corridor district is applied to properties along Harbor Boulevard between BRT
stations and is intended to provide housing options and neighborhood serving uses within walking distance
of a transit node. The district also identifies areas set aside exclusively for moderate- and high density
residential projects to facilitate a range of affordable housing options. Building types include lined block,
stacked flats, courtyard housing, live work, rowhouses, and tuck under units. Mixed -use and nonresidential
projects are centered on key intersections, while residential and public /quasi -public uses infill at midblock
locations.
Neighborhood Transitional (N1). The Neighborhood Transitional district provides standards for
development that acts as a transition between the single -family neighborhoods to the north and south of 1st
and 5th streets and the Corridor and Transit Node districts.
Designated for the lowest scale and the lowest intensity of uses in the Harbor Corridor Plan, development in
this district is limited to residential, live work, or neighborhood - serving commercial uses. These uses may
combine commercial on the ground floor with residential above or in freestanding single use buildings on the
same site at between two and three stories in height.
Open Space (OS). The Open Space and Recreation district identifies areas reserved for community parks
and other open spaces. Allowable structures in this district are limited to those necessary to support the
specific open space and recreation purposes, such as sport court enclosures, multipurpose buildings, and
trails. Additional open space will be required as new development occurs or close to the Specific Plan area.
Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout
Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan could generate an additional 3,884 additional dwelling units, 15,327
residents, 13,721 square feet of commercial space, and approximately 173 employees in the plan area. Table 3-
1, outlines the proposed zoning designations and summarizes maximum buidout projections. Proposed
zoning is also shown in Figure 3 -4, Proposed Land Use Dirtricts and Zoning Designations.
Page 3 -12 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Project Description
Table 3 -1 Land Use Districts and Buildout Proiections for the Harbor Corridor Plan
Harbor Corridor Plan
Land Use Districts Acres
Dwelling
Units Population
Commercial
Building,
Square Feet Employees
Transit Node N 125 2,029 8,114 1,836,155 1,463
Corridor CDR 108 2,416 9,751 131,827 96
Neighborhood Transitional Ni 15 178 714
Open Space & Recreation OS 4
ROW 53
Subtotal 1 305 1 4,623 18,579 1,967,982 11559
Existing Land Uses 739 3,252 1,954,261 1,386
Difference Compared to Existing Land Uses I - 1 3,884 1 15,327 1 13,721 1 173
Development Standards /Design Guidelines
New development within the project aces will need to comply with the development standards within the
specific plan. The development standards detail the allowable building type and form for each district,
including lot size, maximum building height, maximum stories, frontage type, building placement (setback
requirements), and parking standards. In addition, there are open space, public right- of-way, and landscaping
standards.
The Harbor Corridor Plan also includes design guidelines. The design guidelines are intended to promote
quality design, consistent with the overall vision, while providing a level of flexibility to encourage creative
design. The guidelines direct the physical design of building sites, architecture, and landscape elements within
the specific plan boundary. This comprehensive approach represents a more understandable and predictable
way to shape the physical future by emphasizing building form and landscape design that reinforce urban and
transit oriented development patterns.
Mobility
Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would also include improvements to Harbor Boulevard and its
cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Avenue. These improvements are
designed to create a robust multimodal corridor that accommodates the movement of vehicular traffic
through the City and region as well as other modes of travel. Proposed improvements include the
enlargement of sidewalk and parkway areas to facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian travel along Harbor
Boulevard and efficient connections to the regional bicycle network. The improvements would maintain the
same rights- of-way and number of travel lanes on the affected roadways.
Phasing
The project will be developed in multiple phases over the next 20+ years. Development of the project area
and time frames would be controlled by both City decisions on public improvements to streets and
infrastructure as well as landowner decisions on the development of privately owned properties.
Implementation of the specific plan will require collaborative efforts among local businesses, institutions,
residents, the City, and developers.
October 2014 Page 3 -13
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
3. Project Description
A variety of funding sources beyond City General Fund resources can be used to implement the Harbor
Corridor Plan. District based and contractual assessment tools are options that would allow areas in this plan
to benefit from the funding they collect. Developer contributions, impact fees, and standard agreements can
all be used by the City to initiate public right- of-way improvements. Regional, state, and federal grants as well
as City funds such as the capital improvement program are also potential funding sources.
Flexibility in project implementation is also required to respond to changing economic conditions and trends,
which may require that the City revisit and reprioritize the specific plan's implementation steps. For purposes
of evaluating environmental impacts, buildout of the specific plan is anticipated to occur by 2035.
Conventional Zoning Area
The remaining 120 acres of land within the existing NHSP is proposed to be extracted from the NHSP and
converted to conventional zoning. This area would not be included in the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan.
Land uses in the area consist of the Willowick Golf Course and Cesar Chavez /Campestno Park, residential
properties along Jackson Street, and commercial properties along 5th Street. Zoning designations for the
parcels in question were determined based on existing conditions and would be adopted upon repeal of the
NHSP. Willowick Golf Course, Cesar Chavez /Campestno Park, and the properties in between would be
zoned Open Space Area (0), and residential properties along Jackson Street would be zoned Two Family
Residential (R2).
Conventional Zoning Area Buildout
Conventional zoning designations were chosen to be consistent with the existing land uses. No new
development is intended for this area. The R2 designation was chosen for existing residential uses because it
is consistent with the established character of the neighborhood. There is one exception of two parcels along
5th Street (2.5 acres total). Based on the City's OS zone, these parcels could be developed for commercial
recreation /entertainment and public /quasi -public facilities. However, the existing intensity of development is
not expected to change. Therefore, buildout projections for NHSP areas proposed for conversion to
conventional zoning assume no change in numbers of dwelling units or population. Buildout projections for
the parcels proposed for conversion to conventional zoning are shown in Table 3 -2.
Table 3 -2 Buildout Projections for Parcels Proposed to Be Converted to Conventional Zoning
Page 3 -14 PlaceWorkr
Existing Land Uses Buildout of Proposed Project I Difference
Nulling Units 92 92
Po ulaton 405 405
Commercial Building, Square Feet 3,700 3,7001
Employees 3 3
Page 3 -14 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Figure 3 -4 Proposed Land Use Districts and Zoning Designations
3. Project Description
0 1,500
Scale (Feet)
PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
3. Project Description
Tbispage is intentionally left blank.
Page 3 -16 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Project Description
Zoning Amendment
A Zoning Ordinance Amendment is required to replace the NHSP zoning designations with the new Harbor
Corridor Plan zoning districts. An amendment to the Zoning Map will also be required to reflect the new
specific plan zone.
Zone Change
A Zone Change is required to replace the NHSP zoning designations within the Conventional Zoning Area
to conventional zoning consisting of Open Space Area (0) and Two Family Residential (R2).
General Plan Amendment
A General Plan Amendment would provide consistency between the City of Santa Ana General Plan and the
proposed Harbor Corridor Plan. Although the Harbor Corridor Plan is consistent with the objectives and
policies in the General Plan, new land uses are proposed. Therefore, the project will require an amendment to
the land use element to update the land use map to include the boundaries of the Harbor Corridor Plan with
a land use designation allowing both residential and commercial uses.
3.4 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR
This is a Program EIR that examines the potential environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan
Update. This EIR is also being prepared to address various actions by the City and others to adopt and
implement the General Plan. It is the intent of the EIR to enable the City of Santa Ana, other responsible
agencies, and interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project, thereby
enabling them to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements. The anticipated
approvals required for this project are as follows:
Lead Agency Action
Certify Final EIR
Adopt Harbor Corridor Plan
General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to replace development standards from NHSP
Santa Ana City Council to HCP
Zoning Map Amendment to replace zoning district designations with the new
HCP zoning districts.
Zone Change to replace the NHSP land use designations with conventional
zoning designations to match existing land uses.
Responsible Agencies Action
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits, as necessary.
Region
Issue any air quality permits required to implement the project.
SCAQMD Rule 201 (Permit to Construct) and SCAQMD Rule 203 (Permit
South Coast Air Quality Management District to Operate): A permit is required to construct and operate any stationary
equipment that generates new emissions (e.g., boiler or emergency
generator).
October 2014 Page 3 -17
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
3. Project Description
SCAQMD Rule 403 (Large Operation Notification Form): The
applicant /applicant's construction contractor is required to file a Large
Operation Notification Form to SCAQMD for grading activities and
prepare and implement a dust control plan.
SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition /Renovation
Activities): Requires that SCAQMD be notified that demolition of
building(s) containing asbestos would occur within 10 working days prior
to activities.
Page 3 -78 PlaceWorkr
4. Environmental Setti
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to provide, pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, a "description of the physical environmental conditions in the
vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, from both a local and a
regional perspective." The environmental setting will provide a set of baseline physical conditions from which
the lead agenc-r- will determine the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project.
4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.2.1 Regional Location
The project area lies in the western portion of the City of Santa Ana (City), as shown in Figure 3 -1, Regional
Location. The City is in central Orange County and surrounded by the cities of Garden Grove, Orange,
Tustin, Costa Mesa, Irvine, Westminster, and Fountain Valley. Santa Ana is a fully developed city,
approximately 10 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean, and regional access is provided primarily by Interstate
5 (1 -5), State Route 22 (SR 22), and SR 55; secondary access to the City is provided by I -405.
4.2.2 Regional Planning Considerations
Air Quality and Global Climate Change
The City is in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which is managed by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District. The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are
regulated by federal and state law. These regulated air pollutants are known as criteria air pollutants and are:
carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide, coarse inhalable
particulate matter (PM3o), fine inhalable particulate matter (PMzs), and lead. VOC and NOx are criteria
pollutant precursors and go on to form secondary criteria pollutants, such as ozone (03), through chemical
and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Air basins are classified as attainment / nonattainment areas
for particular pollutants depending on whether they meet ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for that
pollutant. The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for 03, PM? s, PM30, and lead (Los Angeles County only)
under the California and National AAQS and nonattainment for nitrogen (NO2) under the California AAQS.
The proposed projects consistency with the applicable AAQS is discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality.
October 2014 Page 4 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Environmental Setting
Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act (2006)
Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are
generally embodied in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 was passed by the
California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution
of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets established in Executive
Order S -3 -05.
AB 32 directed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to adopt discrete early action measures to reduce
GHG emissions and outline additional reduction measures to meet the 2020 target. Based on the GHG
emissions inventory conducted for the Scoping Plan by CARB, GHG emissions in California by 2020 are
anticipated to be approximately 596 million metric tons CO2 equivalent (MNffCO2e). In December 2007,
CARB approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 MNfI'CO2e (471 million tons) for the state. The 2020 target
requires a total emissions reduction of 169 MMTCO2e, 28.5 percent from the projected emissions of the
business -as -usual (BAU) scenario for the year 2020 (i.e., 28.5 percent of 596 MMTCO2e) (CARB 2008).1
The proposed project's consistency with CARB's Scoping Plan is discussed in Section 5.5, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions.
Southern California Association of Governments
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a council of governments representing
Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. SCAG is the federally
recognized metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for this region, which encompasses over 38,000 square
miles. SCAG is a regional planning agency and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning
transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional
clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and state law. In this role,
SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze then impacts on regional
planning programs. SCAG cooperates with the Southern California Air Quality Management District, the
California Department of Transportation, and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents.
SCAG has developed regional plans to achieve specific regional objectives. The plans most applicable to the
proposed project include the 2012-2035 Regional Tranrpariation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy: Towardr a
Sustainable Future and the Compass Growth Vision, which are described in detail in Section 5.9, Land Use and
Planning.
The proposed project is considered a project of regionwide significance according to the criteria in SCAG's
Intergovernmental Review Procedures Handbook (November 1995) and Section 15206 of the CEQA
Guidelines, because it proposes more than 500 residential units. Therefore, Section 5.8 addresses the project's
consistency with the applicable regional plans noted above
I CARB defines BAU in its Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG
emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission generating sector were compiled and
used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002 -2004 emissions intensities. Under CARB's definition of BAU, new growth is
assumed to have the same carbon intensities as was typical from 2002 through 2004.
Page 4 -2 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Environmental Setting
4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.3.1 Location and Land Use
Location
As shown in Figures 3 -2, Local Vicinity, and 3 -3, Aerial Photograph, the project area comprises approximately
425 acres oriented to Harbor Boulevard in the City of Santa Ana, which is in central Orange County. The
project area generally includes parcels adjacent to Harbor Boulevard between Westminster Avenue and
Gloxinia Avenuel 6elX and parcels along Westminster Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street one -half mile east
of Harbor Boulevard. The corridor's northern and southern ends are adjacent to the city boundaries of
Garden Grove and Fountain Valley, respectively. The proposed Harbor Corridor Plan would apply to an
approximately 305 -acre portion of the project area that directly fronts Harbor Boulevard or perpendicular
arterial streets. The remaining 120 acres of the project area (Conventional Zoning Area), which are proposed
to be converted to conventional zoning, consist of the Willowick Golf Course and Campesino Park,
residential properties along Jackson Street, and commercial properties along 5th Street. This portion of the
project area is east of the Harbor Boulevard corridor and abuts the Santa Ana River to the east.
Existing Land Uses
The project area currently contains roughly two million square feet of commercial uses distributed fairly
evenly along the corridor. Existing commercial uses occur at both midblock and intersections and are
dominated by auto service and sales, but also include grocery stores, service businesses, and restaurants. The
project area contains 739 residential units, including multifamily residential and mobile -home communities
accessed from Harbor Boulevard and single - family residential areas along Jackson Street. The project area
also contains the Willowick Golf Course (an operating 18 -hole public golf course), Cesar Chavez /Campestno
Park, and Santa Anita Park. Existing uses are shown in Figure 3 -3, AerialPhotograph.
Surrounding Land Uses
The project area is in a highly urbanized, built out portion of the City. It is generally surrounded by
residential uses, which vary widely in cbaracter and density and include single - family neighborhoods,
apartment complexes, and mobile home communities. Most of the surrounding residential uses are accessed
from streets perpendicular to Harbor Boulevard and not from Harbor Boulevard itself.
4.3.2 Environmental Resources and Infrastructure
Climate and Air Quality
The project area is approximately seven miles inland from the Orange County coast, within the western
portion of the SoCAB. The climate in the SoCAB is mild, tempered by cool ocean breezes. Temperatures are
normally mild (62° to 72 °F), with rare extremes above 100 °F or below freezing (32 °F). Precipitation is
typically 9 to 15 inches annually in the SoCAB. The climate of Orange County is typified by warm
temperatures and light winds. The average monthly high temperatures range from about 52 °F in the coastal
October 2014 Page 4 -3
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Environmental Setting
areas in January to 72 °F in the inland areas of the coastal plain in August. In contrast to a very steady pattern
of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all annual rains fall between
November and April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the
coast, with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Annual average humidity is
70 percent along the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SoCAB.
The SoCAB is designated nonattamment for Oa, PMz5, PM10, and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the
California and National AAQS and nonattamment NO2 under the California AAQS. An air quality analysis
was performed for the proposed project, and the results are discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality. Project
related impacts from GHG emissions are discussed in Section 5.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Geology, Landform, and Seismicity
The project area is in the Los Angeles Basin, a coastal plain consisting of thick layers of sediment deposited
by local rivers and with a slight south -to- southwest slope. The Los Angeles Basin, in turn, is in the
northwestern end of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province, a region of northwest trending mountains
and valleys in southwestern California and extending south into Mexico.
The project area is underlain by young alluvial fan deposits. These materials are unconsolidated to moderately
consolidated silt, sand, pebbly cobbly sand, and bouldery alluvial -fan deposits having slightly to moderately
dissected surfaces, and are of Holocene and late Pleistocene age. Elevations in the project area range from
approximately 90 feet above mean sea level (amsl) along the northeastern boundary to approximately 60 feet
amsl along the southwestern boundary; the project area has a southwest slope of approximately 0.3 percent
grade.
The City is part of a large, seismically active region. Southern California is crossed by numerous active,
potentially active, and inactive faults. The nearest mapped active fault to the project area is the Newport
Inglewood Fault in Huntington Beach approximately 6.2 miles southwest; other active faults in the region
include the Whittier Fault approximately 12.9 miles to the north; the Chino Fault approximately 19.5 miles to
the northeast; and the Palos Verdes Fault Zone approximately 17 miles southwest offshore in the Pacific
Ocean. An uncertain location of an unnamed fault, not classified as active, crosses Harbor Boulevard
northwest southeast approximately 0.2 mile south of the southern project boundary. A second uncertain
location of an unnamed fault, also not classified as active, extends north south approximately 0.9 mile west
of the segment of Harbor Boulevard in the project area.
Refer to Section 5.4, Geology and Soils, for additional information concerning geological and soil conditions
and an analysis of project impacts on geology and soils.
Page 44 PlaceWorks
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Environmental Setting
Hydrology and Water Quality
The project area is in the Santa Ana River Watershed, which includes much of Orange County, much of
western Riverside County, part of southwestern San Bernardino County, and a small portion of Los Angeles
County. The watershed covers approximately 2,800 square miles, with about 700 miles of rivers and major
tributaries. The Santa Ana River extends 96 miles from the San Bernardino Mountains in San Bernardino
County to the Pacific Ocean at the boundary between the cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach.
Individual lots in the project area generally surface -drain to Harbor Boulevard and other side streets, and the
runoff is captured and conveyed in the storm drain systems. Runoff is managed by a combination of closed
and open drainage channels. A 90 -inch culvert crosses Harbor Boulevard at Washington Street. A second
large closed drainage system is midway between 1st and 5th Streets. All drainage ultimately discharges into the
Orange County Flood Control Channel.
The project area lies over the Main Orange County Groundwater Basin that underlies most of north and
central Orange County. Most water pumped from the basin for municipal use is of potable quality.
Much of the northern half of the project area is in Zone A, a 100 -year flood zone designated by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. Areas along the west side of Harbor Boulevard from 1st Street north to 5th
Street are in Zone A, as are areas along both sides of Harbor Boulevard from 5th Street north to Westminster
Avenue. The remainder of the project area, south of the above specified areas, is in Shaded Zone X, meaning
that it is protected from 100 -year floods by levees. Additionally, the entire project area is in the dam
inundation area for Prado Dam, which is on the Santa Ana River 18 miles northeast of the project area.
Refer to Section 5.7, Hydrology and Abater Quality, for additional information regarding hydrological conditions
and an analysis of project impacts on hydrology and water quality.
Noise
Noise levels in the project area are influenced primarily by motor vehicle traffic on project area roadways
Harbor Boulevard, Hazard Avenue, 1st Street, 5th Street, McFadden Avenue, Jackson Street, and Gloxinia
Avenue), which are a steady source of ambient noise. In addition to transportation - related noise,
nontransportation sources generate noise in the project area. Noise from the existing mechanical equipment
ground level and rooftop) of the various commercial uses throughout the project area add to the noise levels
in the project area. Other commercial related noise sources include noise from car wash equipment, auto sales
and repair, and drive -thru speakerphones of fast -food establishments.
Refer to Section 5.9, Noise, for additional information concerning the noise environment and an analysis of
project related noise impacts.
Public Services and Utilities and Service Systems
The project area is in a highly urbanized area of the City, with existing public services and utilities available to
the area. Local utilities and service systems that serve the existing uses in the project area are available to serve
individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan.
October 2014 Page 4 -5
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Environmental Setting
Fire protection and emergency medical services in the City are provided by the Orange County Fire Authority
OCFA). The three nearest OCFA stations to the project area are Station No. 78 at 501 North Newhope
Street, approximately 0.25 miles to the west; Station No. 73 at 419 South Franklin Street, approximately 1 mile
to the east; and Station No. 77 at 2317 South Greenville Street, approximately 1 mile to the southeast. The
Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD) provides police services to the City. The SAPD headquarters is at City
Hall (60 Civic Center Plaza), and the Westend Substation is at 3750 West McFadden Avenue.
The project area is within the attendance area of the Garden Grove Unified School District ( GGUSD).
Schools within GGUSD that serve the project area include 10 elementary schools (Carrillo, Clinton
Mendenhall, Hazard, Marshall, Newhope, Northcutt, Paine, Peters, Russell, and Simmons); 3 intermediate
schools (Doig, Irvine, and Fitz); and 2 high schools qos Amigos and Santiago). Library resources and
services in Santa Ana are provided by the City. The nearest library to the project area is the Newhope Library
Learning Center at 122 North Newhope Street.
The City is served by its own municipal water system. Wastewater service to the project area is provided by
the City's Public Works Agency and treated by the Orange County Sanitation District. The City of Santa Ana
is under contract with Waste Management of Orange County for solid waste hauling and disposal. Electricity
and natural gas services are provided by Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company,
respectively.
Refer to Sections 5. 11, Public Services, and 5.14, Utilities and Service Systems, for additional information regarding
public services and utilities and service systems, respectively, and an analysis of project impacts on services
and utilities.
Transportation and Traffic
The existing local roadway network in the project area includes a number of roadways, including Harbor
Boulevard, Hazard Avenue, 1st Street, 5th Street, McFadden Avenue, Jackson Street, and Gloxinia Avenue.
Primary access to the project area is via Harbor Boulevard. A detailed list and description of the roadway
network in the project area is provided in Section 5.13, Transportation and Traffic.
The regional transportation system in the vicinity of the project site includes SR 22 to the north and I -405 to
the south. The project area is adjacent and in close proximity to existing Orange County Transit Authority
OCTA) bus routes along Harbor Boulevard and other adjoining roadways. For example, OCTA provides bus
service along Harbor Boulevard via Routes 43 and 534.
Refer to Section 5.13 for additional information concerning existing transportation facilities and traffic
conditions and an analysis of project related impacts.
Page 4 6 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Environmental Setting
4.3.3 Local Planning Considerations
General Plan and Zoning
Zoning Designations
Adopted in 1992, the North Harbor Specific Plan (NHSP) planned for approximately 345 residential units
and five million square feet of commercial uses on 425 acres. Under the NHSP, land within the project area
falls under seven specific plan zoning districts: General Commercial, Recreational Vehicle /Automotive,
Entertainment, Industrial, Open Space, Single Family Residential, and Townhomes. Table 4 -1 summarizes the
land use acreage under the NHSP. The existing zoning designations for the project area are shown in Figure
41, Current Zoning Designations.
Table 4 -1 North Harbor Specific Plan Land Use Summary
Land Use Acreage
General Commercial 156.0
Recreational Vehicle /Automotive 34.4
Entertainment 17.0
Industrial 25.9
Open Space 104.6
Single Family Residence 29.5
Town House 9.2
Right -of -Way 48.0
TOTAL 424.6
General Plan Land Use Designations
General Plan designations for the project area include: Low Density Residential (I.R -7), Low Medium Density
Residential (I.MR -11), Medium Density Residential (MR 15), General Commercial (GC), Industrial (IND),
and Open Space (0). A vast majority of the project area, including most parcels adjacent to Harbor
Boulevard, McFadden Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street, are designated for General Commercial uses. The
largest exceptions are the Willowick Golf Course, which is designated for Open Space uses, and the
northeastern portion of the area along Westminster Avenue, which is designated for Office uses.
The Santa Ana General Plan also discusses the NHSP and its application to the project area. It states that the
NHSP was intended to promote commercial development along Harbor Boulevard while minimizing land use
incompatibilities.
4.4 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed where they are
significant. It further states that this discussion shall reflect the level and severity of the impact and the
October 2014 Page 4 -7
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Environmental Setting
likelihood of occurrence, but not in as great a level of detail as that necessary for the project alone. Section
15355 of the Guidelines defines cumulative impacts to be "...two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts."
Cumulative impacts represent the change caused by the incremental impact of a project when added to other
proposed or committed projects in the vicinity.
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130 [b] [1]) state that the information utilized in an analysis of cumulative
impacts should come from one of two sources, either:
1) A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if
necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or
2) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document
designed to evaluate regional or area wide conditions.
The cumulative impact analyses m Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR uses Method 2, which
consists of the buildout projections contained in the City of Santa Ana's General Plan. The approach is
discussed in each respective topical section. The buildout potential for the City, in accordance with the
adopted General Plan, is shown in Table 42.
Page 4 -% PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Environmental Setting
Table 4 -2 General Plan
Intensity) 1 Effective Buildou' Theoretical Buildout
Land Use Acres Densitv Nonresidential Residential Nonresidential I Residential
Residential
Low Density Residential 6,465.6 7 du /ac
13,787,219 sf 27,574,438 sf
45,259 du
Low Medium Density Residential 433.7 11 du /ac
2,057,824 sf 1,661 du 2,057,824 sf
4,771 du
Medium Density Residential 385.3 15 du /ac
3,245,185 sf 5,551 du 3,245,185 sf
5,779 du
Subtotal 7,479.7
FAR 5.0 402,864 sf
89,448 du
402,864 sf
55,809 du
Mixed Use
District Center
633.0 FAR 0.5 -1.0 13,787,219 sf 27,574,438 sf
Downtown 62.5 FAR 3.0 2,057,824 sf 1,661 du 2,057,824 sf 1,661 du
Metro East 98.3 FAR 3.0 3,245,185 sf 5,551 du 3,245,185 sf 5,551 du
TmnsitVillae 51.4 FAR 5.0 402,864 sf 2,761 du 402,864 sf 2,761 du
Other2 301.2 90 du /ac
FAR 1.0 -2.0
11,808,950sf 2,710 du 23,617,901 sf 2,710 du
Urban Neighborhood 148.1 FAR 0.5 -1.5 724,249 sf 2,177 du 724,249 sf 2,177 du
Subtotal 685.4 18. 239 072 sf 14 860 du 30 048 023 sf 14 860 du
Commercial
Professional and Administrative Office 633.0 FAR 0.5 -1.0 13,787,219 sf 27,574,438 sf
General Commercial 1,072.0 FAR 0.5 -1.0 23,348,160sf 46,696,320sf
One Broadway Plaza District Center3 4.3 FAR 2.9 543,193 sf 543,193 sf
Subtotal 1,709. 37,678,572 sf 74 813 951 sf
Industrial
Industrial 1 2,188.21 FAR 0.45 1 42,892,704 sf — 42,892,704 sf —
Other
Institutional 1 796.31 FAR 0.2 -0.5 6,937,758 sf 1 17,344,394 sf
Open Space 1 1,017.81 FAR 0.2 1 5,567,509 sf 8,867,509 sf
Subtotal 1 1.814.2 15.805.267 sf 26.211.903 sf
Soumz: City of Santa Ana General Plan.
Note. FAR =floor area ratio; du= dwelling unit; sf-square feet (of floorarea). Acreage shown in table does not include roads in right-of-my.
Effective capacityfor nonresidential development assumes development possible under the lowerrange of FAR intensity standards with the exception of the Metro East
District Center, Transit Village District Center, Downtown District Center, and Urban Neighborhood areas. The Metro East District Center, Transit Village District Center,
Downtown District Center, and Urban Neighborhood areas allow a range of intensity for a mixture of residential and nonresidential development based on thezoning
development standards. Residential effective capacity was calculated by adding Ihel4,860 units possible in the District Center and Urban Neighborhood with theexisting
74,588 (Census 2000) housing units.
3 Land use designation permits both residential and nonresidential development. Buildout assumes 90 percent of land area will be developed as commercial and 10
percent will be developed as residential.
3 Land use designation permits high intensity office development with ancillary retail use.
4.5 REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A
Framework for Change.
October 2014 Page 4 -9
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Environmental Setting
This page intentional# left blank.
Page 4 -10 PlaceWorkr
IIx
11
w %aWe 1111 NIIII
1 1l
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Figure 4 -1 Current Zoning Designations
4. Environmental Setting
nn x =1nnmn
Legend
QNORTH HARBOR SPECIFIC
PLAN BOUNDARY
NORTH HARBOR SPECIFIC
PLAN DISTRICTS
Single Family
Tmnhomes
General Commercial
Entertainment
RV /ANo
Industnal
Open Space
p W0
Scale (Feet)
PlaceWarkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Environmental Setting
This page intentional# left blank.
Page 4 -12 PlaceWorkr
5. Environmental Analvsis
5.1 AESTHETICS
This section discusses the visual character, visual and scenic resources, landform, and scenic corridors on the
project site and its vicinity. The analysis identifies the proposed project's aesthetic impacts related to these
characteristics.
5.1.1 Environmental Setting
Visual Character
The Santa Ana General Plan describes Harbor Boulevard as a "major image maker for the City" (Santa Ana
2010). It identifies Harbor Boulevard as a traditional intercity corridor that links the ocean to inland areas.
Therefore, the appearance of Harbor Boulevard plays an important role in establishing the image of Santa
Ana to drivers traveling through the City. The North Harbor Specific Plan (NHSP) boundaries cover the
portion of Harbor Boulevard between Westminster Avenue on the north and Gloxinia Avenue on the south.
Generally, the NHSP extends about one to two blocks to the east and west of Harbor Boulevard between the
northern and southern ends. The NHSP also extends east and west along some of the cross - streets along
Harbor Boulevard, including McFadden Avenue, 1st Street, 5th Street, and Westminster Avenue.
Harbor Boulevard is characterized as having auto - oriented light industrial businesses, high density apartment
complexes, one- to two -story medical and general office space, one- to two -story commercial strip malls,
restaurants, motels, larger shopping centers, and parking lots. Portions of Harbor Boulevard have planted
medians, and sidewalks extend along both sides throughout the entire length of the NHSP. Some areas have
mature street trees lining the median in the middle of blocks. Most of the NHSP area does not include any
single - family housing, however, two mobile home parks are included in the NHSP boundaries at Bali Hi Iane
and Camille Street, just south of 1st Street.
Visual Resources
The areas along Harbor Boulevard that have the greatest visual appeal are the areas with mature trees,
residential (apartment) landscaping, and commercial landscaping. Figure 5.1 -1, Existing Visual Resources, gives
examples of these types of visual resources. The architecture along North Harbor Boulevard generally
consists of boxy, single -story building structures with clean facades and signage. There is no consistent
architectural or landscape theme applied throughout the NHSP area. In the original 1992 NHSP, design
guidelines encouraged the use of historical mimetic architecture; however, there are no examples of this
currently on the ground within the NHSP. Mimetic architecture is the design of buildings to look like the
product they are selling (e.g., a donut shop that is shaped like a donut). Other themes of architecture were not
October 2014 Page 5.1 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
specified in the 1992 NHSP, but it generally called for clean, simple building forms that that produced unity,
scale, and interest.
Landform
The terrain within the NHSP and the surrounding areas is flat. Overall, there is little change in elevation
throughout the City. The Santa Ana Mountains are approximately 10 miles to the west, and the San
Bernardino Mountains are 29 miles to the north.
Light and Glare
Excessive light and glare can negatively affect sensitive land uses when those uses are placed close to land
uses that have outdoor lighting or are made from materials that reflect light. Since the NHSP area is
developed with urban land uses, light and glare are present on the project site. During the day, glare may
reflect off glass or metal surfaces; at night, light is generated by street lights, parking lot lights, security
lighting, signage and building lighting, and traffic. Areas within and near the NHSP that have less light and
glare are residential land uses, the W&owick Golf Course, and Santa Anita and Campesino Parks.
The City's municipal code has development restrictions for the placement of parking lot lighting near
sensitive land uses, such as child care facilities, parks, schools, churches, convalescent homes, and hospitals.
Per these restrictions, all outdoor lighting in parking lots should be reflected away from these sensitive land
uses (Santa Ana Municipal Code, Chapter 41, Article XV, Division I, Section 41- 1304).
5.1.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
AE -1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista
AE -2 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
AE -3 Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
AE -4 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area.
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds
would be less than significant:
Threshold AE -1
Threshold AE -2
These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis.
Page 5.7 -2 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Figure 5.1 -1 Existing Visual Resources
5. Environmental Analysis
Mature trees line Harbor Boulevard along
the median and near Harbor Pointe Apart-
ments south of Westminster Avenue. View
is to the south.
Mature trees line the median of Harbor
Boulevard near the intersection with 11th
Street. View is to the south.
Residential landscaping at Harbor Pointe
Apartments soften the edges of the build-
ings. View is to the west.
PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
Tbisliage intentional# left blank.
Page 5.14 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
5.1.3 Environmental Impacts
The aesthetic resource impacts discussed in this section include a qualitative discussion of the effects of new
development on the existing visual character of the project site and the potential for new development to
increase light and glare in areas with sensitive land uses, such as residences.
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.1 -1: The proposed project would alter the visual appearance of the project area. [Threshold
5mpactAnal7sis: Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would allow for the development of an additional
3,884 additional dwelling units and 13,721 square feet of nonresidential building space over existing
conditions. Underutilized parcels and vacant properties could gradually transition to neighborhood serving
retail and office uses with new housing options. The specific plan would create a vibrant, multimodal
neighborhood for residents, with improved access to services, community uses, and alternative transportation.
The corridor improvements would enhance the pedestrian experience for walkers, shoppers, workers,
bicyclists, and users of transit.
The types of multifamily housing allowed under the Harbor Corridor Plan would include stacked flats,
courtyard housing, live work units, rowhouses, and tuck under units. Per the development standards, new
housing within the transit node surrounding proposed BRT stops would be two to tensig stories in height, the
corridor zone (between transit nodes) would allow two- to four -story structures, and neighborhood
transitional would allow a maximum of three stories. Conceptual renderings have been prepared for the
proposed project that show how the new development may appear in terms of architecture, building height,
and landscaping, and the changes to sidewalks, setbacks, and medians. Figure 5.1 -2, Conceptual Renderings, gives
examples of existing landmarks and how they may appear after development.
As illustrated in Figure 5.1 -2, views from Harbor Boulevard at Westminster Avenue looking south and from
Harbor Boulevard at Fifth Street looking north, development would transition to mixed uses with greater
intensity and building heights. The existing character of one- to two -story buildings and vacant space,
including retail, auto - oriented service, motels, office, surface parking, vacant lots, and residential (single- family
and mobile home), would transition into more commercial, employment, and mixed use space. Greater
allowable building heights, building intensity, and allowance of mixed uses in these areas would change the
visual character of the area but it would not result in a degradation of visual character or quality of the area.
In addition, the plan requires a setback of 30 feet to the property line above the second floor for buildings
with seven or more stories adjacent to single family residential uses.
Areas surrounding the proposed BRT stops would experience the greatest amount of transition to take
advantage of the transit opportunities and become compatible with the evolving built environment.
Concentrating new land use zones near BRT stops to revitalize the commercial corridor also results in an
improvement to the existing visual quality of the Harbor Corridor Plan area by reinvigorating business
October 2014 Page 5.15
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
investment in the community and developing new and renovated buildings with a high level of architectural
design and quality. In addition, new development and improvements would enhance safety and attract
pedestrians.
Future development in the project area is required to follow the specific plan design guidelines, which
establish parameters for building design to create a distinct character for Harbor Boulevard and ensure that
new development is designed with a pedestrian emphasis and architectural aesthetic. It specifies massing,
scale, comer treatment, roof treatment, building colors, and materials. In addition, frontage types and floor
heights are specified to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the City's goals for building
form, character, and quality. New buildings in the Transit Node and Corridor districts are required to
construct taller ground floors to maintain an attractive and consistent space, while also maximizing flexibility
for current and future uses. Minimum and maximum setbacks have been established to create a consistent
street scene, provide attractive landscaping, and provide a buffer for pedestrians from street activity. The
Harbor Corridor Plan also requires new development to provide onsite private open space.
Overall, the proposed specific plan would include landscaping and architectural treatments that would bring
consistency and stylistic improvements to the area. Although development under the Harbor Corridor Plan
area would visually alter the area, it would not deteriorate the existing visual character or conflict with any
existing architectural characteristics specific to the area. Impacts would be less than significant.
The Willowick Golf Course and Campesino Park would be removed from the NHSP upon approval of the
specific plan. No changes would be made to the existing land uses, and the conventional City zoning would
be applied to these areas. Overall, impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 5.1 -2: The proposed project would generate additional light and glare. [Threshold AE -4]
Impact Analysis: Light and glare from new development may affect existing and proposed sensitive land
uses on or near the project site. Most of the existing land uses within the NHSP are not considered sensitive
land uses, with the exceptions of the townhomes in the northern portion of the NHSP, a mobile home park
between McFadden and First Streets, Rosita Park, the Vietnamese Catholic Center, and the Our Lady of La
Vang church. The land uses adjacent to the Harbor Corridor Plan consist mostly of single family and
multifamily housing with some commercial and industrial land uses at the northern boundary. Russell
Elementary School and the Harbor Learning Center also border the NHSP area on the east and south,
respectively. The housing and educational facilities would be sensitive to new sources of light on the project
site.
New sensitive land uses would include the residential development that would be allowed under the proposed
specific plan (up to 3,884 new residential units). If these housing units are place near commercial, industrial,
or other light generating land uses, they may be affected by these sources of light and glare. In addition, these
new land uses may also have outdoor lighting or signage that creates new sources of light. Mixed use and /or
commercial development built pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan may also have metal or glass building
materials that produce new sources of glare.
Page 5.16 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Figure 5.1 -2 Conceptual Renderings
5. Environmental Analysis
Harbor Boulevard at Westminster Avenue looking south.
Harbor Boulevard at 5th Street looking north.
Source: Plat Works, IBI Group 2013
PlaceWffkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
Tbisliage intentional# left blank.
Page 5.7-8 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
The Harbor Corridor Plan includes design guidelines that reduce the impacts of light and glace on sensitive
land uses. Specifically, the following design guidelines (Chapter 6 of the Harbor Corridor Plan) would reduce
light and glare impacts of new development:
Direct lamp glare from unshielded floodlights is not permitted.
Lighting that aims light directly into the night sky is prohibited.
Secondary building entrances and parking /loading /service access points should have lighting compatible
with the project's lighting to maintain a safe environment around the entire project, especially where
pedestrians and other building tenants circulate.
Warm white light is encouraged. Blinking, flashing, and oscillating lights are prohibited. Colored lights are
not encouraged unless they contribute to the theming of commercial areas or establishments. Overly
bright or glaring lights should be avoided.
Automatic timers should be programmed to maximize personal safety at night while conserving energy.
They should be reset seasonally to match the thug of dusk /dawn.
Exterior lighting should be designed and located to not project off site or onto adjacent uses. This is
especially critical with neighboring residential uses.
Signs illuminated by downward- directed, wall mounted lights with fully shielded lamps are encouraged.
New construction would use building materials that reduce or eliminate glare. Lighting on buildings would be
oriented to avoid intrusion into sensitive land uses.
The Willowick Golf Course and Campesino Park would be removed from the NHSP upon approval of the
specific plan. No changes would be made to the existing land uses, and the conventional City zoning would
be applied to these areas. Since there would be no change to land uses in this area, there would be no lighting
impacts.
5.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative light and glare impacts would occur when the proposed project's impacts are compounded with
light and glare impacts from other past, present, and future development projects in the surrounding area.
The majority of the land uses surrounding the project site are single- and multifamily residential land uses
that do not generate large amounts of light or glare. The exception is the area north of the NHSP, where land
uses are industrial in nature. New development projects in this area may cause an increase in light and glare
that could affect adjacent sensitive land uses. As with the proposed project, environmental review of potential
light and glare impacts would be conducted prior to project approval. In addition, these areas must comply
with the City's municipal code lighting restrictions. Overall, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
October 2014 Page 5.7 -9
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
5.1.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
Santa Ana Municipal Code, Chapter 41, Article XV Division I, Section 41 -1304
5.1.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts
would be less than significant: 5.1 -1 and 5.1 -2.
5.1.7 Mitigation Measures
No potentially significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required.
5.1.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No mitigation measures have been identified and impacts are less than significant.
Page 5.1 -10 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
5.2 AIR QUALITY
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential for the Harbor Boulevard
Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan (proposed project) to impact air quality in a local and regional context. The
analysis in this section is based on buildout of the proposed land use plan, as modeled using the California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), and trip generation provided by IBI Group, as modeled using the
Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) (see Appendix G to this EIR). The air quality
model output sheets are included in Appendix C of this EIR.
5.2.1 Environmental Setting
South Coast Air Basin
The project site lies within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which includes all of Orange County and the
nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The SoCAB is in a coastal plain
with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant,
with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semipermanent
high- pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This
usually mild weather pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms,
and Santa Ana winds (SCAQMD 2005).
Temperature and Precipitation
The annual average temperature varies little throughout the SoCAB, ranging from the low to middle 60s,
measured in degrees Fahrenheit ( °F). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less
variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station
nearest to the project site is the Santa Ana Fire Station Monitoring Station (ID No. 047888). The average low
is reported at 43.1 °F in January, and the average high is 84.7 °F in August (WRCC 2013).
In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost
all rain falls from November through April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered
thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains.
Rainfall averages 13.69 inches per year in the project area (WRCC 2013).
Humidity
Although the SoCAB has a semiarid climate, the air near the earth's surface is typically moist because of the
presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into
the SoCAB by offshore winds, the "ocean effect" is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the
coast, are frequent. Low clouds, often referred to as high fog, are a characteristic climatic feature. Annual
average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SoCAB (SCAQMD
2005).
October 2014 Page 5.2 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Wind
Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly or southwesterly onshore winds
during the day and by easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is somewhat greater during the
dry summer months than during the rainy winter season.
Between periods of wind, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Air
stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter
and fall months, surface high- pressure systems over the SoCAB, combined with other meteorological
conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue a few days
before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished.
The mountain ranges to the east affect the transport and diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting their eastward
transport. Air quality in the SoCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of
coastal southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during
prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions (SCAQMD 2005).
Inversions
In conjunction with the two characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal
pollutant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical
depth through which pollutants are mixed. These are the marine /subsidence inversion and the radiation
inversion. The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the highly
degraded air quality in summer and the generally good air quality in the winter in the project area (SCAQMD
2005).
Air Pollutants of Concern
Criteria Air Pollutants
Pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and state law
Air pollutants are categorized as primary or secondary. Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from
sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide
SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PMio), fine inhalable particulate matter (PMzs), and lead (Pb) are
primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, SO2, NO2, PM10, and PM25 are "criteria air pollutants," which means
that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for them. VOC and oxides of nitrogen
NO) are air pollutant precursors that form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and
photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (Oz) and NOz are the principal secondary pollutants. A
description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects is
presented below.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon
substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria au pollutant. CO concentrations tend to be
the highest during winter mornings with little to no wind, when surface based inversions trap the pollutant at
ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion, engines and motor vehicles
Page 5.2 -2 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the SoCAB. The highest ambient CO
concentrations are generally found near traffic- congested corridors and intersections. The primary adverse
health effect associated with CO is interference with normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in
tissue oxygen deprivation (SCAQMD 2005). The SoCAB is designated under the California and National
AAQS as being in attainment of CO criteria levels (CARB 2013a).
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are compounds composed primarily of atoms of hydrogen and
carbon. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of hydrocarbons. Other
sources of VOCs include evaporative emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the
application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. There are no
ambient air quality standards established for VOCs. However, because they contribute to the formation of
03, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has established a significance threshold for
this pollutant (SCAQMD 2005).
Nitrogen Oxides (NO :) are a by- product of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of ground
level 03, PM30, and PMzs. The two major forms of NOx are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place
under high temperature and /or high pressure. The principal form of NO2 produced by combustion is NO.
However, NO reacts with oxygen quickly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly
called NO.. NO2 acts as an acute irritant and is more injurious than NO in equal concentrations. At
atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. NO2 absorbs blue light; the result is a
brownish red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO2 exposure concentrations near roadways are
of particular concern for susceptible individuals, including people with asthma asthmatics, children, and the
elderly. Current scientific evidence links short -term NO2 exposures, ranging from 30 minutes to 24 hours,
with adverse respiratory effects, including airway inflammation in healthy people and increased respiratory
symptoms in people with asthma. Also, studies show a connection between breathing elevated short -term
NO2 concentrations and increased visits to emergency departments and hospital admissions for respiratory
issues, especially asthma (SCAQMD 2005, EPA 2012). The SoCAB is designated an attainment area for NO2
under the National AAQS and nonattamment under the California AAQS (CA" 2013a).3
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil
fuels. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high - sulfur- content fuel oils and coal and from chemical
processes at chemical plants and refncries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur content and do not
release significant quantities of S02. When sulfur dioxide forms sulfates (SO4) in the atmosphere, together
these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). Thus, S02 is both a primary and secondary criteria air
pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, S02 may irritate the upper respiratory tract. Current scientific
evidence links short -term exposures to S02, ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours, with an array of adverse
respiratory effects, including bronchoconstriction and increased asthma symptoms. These effects are
particularly important for asthmatics at elevated ventilation rates (e.g., while exercising or playing.) At lower
concentrations and when combined with particulates, S02 may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue. The
SoCAB is designated attainment under the California and National AAQS (CARB 2013a).
I CARB has proposed to redesignate the SoCAB as attainment for NOz under the California AAQS (CARB 2013d).
October 2014 Page 5.2 -3
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Suspended Particulate Matter (PMmand PMa5) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot,
dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized and regulated. Inhalable
coarse particles, or PMto, include particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns (i.e., 10
millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Inhalable fine particles, or PM? 5, have an aerodynamic diameter
of 2.5 microns (i.e., 2.5 millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch) or less. Particulate discharge into the
atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. Both
PMto and PMz.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in people who are naturally
sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems. EPA scientific review concluded that PM? 5, which penetrates
deeply into the lungs, is more likely than PMto to contribute to health effects and at concentrations that
extend well below those allowed by the current PMto standards. These health effects include premature death
in people with heart of lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased
lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms (e.g., irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty
breathing). Diesel particulate matter is classified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as a
carcinogen. Particulate matter can also cause environmental effects such as visibility impairment,2
environmental damage ,3 and aesthetic damage4 (SCAQMD 2005; EPA 2012). The SoCAB is a nonattamment
area for PM? 5 and PMto under California and National AAQS (CA" 2013a).5
Ozone (Os) is commonly referred to as "smog" and is a gas that is formed when VOCs and NO, both by-
products of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo photochemical reactions in the presence of
sunlight. 03 is a secondary criteria air pollutant. 03 concentrations are generally highest during the summer
months when direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create favorable conditions for the
formation of this pollutant. 03 poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as
well as to healthy people. Additionally, 03 has been tied to crop damage, typically in the form of stunted
growth and premature death. 03 can also act as a corrosive, resulting in property damage such as the
degradation of rubber products (SCAQMD 2005). The SoCAB is designated as extreme nonattainment
under the California AAQS (1 hour and 8 -hour) and National AAQS (8 -hour) (CARB 2013a).
Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The major
sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the EPA's
regulatory efforts to remove lead from on road motor vehicle gasoline, emissions of lead from the
transportation sector dramatically declined by 95 percent between 1980 and 1999, and levels of lead in the air
decreased by 94 percent between 1980 and 1999. Today, the highest levels of lead in air are usually found near
lead smelters. The major sources of lead emissions to the air today are ore and metals processing and piston -
engine aircraft operating on leaded aviation gasoline. Once taken into the body, lead distributes throughout
the body in the blood and is accumulated in the bones. Depending on the level of exposure, lead can
2 PMz5 is the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts ofthe United States.
3 Particulate matter can be carried over long distances by wind and then settle on ground or water. The effects of this settling include:
making lakes and streams acidic; changing the nutrient balance in coastal waters and large river basins; depleting the nutrients in soil;
damaging sensitive forests and farm crops; and affecting the diversity of ecosystems.
Particulate matter can stain and damage stone and other materials, including culturally important objects such as statues and
monuments.
5 CARB approved the SCAQMD's request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainment for PMto to attainment for PM10
under the National AAQS on Much 25, 2010, because the SoCAB has not violated federal 24 hour PM10 standards during the period
from 2004 to 2007. However, the EPA has not yet approved this request
Page 5.24 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental
systems, and the cardiovascular system. Lead exposure also affects the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood.
The lead effects most commonly encountered in current populations are neurological effects in children and
cardiovascular effects in adults (e.g., high blood pressure and heart disease). Infants and young children are
especially sensitive to even low levels of lead, which may contribute to behavioral problems, learning deficits,
and lowered IQ (SCAMQD 2005; EPA 2012). However, in 2008 the EPA and CARB adopted more strict
lead standards and special monitoring sites immediately downwind of lead sources recorded6 very localized
violations of the new state and federal standards. As a result of these localized violations, the Los Angeles
County portion of the SoCAB was designated in 2010 as nomttainment under the California and National
AAQS for lead (SCAQMD 2012a). Because emissions of lead are found only in projects that are permitted by
SCAQMD, lead is not an air quality of concern for the proposed project.
Toxic Air Contaminants
The public's exposure to air pollutants classified as toxic air contaminants (TACs) is a significant
environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the
health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health. The
California Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as "an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an
increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health."
A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean
Air Act (42 United States Code 7412[b]) is a toxic au contaminant. Under state law, the California
Environmental Protection Agency (Cal /EPA), acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as
a TAC if it determines that the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in
mortality or to an increase in serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.
California regulates TACs primarily through Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588
Air Toxics "Hot Spot' Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a
formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an
airborne toxics control measure" for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a
substance (i.e., a point below which there is no toxic effect), the control measure must reduce exposure to
below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control
technology to minimize emissions. To date, CARB has established formal control measures for 11 TACs, all
of which are identified as having no safe threshold.
Air toxics from stationary sources are also regulated in California under the Air Toxics "Hot Spot'
Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, toxic air contaminant emissions from individual
facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district.
High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, if specific thresholds are
exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings.
6 Source- oriented monitors record concentrations of lead at lead related industrial facilities in the SoCAB, which include Exide
Technologies in the City of Commerce; Quemetco, Inc., in the City of Industry; Trojan Battery Company in Santa Fe Springs; and
Exide Technologies in Vernon. Monitoring conducted between 2004 through 2007 identified that the Trojan Battery Company and
Exide Technologies exceed the federal standards (SCAQ)M 2010).
October 2014 Page 5.25
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
By the last update to the TAC list in December 1999, CARB has designated 244 compounds as TACs (CARB
1999). Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high
risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be
attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being DPM.
In 1998, CARB identified diesel particulate matter as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical compounds
in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in
diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the
bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.
Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES) III
In 2000, SCAQMD conducted a study on ambient concentrations of TACs and estimated the potential health
risks from au toxics. The results showed that the overall risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to
ambient levels of au toxics was about 1,400 in a million. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel
exhaust, accounting for 71 percent of the au toxics risk. In 2008, SCAQMD conducted its third update to its
study on ambient concentrations of TACs and estimated the potential health risks from au toxics. The results
showed that the overall risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of au toxics was
about 1,200 in one million. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for
approximately 84 percent of the au toxics risk (SCAQMD 2008a). Excess cancer risk is 742 to 1,035 in a
million in the vicinity of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan area (SCAQMD 2008a).
Regulatory Setting
AAQS have been promulgated at the local, state, and federal levels for criteria pollutants. The project site is in
the SoCAB and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by SCAQMD as well as the California AAQS
adopted by CARB and federal AAQS.
AmbientAir Quality Standards
The Clean An Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The
1970 Clean Air Act amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory
scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment
requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.
The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of au
quality in the United States. The CAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other
pollution species. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state
to achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The California AAQS tend to be
more restrictive than the National AAQS, based on even greater health and welfare concerns.
These National AAQS and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of
safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect "sensitive receptors"
most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people
already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy
Page 5.26 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum
standards before adverse effects are observed.
Both California and the federal government have established health based AAQS for seven air pollutants. As
shown in Table 5.2 -1, these pollutants include 03, NO2, CO, S02, PMto, PMzs, and lead (Pb). In addition, the
state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility- reducing particles. These
standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety.
Table 5.2 -1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants
October 2014 Page 5.2 -7
California Federal Primary
Pollutant Averaging Time Standard Standard Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm
03) Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and solvents.
8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline - CO) powered motor vehicles. 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining operations, NO2) industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads. 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide Annual Arithmetic 0.030 ppm2SO2) Mean
Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery
1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm' plants, and metal processing.
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.014 ppm2
Respirable Coarse Annual Arithmetic 20 Ng /m3 Dust and fume - producing construction, industrial,
Particulate Matter Mean and agricultural operations, combustion,
PM10) atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural
24 hours 50 Ng /m3 150 Ng /m3 activities (e.g., wind- raised dust and ocean sprays).
Respirable Fine Annual Arithmetic 12 /m3Ng 12 /ma.aNg Dust and fume - producing construction, industrial,
Particulate Matter Mean and agricultural operations, combustion,
PM25) atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural
24 hours 35 Ng /m3 activities (e.g., wind- raised dust and ocean sprays).
Lead Monthly 1.5 Ng /m3
Pb) Present source : lead smelters, battery
Quarterly 1.5 Ng /m3 manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past source:
combustion of leaded gasoline.
3 -Month Average 0.15 Ng /m3
Sulfates 24 hours 25 Ng /m3 Industrial processes. SO4)
October 2014 Page 5.2 -7
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Table 5.2 -1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants
Source: CARIB 2013b.
Notes: ppm: parts per million; fig/ml: micrograms per cubic meter
Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity.
When relative humidity is less than 70 percent.
2 On June 2, 2010, a new 1 -hour SOz standard was established and the existing 24 -hour and annual primary standards were revoked. The 1971 SO,
national standards (24 -hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas
designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010
standards are approved.
3 On December 14, 2012, EPA lowered the federal primary PMzs annual standard from 15.0 pg/ms to 12.0 pg/m'. EPA made no changes to the
primary 24 -hour PMzs standard or to the secondary PMzs standards.
Air Quality Management Planning
SCAQMD is responsible for prepazing the air quality management plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB in
coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Since 1979, a number of
AQMPs have been prepared.
2012 AQMP
On December 7, 2012, SCAQMD adopted the 2012 AQMP, which employs the most up -to -date science and
analytical tools and incorporates a comprehensive strategy aimed at controlling pollution from all sources,
including stationary sources, on road and off road mobile sources, and area sources. It also addresses several
state and federal planning requirements, incorporating new scientific information, primarily in the form of
updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, and new meteorological an quality models. The 2012
AQMP builds upon the approach identified in the 2007 AQMP for attainment of federal PM and ozone
Page 5.2-% PlaceWorkr
California Federal Primary
Pollutant Averaging Time Standard Standard Major Pollutant Sources
Visibility- Reducing Visibility- reducing particles consist of suspended
Particles particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of
ExCo = 0.23/km tiny particles that consists of dry solid fragments,
8 hours visibility of 10? No Federal solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets
miles' Standard of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size
and chemical composition, and can be made up of
many different materials such as metals, soot, soil,
dust, and salt.
Hydrogen Sulfide Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with the
odor of rotten eggs. It is formed during bacterial
1 hour 0.03 ppm No Federal decomposition of sulfur-containing organic
Standard substances. Also, it can be present in sewer gas
and some natural gas, and can be emitted as the
result of geothermal energy exploitaton.
Vinyl Chloride Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlornated
hydrocarbon, is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet
No Federal odor. Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl
24 hour 0.01 ppm Standard chloude (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Vinyl
chloude has been detected near landfills, sewage
plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to microbial
breakdown of chlorinated solvents.
Source: CARIB 2013b.
Notes: ppm: parts per million; fig/ml: micrograms per cubic meter
Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity.
When relative humidity is less than 70 percent.
2 On June 2, 2010, a new 1 -hour SOz standard was established and the existing 24 -hour and annual primary standards were revoked. The 1971 SO,
national standards (24 -hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas
designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010
standards are approved.
3 On December 14, 2012, EPA lowered the federal primary PMzs annual standard from 15.0 pg/ms to 12.0 pg/m'. EPA made no changes to the
primary 24 -hour PMzs standard or to the secondary PMzs standards.
Air Quality Management Planning
SCAQMD is responsible for prepazing the air quality management plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB in
coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Since 1979, a number of
AQMPs have been prepared.
2012 AQMP
On December 7, 2012, SCAQMD adopted the 2012 AQMP, which employs the most up -to -date science and
analytical tools and incorporates a comprehensive strategy aimed at controlling pollution from all sources,
including stationary sources, on road and off road mobile sources, and area sources. It also addresses several
state and federal planning requirements, incorporating new scientific information, primarily in the form of
updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, and new meteorological an quality models. The 2012
AQMP builds upon the approach identified in the 2007 AQMP for attainment of federal PM and ozone
Page 5.2-% PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
standards and highlights the significant amount of reductions needed and the urgent need to engage in
interagency coordinated planning to identify additional strategies, especially in the area of mobile sources, to
meet all federal criteria air pollutant standards within the timeframes allowed under the CAA. The 2012
AQMP demonstrates attainment of federal 24hour PM25 standard by 2014 and the federal 8 -hour ozone
standard by 2023. It includes an update to the revised EPA 8 -hour ozone control plan with new
commitments for short -term NO, and VOC reductions. The plan also identifies emerging issues of ultrafne
PM3o) particulate matter and near- roadway exposure, and an analysis of energy supply and demand.
Lead State Implementation Plan
The SoCAB, except for the Los Angeles County nonattainment area, remains in attainment of the new
standard. On May 24, 2012, CARB approved the state implementation plan (SIP) revision for the federal lead
standard, which the EPA revised in 2008. Lead concentrations in this nonattainment area have been below
the level of the federal standard since December 2011. The SIP revision was submitted to EPA for approval.
NonattalnmentAreas
The AQMP provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the state and federal
ambient air quality standards through the SIP. Areas are classified attainment or nonattamment for particular
pollutants, depending on whether they meet ambient air quality standards. Severity classifications for ozone
nonattainment range from marginal, moderate, and serious to severe and extreme.
Transportation conformity for nonattainment and maintenance areas is required under the federal CAA to
ensure federally supported highway and transit projects conform to the SIP. The EPA approved California's
SIP revisions for attainment of the 1997 8 -hour 03 National AAQS for the SoCAB in March 2012. Findings
for the new 8 -hour 03 emissions budgets for the SoCAB and consistency with the recently adopted 2012
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS) were submitted to the EPA for
approval.
The attainment status for the SoCAB is shown in Table 5.2 -2. The SoCAB is also designated in attainment of
the California AAQS for sulfates. The SoCAB will have to meet the new federal 8 -hour 03 standard by 2023,
and the federal 24 hour PM25 standards by 2014 (with the possibility of up to a five -year extension to 2019, if
needed). SCAQMD has recently designated the SoCAB nonattainment for NO2 (entire basin) and lead (T.os
Angeles County only) under the California AAQS.
October 2014 Page 5.2 -9
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Table 5.2 -2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin
Pollutant State Federal
Ozone —1 -hour Extreme Nonattainment No Federal Standard
Ozone — &hour Extreme Nonattainment Severe-17 Nonattainment'
PMto Serious Nonattainment Nonattainment2
PM25 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Nonattainment Attainment/Maintenance
S02 Attainment Attainment
Lead Nonattainment (Los Angeles County only)3 Nonattainment (Los Angeles County only )3
All others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified
Source: CARB 2013a.
SCAQMD may petition for Extreme Nonattainment designation.
2Annual standard revoked September 2006. CARB approved SCAQMD's request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainment for PM10 to
attainment for PM10 under the National AAQS on March 25, 2010, because the SoCAB has not violated federal 24 -hour PM10 standards from 2004
to 2007. However, the EPA has not yet approved this request.
The Los Angeles portion of the SoCAB was designated nonattainment for lead under the new federal and existing state AAQS as a result of large
industrial emitters. Remaining areas within the SoCAB are unclassified.
Existing Ambient Air Quality
Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of the project site
and project area are best documented by measurements made by SCAQMD. The project site is in Source
Receptor Area (SRA) 17 — Inland Orange County (Central Orange County). The air quality monitoring
station closest to the project is the Anaheim Pampa Lane Monitoring Station. This station does not have
information for 5O2, so the information for this criteria air pollutant was obtained from the Costa Mesa Mesa
Verde Drive monitoring station. Data from these stations are summarized in Table 5.2 -3. The data show that
the concentration levels of 03, PMto, and PM25 of the area regularly exceed the state and federal one -hour
and eight -hour 03 standards as well as the state PMto and federal PM25 standards. The CO, 5O2, and NO2
standards have not been exceeded in the last five years in the project vicinity.
Page 5.2 -10 PlaceWorkr
Table 5.2 -3 Ambient Air Qualitv Monitori
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and
Pollutant/Standard 2007 2008 1 2009 1 2010 1 2011
Ozone (OaP
State 1 -Hour > 0.09 ppm 2 2 0 1 0
State 8 -hour > 0.07 ppm 7 10 2 1 1
Federal 8-Hour > 0.075 ppm 1 5 1 1 0
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.127 0.105 0.093 0.104 0.088
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.099 0.086 0.077 0.088 0.072
Carbon Monoxide (CO)i
State 8 -Hour > 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 0 0
Federal 8-Hour_ 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 0 0
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 2.91 3.44 2.73 1.98 2.08
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO41
State 1-Hour 0.18 ppm
Max. 1 -Hour Conc. (ppm)
0
0.086
0
0.093
0
0.068
0
0.073
0
0.074
Sulfur Dioxide (SO42
State 1-Hour 0.04 ppm
Max. 1- Hour Conc. (ppm)
0
0.004
0
0.003
0
0.004
0
0.002
0
0.002
Coarse Particulates (PMtolt
State 24 -Hour > 50 Ng /m3 6 3 1 0 2
Federal 24 -Hour > 150 Ng /m3 1 0 0 0 0
Max. 24 -Hour Conc. (Ng /m3) 489.0 111.5 97.4 43.0 53.0
Fine Particulates (PM25)1
Fedeml 244iour> 35 Ng /m3 14 5 5 0 2
Max. 24 -Hour Conc. (Ng /m3) 79.4 67.8 64.5 31.7 39.2
Soumz: CARB 201X
ppm: parts per million; pgIM3: or micrograms percubic meter.
Dataobtained from the Anaheim — Pampa Lane Monitoring Station at 1630 Pampas Lane in the CityofAnaheim.
3 Dataobtained from the Costa Mesa — Mesa Verde DriveMonitoring Station at 2850 MesaVerde Drive East in the City of Costa Mesa-
Existing Setting
As shown in Table 5.2 -4, there are current existing land uses within the boundaries of the Harbor Boulevard
Mixed Use Corridor Plan consisting of residential, retail, commercial, and light industrial land uses. These
uses currently generate criteria air pollutants from natural gas use for heating and cooking, vehicle trips
associated with each land use, and area sources such as landscaping equipment and consumer cleaning
products.
October 2014 Page 5.2 -77
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Table 5.2 -4 Existing Land Uses
Land Uses Dwelling Units/Building Square Feet
Residential 739 DU
Retail 633,878 BSF
Service 815,346 BSF
Other 505,037 BSF
Notes: DU = dwelling unit; BSF = building square feet
Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population
groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the
chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases.
Residential areas are also considered sensitive to air pollution because residents (including children and the
elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants
present. Other sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. Recreational land uses
are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise
places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable
air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are
considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, because
the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the workforce is generally the
healthiest segment of the population. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are the residential,
schools and parks in and along the project area.
5.2.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
AQ -1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
AQ -2 Violate any au quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected au quality
violation.
AQ -3 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
AQ -4 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
AQ -5 Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Page 5.2 -12 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following threshold
would be less than significant:
Threshold AQ -5
This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis.
5.2.2.1 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT THRESHOLDS
The analysis of the proposed project's air quality impacts follows the guidance and methodologies
recommended in SCAQNID's CEQA AirQuaho Handbook and the significance thresholds on SCAQNID's
website.7 CEQA allows the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on air quality. SCAQMD has established
thresholds of significance for regional air quality emissions for construction activities and project operation.
In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, projects are also subject to the AAQS. These are addressed
though an analysis of localized CO impacts and localized significance thresholds (LSTs).
Regional Significance Thresholds
SCAQIVID has adopted regional construction and operational emissions thresholds to determine a project's
cumulative impact on air quality in the SoCAB. Table 5.2 -5 lists SCAQNID's regional significance thresholds.
Table 5.2 -5 SCAQMD Siqnificance Thresholds
Air Pollutant Construction Phase Operational Phase
Reactive Organic Gases (ROGsy Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs) 75lbs /day 55lbs /day
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550lbs/day 550lbs/day
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100lbs/day 55lbs /day
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150lbs/day 150lbs/day
Particulates (PMto) 150lbs/day 150lbs/day
Particulates (PM25) 55lbs /day 55lbs /day
Source: SCAQMD 2011.
CO Hot Spots
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hot spots, which have the potential
to exceed the state one hour standard of 20 prim or the eight hour standard of 9 prim. Because CO is produced in
greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to
ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hot
spots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer
periods and are subject to reduced speeds. Typically, for an intersection to exhibit a significant CO concentration, it
would operate at level of service (LOS) E orworse without improvements (Caltrans 1997).
7 SCAQMD's Au Quality Significance Thresholds are current as of March 2011 and can be found at
htq): //w .agmcigov /ceqa /hdbkhtml.
October 2014 Page 5.2 -13
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Localized Significance Thresholds
SCAQMD developed LSTs for emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM25 generated at the project site (offsite
mobile- source emissions are not included in the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions at a
project site that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent federal or
state AAQS. IST analysis is applicable for all projects of five acres and less. LSTs are based on the ambient
concentrations of that pollutant within the project SRA and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor
compared to the most stringent AAQS. Thresholds are based on the California AAQS, which are the most
stringent AAQS established to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare.
They are designed to protect sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as
asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons
engaged in strenuous work or exercise. AAQS from which the LSTs are based are shown in Table 5.2 -6.
Table 5.2 -6 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds
Air Pollutant Relevant AAQS Concentration
1 -Hour CO Standard (CAAQS) 20 ppm
8-Hour CO Standard (CAAQS) 9.0 ppm
1 -Hour NO2 Standard (CAAQS) 0.18 ppm
24-Hour PM10 Standard — Construction (SCAQMD)l 10.4 Ng /m3
24-Hour PM2.5 Standard — Construction (SCAQMD)l 10.4 Ng /m3
24-Hour PM10 Standard — Operation (SCAQMD)l 2.5 Ng/m3
24-Hour PM2.5 Standard — Operation (SCAQMD)l 2.5 Ng/m3
ppm — parts per million; Ng/m3 — micrograms per cubic meter
Threshold is based on SCAQMD Rule 403. Since the SoCAB is in nonattainment for PM10 and PMzs, the threshold is established as an allowable
change in concentration. Therefore, background concentration is irrelevant.
Health Risk Analysis
Whenever a project would require use of chemical compounds that have been identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401,
placed on CARB's air toxins list pursuant to Assembly Bill 1807 (AB 1807), Air Contaminant Identification and
Control Act (1983), or placed on the EPAs National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, a health
risk assessment (TIRO) is required by the SCAQMD. Table 5.2 -7 lists the SCAQMD's TAC incremental risk
thresholds for operation of a project Residential, commercial., and office uses do not use substantial quantities of
TACs, and these thresholds are typically applied for new industrial projects. Although not officially adopted by
SCAQMD, these thresholds are also commonly used to determine air quality land use compatibility of a project
with major sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of a proposed project.
Table 5.2 -7 SCAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds
Maximum Individual Cancer Risk I ? 10 in 1 million
Hazard Index (proiect increment) I ? 1.0
Source: SCAQMD 2011.
Page 5.2 -14 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
5.2.3 Environmental Impacts
Methodology
This air quality evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA to determine if
significant air quality impacts are likely to occur in conjunction with the type and scale of development within
the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan. SCAQMD has published the CEQA Air Quality
Handbook (Handbook) and updates on its website to provide local governments with guidance for analyzing
and mitigating project specific air quality impacts. The Handbook provides standards, methodologies, and
procedures for conducting air quality analyses in environmental impact reports and was used extensively in
the preparation of this analysis. The SCAQMD has published two additional guidance documents Localised
Significance Threshold Methodologyfor CEQA Evaluations (2003) and Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 Significance Thresholds
and Calculation Methodology (2006) that are intended to provide guidance in evaluating localized effects from
emissions generated by a project. These documents were also used in the preparation of this analysis. The
analysis also makes use of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2011.1.1, for
determination of daily construction and operational emissions.
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.2 -1: Construction activities associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor
Plan would generate short-term emissions that exceed the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's VOC and NO. regional thresholds and would significantly contribute
to the particulate matter (PM,o and PM2.5), ozone (03), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. [Thresholds AQ -2 and AQ -3]
ImpactAnalysis: A project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it violates any air
quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as onsite heavy -duty
construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the
construction crew. Site preparation activities produce fugitive dust emissions (PM,o and PM25) from grading
and excavation and from demolition. Exhaust emissions from construction onsite would vary daily.
Construction activities would temporarily increase PM,o, PM? 5, VOC, NOx, Sox, and CO regional emissions
within the SoCAB. Construction activities associated with buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use
Transit Corridor Plan are anticipated to occur sporadically over an approximately 20 -year period or longer.
Buildout would comprise multiple smaller projects, each having its own construction timeline and activities.
Development of multiple properties could occur at the same time. However, there is no defined development
schedule for these future projects at this time. For this analysis, the maximum emissions are based a very
conservative worst case scenario, where overlap of all construction phases occur at the same time. An
estimate of maximum daily construction emissions is provided in Table 5.2 -8.
October 2014 Page 5.2 -15
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Table 5.2 -8 Construction Regional Emissions
Construction Phase'
Construction - Related R ional Emissions ( undsida )
VOC NO, CO S02 PMin PM,.,
Demolition 7 57 37 1 6 3
Site Preparation 6 49 30 1 10 7
Grading 8 62 36 1 7 4
Building Construction 33 145 283 1 59 9
Paving 4 27 17 1 2 2
Architectural Coatings 177 7 41 1 10 1
Worst -Case Day 234 348 444 1 94 25
SCAQMD Standard 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant? Yes Yes No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2011.1.1.
Shown in pounds per day
Construction equipment mix is based on CaIEEMod default construction mx. See Appendix C for a list of assumptions on emissions generated on a
worst -case day.
2 Grading includes compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 fugitive dust control measures. Measures include requiring an application of water at least
twice per day to at least 80 percent of the unstabilized disturbed onsite surface areas, replacing disturbed ground cover quickly, and restricting
speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. Modeling also assumes a VOC of 100 gtL for interior paints pursuant to SCAQMD Rule
1113.
Construction activities associated with the project could potentially exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds
for VOC and NOx. The primary source of NOx emissions is construction equipment exhaust. NOx is a
precursor to the formation of both 03 and particulate matter (PM,o and PM25). VOC is produced by
equipment exhaust and off gas of architectural coatings and paving. VOC is a precursor to the formation of
03. Project related emissions of VOC and NOx would contribute to the 03, NO2, PM,o, and PM2 5
nonattamment designations of the SoCAB. Therefore, project related construction activities would result in
significant regional air quality impacts.
Impact 5.2 -2: Long -term criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use
Transit Corridor Plan would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's VOC,
CO, MR, and PM2.5 regional significance thresholds and significantly contribute to the
particulate matter (PM,o and PM2.5), ozone (03), and nitrogen dioxide (NOO nonattainment
designations of the SoCAB. [Thresholds AQ -2 and AQ -3]
ImpactAnalysis: Buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would result in direct
and indirect criteria air pollutant emissions from transportation, energy (natural gas use), and area sources
e.g., natural gas fireplaces, aerosols, landscaping equipment). Transportation sources of criteria air pollutant
emission are based on the traffic impact analysis conducted by IBI Group (Appendix H of this EIR). The
project would generate a net increase of 31,910 weekday average daily trips (ADT) (see Appendix H). The
results of the CaIEEMod modeling are included in Table 5.2 -9.
Page 5.2 -16 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Table 5.2 -9 Maximum Daily Operational Phase Regional Emissions
Phase
Existino
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Area 71 1 62 0 1 1
Energy 1 9 6 1 1 1
Transportation 47 32 359 2 211 8
Total 118 41 427 2 213 10
Project'
New Land Uses
Area 743 4 323 7 7 7
Energy 1 12 6 7 1 7
Transportation 93 63 778 3 424 77
Remaininq Exisfinq Land Uses
Area 30 1 62 0 1 1
Energy 1 2 7 7 1 1
Transportation 25 17 790 7 111 4
Combined
Area 173 4 385 1 8 8
Energy 2 14 7 1 1 1
Transportation 118 80 875 4 535 21
Total 293 99 1,267 4 545 31
Less Existing Emissions 118 41 427 2 213 10
Netlncrease 175 58 874 3 332 20
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Sgndicant? yes yes yes No yes yes
Source: CaIEEMod Version 2011.1.1. Based on highest winter or summer emissions. Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.
It is anticipated that approximately 1,555,000 building square feet of the existing nonresidential structures would be demolished.
As shown in this table, operation of the project would generate air pollutant emissions that exceed
SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, PM,o, and PM25 at buildout. Emissions of
VOC and NOx that exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold would cumulatively contribute to the 03
nonattamment designation of the SoCAB. Emissions of NOx that exceed SCAQMD's regional significance
thresholds would cumulatively contribute to the 03, particulate matter (PM o and Pn5), and NO2
nonattamment designations of the SoCAB. Emissions of PM,o would contribute to the PM10 nonattamment
designation. Consequently, the project would result in a significant impact because it would significantly
contribute to the nonattamment designations of the SoCAB.
Impact 5.2 -3: Construction activities related to buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Plan could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Impact Analysis: The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant
concentrations during construction activities if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevating those
October 2014 Page 5.2 -17
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
levels. Unlike the mass of construction emissions shown in Table 5.2 -8, described in pounds per day,
localized concentrations refer to an amount of pollutant in a volume of air (ppm or µg /m3) and can be
correlated to potential health effects. ISTs are the amount of project related emissions at which localized
concentrations (ppm or pg /m3) would exceed the ambient au quality standards for criteria au pollutants for
which the SoCAB is designated a nonattamment area.
Table 5.2 -8 provides an estimate of the magnitude of criteria air pollutant emissions generated by the project for
each construction subphase. Buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would occur over
a period of approximately 20 years or longer and would comprise several smaller projects with their own
construction timeframe and construction equipment Concentrations of criteria air pollutants generated by a
project depend on the emissions generated onsite and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, an
IST analysis can only be conducted at a project - level, and quantification of ISTs is not applicable for this
program level environmental analysis. Because potential redevelopment could occur close to existing sensitive
receptors, the project has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Construction equipment exhaust combined with fugitive particulate matter emissions has the potential to expose
sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutant emissions and result in a significant impact
Impact 5.2 -4: Onsite operational - related emissions associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use
Transit Corridor Plan would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. [Threshold AQ -4]
Impact Analysis: The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not develop individual
land uses that generate substantial quantities of onsite, stationary emissions. Land uses that have the potential
to generate substantial emissions would require a permit from SCAQMD and include industrial land uses,
such as chemical processing, and warehousing operations where substantial truck idling could occur onsite.
These types of industrial land uses are not proposed under the project, and any existing land uses of these
types within the plan area are intended to be phased out for less intensive neighborhood commercial, retail,
and housing. Operation of residential and nonresidential structures would include occasional use of
landscaping equipment, natural gas consumption for heating, and nominal truck idling for vendor deliveries.
Emissions generated from these activities are nominal and no significant impact would occur.
CO Hot Spot Analysis
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hot spots. These pockets have the
potential to exceed the state one hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight hour standard of 9 ppm. At the time of the
1993 Handbook, the SoCAB was designated nonattainment under the California AAQS and National AAQS for
CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology
on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the SoCAB and in the state have steadily declined. In 2007, the
SCAQMD was designated in attainment for CO under both the California AAQS and National AAQS. As
identified in SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO
Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SoCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and
topographical conditions and not a result of congestion at a particular intersection. Under existing and future
vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000
Page 5.2 -18 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and /or horizontal air does not mes in order to
generate a significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2011). The proposed project would not produce the volume of
traffic at any one intersection required to generate a CO hot spot Therefore, CO hot spots are not an
environmental impact of concern for the proposed project Localized air quality impacts related to mobile source
emissions would therefore be less than significant
Impact 5.2 -5: The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan could site sensitive land uses in
proximity to major air pollution sources. [Threshold AQ -4]
Impact Analysis: A project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would expose
onsite sensitive receptors (new residents) to substantial pollutant concentrations emitted from offsite sources.
Recent air pollution studies have shown an association between proximity to major air pollution sources and a
variety of health effects. Because sensitive land uses are outside CARB jurisdiction, CARB established the Air
Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspecbm in May 2005 to address the siting of sensitive
land uses in the vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities,
dry cleaners, and gasoline- dispensing facilities. This guidance document was developed as a tool for assessing
compatibility and associated health risks when placing sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources.
CARB recommendations are based on data that show that localized air pollution exposures can be reduced by
as much as 80 percent by following CARB minimum distance separations, as shown in Table 5.2 -10.
Table 5.2 -10 CARB Recommendations for Sitinq New Sensitive Land Uses
Source Category Advisory Recommendations
Freeways and High - Traffic Roads Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feetof a freeway, urban roads with 100,000
vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day.
Avad siting new senstve land uses within 1,000 feet ofadistributon center (that accommodates
more than 100 trucks perday, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units [fRUsl
Distribution Centers per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).
Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating
residences and other sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail
Rail Yards yard.
Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitt ation approaches.
Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind ofports in the most heavily
Ports impacted zones. Consult local air districts or CARB on the status of pending analyses of health
risks.
Refineries Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries. Consult
with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate se aration.
Chrome Platers Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feetof any dry cleaning operation. For
Dry Cleaners Using operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with three or more
Perchloroethylene machines, consult with the local air district.
Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perchloroethylene dry cleaning
operations.
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feetof a large gas station (defined as a facility
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50 -foot separation is
recommended fortypical gas dispensing facilities.
Source: CARS 2005.
October 2014 Page 5.2 -19
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
CARB's recommendations on the siting of new sensitive land uses were developed from a compilation of
recent studies that evaluated data on the adverse health effects from proximity to air pollution sources. The
key observation in these studies is that close proximity to au pollution sources substantially increases
exposure and the potential for adverse health effects relative to the existing background concentrations in the
au basin. However, the impact of au pollution from these sources is on a gradient that at some point
becomes indistinguishable from the regional au pollution problem.
The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan area is not near any rail yards, ports, or refineries.
State Route 22 (SR 22) is approximately 2,400 feet from the plan's northernmost boundary and therefore
beyond the 500 -foot buffer distance. Additionally, there are no roadways with daily roadway volumes of
100,000 or more either within or near the plan's boundaries. However, there are several SCAQMD permitted
land uses within (e.g., Stremick's Heritage Foods) and near the project site that may generate stationary or
mobile sources of TACs. While some or all of the existing light industrial uses within the project boundaries
would transition to commercial, office, and residential land uses, future sensitive land uses could still be
exposed to existing facilities. Therefore, air quality compatibility impacts for new sensitive land uses are
potentially significant.
Impact 5.2 -6: The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan is a regionally significant project that
would contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations in the South
Coast Air Basin and would conflict with the assumptions of the applicable air quality
management plan. [Threshold AQ -1]
Impact Analysis: CEQA requires that general plans be evaluated for consistency with the AQMP. A
consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and
individual projects to the AQMP. It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the
environmental efforts of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality
concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they
are contributing to clean air goals contained in the AQMP. Only new or amended general plan elements,
specific plans, and major projects need to undergo a consistency review. This is because the AQMP strategy is
based on projections from local general plans. Projects that are consistent with the local general plan are
considered consistent with the air- quality - related regional plan.
The regional emissions inventory for the SoCAB is compiled by SCAQMD and SCAG. Regional population,
housing, and employment projections developed by SCAG are based, in part, on the county's general plan
land use designations. These projections form the foundation for the emissions inventory of the AQMP.
These demographic trends are incorporated into the 2012 RTP /SCS, compiled by SCAG to determine
priority transportation projects and vehicle miles traveled (VM'I) within the SCAG region.
Per CEQA Guideline Section 15206, the proposed project is considered regionally significant by SCAG
because it would result in the development of over 500 residential dwelling units and 250,000 square feet of
commercial office space. Changes in the population, housing, or employment growth projections associated
with this project have the potential to substantially affect SCAG's demographic projections and therefore the
assumptions in SCAQMD's AQMP. The proposed project would increase the land use intensity within the
Page 5.2 -20 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan area, resulting in a large increase in population growth
and a slight increase in employment in the plan area. Additionally, the proposed project would require a
general plan amendment to accommodate the change in land uses and increase in development intensity.
Because regional transportation modeling is based on the underlying general plan land use designation, the
project could potentially change the assumptions of the AQMP.
The AQMP ensures that the region is on track to attain the California and federal AAQS. When a project has
the potential to exceed the assumptions of the AQMP because it is more intensive than the underlying land
use designation, criteria air pollutants generated during operation of the proposed project are compared to
SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds (see Impact 5.2 -2), which were established to determine whether
a project has the potential to cumulatively contribute to the SOCAB's nonattamment designations.
The proposed project would be consistent with the regional goals of integrating land uses near a major
transportation corridor by increasing the amount of mixed use developments along the Harbor Boulevard
corridor. The Orange County Transportation Authority plans to establish bus rapid transit stops and routes
along Harbor Boulevard within the next decade. Additionally, development of residential and nonresidential
land uses in proximity to each other in addition to public transportation options would likely reduce VMT
and associated criteria air pollutant emissions from mobile sources. However, despite furthering the regional
transportation and planning objectives to reduce per capita VMT and associated emissions, the project would
represent a substantial increase in emissions compared to existing conditions and would exceed SCAQMD's
regional operational significance thresholds. As a result, the proposed project could potentially exceed the
assumptions in the AQMP and would not be considered consistent with the AQMP. Consequently, impacts
would be significant.
5.2.4 Cumulative Impacts
In accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, any project that produces a significant project level regional
air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment contributes to the cumulative impact. Cumulative
projects within the local area include new development and general growth within the project area. The
greatest source of emissions within the SoCAB is mobile sources. Due to the extent of the area potentially
impacted from cumulative project emissions, the SCAQMD considers a project cumulatively significant when
project related emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds shown in Table 5.2 -5.
Construction
The SoCAB is designated nonattamment for 03, PM? s, PMtu, and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the
California and National AAQS and nonattamment for NO2 under the California AAQS.B Construction of
cumulative projects would further degrade the regional and local air quality. Air quality would be temporarily
impacted during construction activities. Implementation of mitigation measures for related projects would
reduce cumulative impacts. Project related construction emissions would potentially exceed the SCAQMD
8 CARB approved the SCAQMD's request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainerent for PM10 to attainment for PM10
under the national AAQS on Much 25, 2010, because the SoCAB has not violated federal 24 -hour PM10 standards during the period
from 2004 to 2007. However, the EPA has not yet approved this request
October 2014 Page 5.2 -21
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
significance thresholds on a project and cumulative basis. Consequently, the projects contribution to
cumulative air quality impacts would be cumulatively considerable and would therefore be significant.
Operation
For operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the
daily regional threshold values is not considered by the SCAQMD to be a substantial source of air pollution
and does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. Operation of the project would result in emissions in
excess of the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds for VOC, CO, PMlo, and PM25 for long -term
operation. Therefore, the projects air pollutant emissions would be cumulatively considerable and therefore
significant.
5.2.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
State
CARB Rule 2480 (13 CCR 2480): Airborne Toxics Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and
Idling at Schools: limits nonessential idling for commercial trucks and school buses within 100 feet of a
school.
CARB Rule 2485(13 CCR 2485): Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel Fuel Commercial
Vehicle Idling. limits nonessential idling to five minutes or less for commercial trucks.
CARB Rule 2449(13 CCR 2449): In Use Off Road Diesel Idling Restricts: limits nonessential idling to
five minutes or less for diesel powered off road equipment.
Motor Vehicle Standards (AB 1493).
Regional
SCAQMD Rule 201: Permit to Construct
SCAQMD Rule 402: Nuisance Odors
SCAQMD Rule 403: Fugitive Dust
SCAQMD Rule 1113: Architectural Coatings
SCAQMD Rule 1403: Asbestos Emissions from Demolition /Renovation Activities
SCAQMD Rule 1186: Street Sweeping
5.2.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impact
would be less than significant: 5.2 -4.
Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant
Page 5.2 -22 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Impact 5.2 -1 Construction activities associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Plan would generate short -term emissions that exceed the SCAQMD'S
VOC and NOx regional thresholds and would significantly contribute to the
particulate matter (PMlo and PMzs), ozone (Oz), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
nonattainment designation of the SoCAB.
Impact 5.2 -2 Long -term criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the Harbor Boulevard
Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would exceed the SCAQMD's VOC, CO, PM1o,
and PM? s regional significance thresholds and significantly contribute to the
particulate matter (PMlo and PMzs), ozone (Oz), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
nonattamment designations of the SoCAB.
Impact 5.2 -3 Construction activities related to buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use
Transit Corridor Plan could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.
Impact 5.2 -5 The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan could site sensitive land
uses in proximity to major air pollution sources.
Impact 5.2 -6 The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan is a regionally significant
project that would contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality
violations in the South Coast Air Basin and would conflict with the assumptions of
the applicable Air Quality Management Plan.
5.2.7 Mitigation Measures
Impact 5.2 -1
2 -1 Applicants for new development projects within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Plan shall require the construction contractor to use equipment that meets the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)- Certified emissions standards
according to the following schedule.
From the end of 2011 to December 31, 2014, all project related off road diesel powered
construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet Tier 3 off road emissions
standards. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions
reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions
control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by CARB regulations.
After January 1, 2015, all off road diesel powered construction equipment greater than
50 horsepower shall meet the Tier 4 Final emission standards. Any emissions control
device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than
what could be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized
engine, as defined by CARB regulations.
October 2014 Page 5.2 -23
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Prior to construction, the project engineer shall ensure that all demolition and grading plans
clearly show the requirement for EPA Tier 3 or higher emissions standards for construction
equipment over 50 horsepower. During construction, the construction contractor shall
maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the
Building Safety Division. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and
numbers of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall properly service and maintain
construction equipment in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
Construction contractors shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction
equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources
Board's Rule 2449.
2 -2 Applicants for new development projects within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Plan shall require the construction contractor to prepare a dust control plan and
implement the following measures during ground - disturbing activities in addition to the
existing requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management
District Rule 403 to further reduce PMlo and Pn 5 emissions. The Building Safety Division
shall verify compliance that these measures have been implemented during normal
construction site inspections.
Following all grading activities, the construction contractor shall reestablish ground
cover on the construction site through seeding and watering.
During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall sweep streets with
Rule 1186 compliant, PMio- efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried over
to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling.
During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall maintain a minimum
24 inch freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials and tarp
materials with a fabric cover or other cover that achieves the same amount of
protection.
During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall water exposed
ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the
construction site and a minimum of three times per day.
During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall limit onsite vehicle
speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour.
2 -3 Applicants for new development projects within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Plan shall require the construction contractor to use coatings and solvents with a
volatile organic compound (VOC) content lower than required under Rule 1113 (i.e., super
compliant paints). All architectural coatings shall be applied either by (1) using a high -
volume, low-pressure spray method operated at an air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds
per square inch gauge to achieve a 65 percent application efficiency; or (2) manual
Page 5.2 -24 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
application using a paintbrush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge, to achieve
a 100 percent applicant efficiency. The construction contractor shall also use
precoated /natural colored building materials, where feasible. Use of low -VOC paints and
spray method shall be included as a note on architectural building plans and verified by the
Building Safety Division during construction.
Impact 5.2 -2
Stationary Source
2 -4 Applicants of residential developments which are designed to include shared community
barbeques shall only install electric powered barbeque units. These units shall be specified on
site and building plans and shall be verified by the Building Safety Division prior to issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy.
2 -5 Applicant provided appliances shall be Energy Star appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators,
clothes washers, and dryers). Installation of Energy Star appliances shall be verified by the
Building Safety Division during plan check.
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
2 -6 Applicants of residential developments which include garage and /or car port parking shall
ensure that garage and /or car port parking are electrically wired to accommodate a Level 2
240 volt) electric vehicle charging outlet per dwelling unit The location of the electrical
outlets shall be specified on building plans and proper installation shall be verified by the
Building Safety Division prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
2 -7 Applicants of retail, commercial, office, and other non - residential development shall provide
Level 2 vehicle charging stations for public use and where feasible, coordinate with the City
of Santa Ana to install Level 3 (480 volt or higher charging stations. The location of the
charging station(s) shall be specified on site and building plans and proper installation shall
be verified by the Building Safety Division prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
2 -8 Applicants for non - residential projects within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Plan, that employ 20 or more people which is equivalent to 16,000 square feet of
retail space or 10,000 square feet of office space —shall implement an employee commute
trip reduction (CTR) program. The CTR program shall identify alternative modes of
transportation to the project, including transit schedules, bike and pedestrian routes, and
carpool /vanpool availability. Information regarding these programs shall be readily available
to employees and clients. The project applicant or designee shall consider the following
incentives for commuters as part of the CTR program:
Rideshare - matching assistance through OCTA
Subsidized public transit passes
October 2014 Page 5.225
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Vanpool assistant
Caz or bike sharing program-
0 Bicycle end trip su ®rtrt facilities, iftel"ditT such as bike storage o v 16itg lockers.
2 -9 Applicants of commercial, office, retail, and other non - residential development within the
specific plan area shall provide the following features to reduce project related mobile source
air pollutant emissions:
Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools.
Preferential parking for alternative fuel vehicles (e.g., compressed natural gas or
hydrogen).
Secure bicycle parking and storage facilities for visitors.
Commuter information boards identifying bicycle paths and public transit routes and
schedules.
Impact 5.2 -3
Mitigation measures applied for Impact 5.2 -1 would also reduce the projects localized construction related
criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible.
Impact 5.2 -5
2 -10 Applicants for residential or residential mixed -use projects within: 1) 1,000 feet from the
truck bays of an existing distribution centers that accommodate more than 100 trucks per
day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units, or where transport
refrigeration unit operations exceed 300 hours per week, or 2) 1,000 feet of an SCAQMD
permitted facility, or an industrial facility which emits toxic air contaminants shall submit a
health risk assessment (HRA) prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the
state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
The HRA shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator prior to approval of any future
discretionary residential or residential mixed use project. If the HRA shows that the
incremental cancer risk exceeds one in one hundred thousand (1.0E -05), PM concentrations
would exceed 2.5 µg /m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the HRA
shall identify the level of high - efficiency Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (NIERV) filter
required to reduce indoor air concentrations of pollutants to achieve the cancer and /or
noncancer threshold.
Page 5.2 -26 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
The Applicant shall be required to install high efficiency MFRV filters in the intake of
residential ventilation systems, consistent with the recommendations of the HRA. Heating,
air conditioning and ventilation (HVAC) systems shall be installed with a fan unit power
designed to force air through the MERV filter. To ensure long -term maintenance and
replacement of the MERV filters in the individual units, the following shall occur:
Developer, sale, and /or rental representative shall provide notification to all affected
tenants /residents of the potential health risk for affected units.
For rental units, the owner /property manager shall maintain and replace MFRV filters in
accordance with the manufacture's recommendations. The property owner shall inform
renters of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates when windows are open.
For residential owned units, the Homeowner's Association (HOA shall incorporate
requirements for long -term maintenance in the Covenant Conditions and Restrictions
and inform homeowners of then responsibility to maintain the MERV filter in
accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. The HOA shall inform
homeowners of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates when windows are
open.
Impact 5.2 -6
Mitigation measures applied for Impact 5.2 -1 and Impact 5.2 -2 would reduce the project's regional
construction related and operational phase criteria an pollutant emissions to the extent feasible.
5.2.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impact 5.2 -1
Mitigation Measures 2 -1 through 2 -3 would reduce criteria an pollutants generated from project- related
construction activities. Buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would occur over
a period of approximately 20 years or longer. Construction time frames and equipment for individual site
specific projects are not available. There is a potential for multiple developments to be constructed at any one
time, resulting in significant construction related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence to Mitigation
Measures 2 -1 through 2 -3, Impact 5.2 -1 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 5.2 -2
Incorporation of Mitigation Measures 2 -4 through 2 -9 would reduce operation related criteria an pollutants
generated from stationary and mobile sources. Mitigation Measures 2 -5 through 2 -9 would encourage and
accommodate use of alternative fueled vehicles and non motorized transportation. However, despite
adherence to Mitigation Measures 2 -4 through 2 -9, Impact 5.2 -2 would remain significant and unavoidable.
October 2014 Page 5.2 -27
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Impact 5.2 -3
Mitigation Measures 2 -1 and 2 -2 applied for Impact 5.2 -1 would reduce the project's regional construction
emissions and therefore also reduce the project's localized construction related criteria air pollutant emissions
to the extent feasible. However, because existing sensitive receptors may be close to project related
construction activities, construction emissions generated by individual project have the potential to exceed
SCAMQD's LSTs. Impact 5.2 -3 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 5.2 -5
The proposed project would result in construction of up to 3,884 new residential units within the Harbor
Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan boundaries at build out. The exact locations of new sensitive
land uses are not known at this time, although residential uses would be allowed near existing onsite light
industrial land uses in the interim period until these industrial sites transition into new land uses. In addition,
residential uses would also be allowed near existing offsite light industrial land uses. Light industrial land uses
with sources of toxic air contaminants have the potential to affect new sensitive land uses within the Harbor
Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 2 -10 would ensure that new
residential land uses proximate to major sources of toxic air contaminants reduce risk by installing high -
efficiency MERV filters to reduce indoor concentrations particulates (including diesel particulate matter,
which comprises the majority of risk) below SCAQMD's threshold. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure 2 -10, Impact 5.2 -5 would be less than significant.
Impact 5.2 -6
Mitigation measures applied for Impact 5.2 -1 and Impact 5.2 -2 would reduce the project's regional
construction related and operational phase criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However,
given the potential increase in growth and associated increase in criteria air pollutant emissions, the project
would continue to be potentially inconsistent with the assumptions in the AQMP. Impact 5.2 -6 would remain
significant and unavoidable.
5.2.9 References
California Au Resources Board (CARB). 2013a, April 1. Area Designations Maps /State and National.
http: //w ..a b.ca.gov /desig /adm /adm.hLrn.
2013b, June 4. Ambient Air Quality Standards. http: / /www b.ca.gov /research /a qs /a gs2.pdf.
2013c. Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012).
http: //w .. arb. ca .gov /adam /topfour /topfourl.php.
2013d, October 23. Proposed 2013 Amendments to Area Designations for State Ambient Air
Quality Standards. http: //w ..arb.ca.gov /regact /2013 /areal3 /ar 13isor.pdf
2005, April. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.
Page 5.2 -28 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
1999, December. Final Staff Report: Update to the Toxic Air Contaminant list.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1997, December. Transportation Project Level Carbon
Monoxide Protocol. UCD- ITS- RR- 97 -21. Prepared by Institute of Transportation Studies, University of
California, Davis.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2012a, May 4. Final 2012 Lead State
Implementation Plan: Los Angeles County. http: //w ..agmd.gov /hb /attachments /2011-
2015 / 2012May/ 2012 -May4 -030. pdf.
2012b. Air Quality Analysis Handbook. Updates to CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
http: //w ..agmd.gov /ceqa /hdbk.html.
2012c. Fina12012Air Quality Management Plan.
http: //w ..agmd.gov /agmp /2012agmp /Final /index.htrnl.
2011, March (Revised). SCAQMDAir Quality Significance Thresholds.
http: //w ..agmd.gov /ceqa /handbook /sigathres.pdf.
2008a, September. Multilile Air ToxicsExposure Study in the Soutb CoastAir Basin (MATES III).
2008b, June. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.
2005, May. Guidance DocumentforAddressing Air Quality Issues in GeneralPlans andLocalPlanning.
1993. California Environmental Quality ActAir Quality Handbook.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012, April 20. What are the Six Common Air Pollutants?
http: //w ..epa.gov /airquality /urbmair.
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2013. Western U.S. Historical Summaries — Santa Ana Fire Station
Monitoring Station (Station ID No. 047888). http: //w ..wrcc.clri.edu /cgi- bin /cliMAIN.pPca7888 (Accessed
November 2013).
Modeling
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2012. California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEEMod), Version 2011.1.1.
October 2014 Page 5.2 -29
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Tbisliage intentional# left blank.
Page 5.2 -30 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources include places, objects, and settlements that reflect group or individual religious,
archaeological, architectural, or paleontological activities. Such resources provide information on scientific
progress, environmental adaptations, group ideology, or other human advancements. This section of the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Harbor Boulevard
Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan to impact cultural resources in the City of Santa Ana. The analysis in this
section is based, in part, upon the following information:
Cultural Recordr Search and Historical Resources Inrentog, South Central Coastal Information Center at
California State University, Fullerton, May 1, 2013.
Vertebrate Paleontology Records Search, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, May 23, 2013.
5.3.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Background
Federal and state laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project
are summarized below.
Federal
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 regulates the protection of archaeological resources
and sites that are on federal and Indian lands.
Native Amencan Graves Protection and Repawation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) is a federal law passed in 1990 that
provides a process for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items, such as
human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, to lineal descendants and
culturally affiliated Indian tribes.
State
California Public Resources Code
Archaeological, paleontological, and historical sites are protected pursuant to a wide variety of state policies
and regulations enumerated under the California Public Resources Code. In addition, cultural and
paleontological resources are recognized as a nomenewable resource, and therefore receive protection under
the California Public Resources Code and CEQA.
California Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9 - 5097.998 provide protection to Native American
historical and cultural resources and sacred sites and identify the powers and duties of the Native
October 2014 Page 5.3 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
American Heritage Commission (NAHC). These sections also require notification of discoveries of
Native American human remains to descendants and provide for treatment and disposition of human
remains and associated grave goods.
California Public Resources Code 5097.98 states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any
human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, "there shall be no further
excavation... until the coroner... has determined... that the remains are not subject to ... provisions of law
concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the
recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to
the person responsible.... The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from
the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the
coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains. If the coroner determines that the
remains are not subject to his or her authority and ... has reason to believe that they are those of a Native
American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, NAHC."
California Senate Bi1118
Senate Bill (SB) 18, the Traditional Tribal Cultural Places (TTCPs) law, requires local jurisdictions to provide
opportunities for involvement of NAHC and any appropriate California Native Americans tribes in the land
planning process for the purpose of preserving TTCPs. A city or county, when proposing to adopt, amend,
revise, or update a general plan or specific plan, must send a written request to NAHC asking for a list of
tribes to consult. NAHC is required to provide this list within 30 days of receiving the request. The city or
county must send a Tribal Consultation Request letter to each tribal representative on the list; tribes then have
90 days in which to respond to the Consultation Request if they want to consult with the local government to
determine whether the project would have an adverse impact on the TTCP.
SB 18 provides a new definition of TTCP requiring a traditional association of the site with Native American
traditional beliefs, cultural practices, or ceremonies or the site must be shown to actually have been used for
activities related to traditional beliefs, cultural practices, or ceremonies. Previously, the site was defined to
require only an association with traditional beliefs, practices, lifeways, and ceremonial activities. In addition,
SB 18 also amended California Civil Code Section 815.3 and adds California Native American tribes to the list
of entities that can acquire and hold conservation easements for the purpose of protecting their cultural
places.
Natural Setting
The project area is underlain by young alluvial fm sediments consisting of unconsolidated to moderately
consolidated silt, sand, pebbly cobbly sand, and bouldery alluvial fm deposits and are of Holocene and late
Pleistocene age (USGS 2006). The Holocene Epoch extends from the present to approximately 11,500 years
before present (ybp); the Pleistocene Epoch extends from about 11,500 ybp to approximately 1.8 million ybp.
Elevations in the project area range from approximately 92 feet above mean sea level (amsl) along the
northeastern portion of the area to approximately 62 feet amsl along the southwest portion of the area; the
project area has a southwest slope of approximately 0.3 percent grade.
Page 5.3 -2 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The project area is in a highly urbanized, built out portion of the City and is developed with a mix of
commercial and residential uses. The project area also contains the Willowick Golf Course (an operating 18-
hole public golf course), Cesar Chavez /Campesmo Park, and Santa Anita Park. Existing uses are shown in
Figure 3 -3, Aerial Photograph. Land uses surrounding the project area include a mix of residential uses, which
vary widely in character and density and include single - family neighborhoods, apartment complexes, and
mobile home communities.
Native American Cultural Setting
The following information on the timeline and cultures of Native American habitation of the project region
is from the Archaeological Assessment prepared by Cogstone, Inc., in February 2013 for the Warner Avenue
Widening Project.
Timeline
Three prehistoric periods are defined in studies of Native American habitation of the region.
Milling Stone Period dates back well over 6,000 years ago (8,000 -3,000 radiocarbon years ago) and is
characterized by plant collecting, hunting, and fishing. Sites from this period appear to be part of an
expansion of settlement to take advantage of new habitats and resources that became available as sea levels
stabilized between about six to five thousand years ago. Mortars and pestles were used to process plant
materials. Most sites were in coastal areas. Around 3,500 years ago, there is thought to have been a shift to
more reliance on hunting. Sites attributed to this period appear to have been occupied by small groups of
people.
Intermediate Period dates from roughly 3,000 to 1,000 years ago. Sites attributed to this period indicate an
increased reliance on coastal resources and continued reliance on hunting and collecting. The bow and arrow
was developed in this period. Mortars and pestles and bone tools appeared in greater quantities.
Late Prehistoric Period dates from approximately 1,400 years ago to 1769. Villages tend to be larger, and
there appears to be an increase in smaller satellite sites, established to support the main village and reflecting
seasonal use of a particular area. There seems to be greater use of localized resources and increased trade and
social interaction. There is an increase in the number of sites in the area, which some researchers believe is
due to population increase. Settlement was expanded into the hills and canyons inland.
Cultures
The project region was inhabited by the Juaneno, and possibly the Gabrielmo, at the time of European
contact. After European contact, many Juaneno at Mission San Juan Capistrano and many GabrieLno were
induced to live at Mission San Gabriel in the present -day City of San Gabriel in Los Angeles County. Both
groups became known by the names of missions built in their territories. The Juaneno and Gabrielino
suffered population decline due to introduced diseases and restrictions on their native reproductive practices
by the padres. Most mission Indians were trained as vaqueros (cattle herders), sheepshearers, farm laborers,
and domestic laborers and continued in those professions after the missions were secularized.
October 2014 Page 5.3 -3
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Tongva (Gabnehno) Culture
The Tongva (Gabrielino) have overlapping ethnographic boundaries with the Juaneno to the south and
Chumash to the north, but they inhabited the entire Los Angeles basin including most of Orange County.
The name "Gabrichno" is Spanish in origin and was used in reference to the Native Americans associated
with the Mission San Gabriel. It is unknown what these people called themselves before the Spanish arrived,
but today they call themselves "Tongva," meaning "people of the earth."
Villages consisted of 50 to 100 people. Each community included one or more extended families or lineal
kinship groups (clans). Each village was united under the leadership of a chief who inherited the position
from his father. The chief was the leader of the religious and secular life of the community. Shamans were
also important as doctors, therapists, philosophers, and intellectuals.
Like the Juaneno, the Gabrielino tribe used local plants and animals and coastal resources. Rabbit and deer
were hunted, and acorns, buckwheat, chia, berries, fruits, and many other plants were collected. Artifacts
associated with their villages include a wide array of chipped stone tools, including knives and projectile
points, wooden tools like digging sticks and bows, and ground stone tools like bedrock and portable mortars
and pestles. Local plants were used to build shelters as well as for medicines.
Acjachemen (Juaneno) Culture
The Juaneno territory was bounded by Aliso Creek, the Santa Ana Mountains, San Onofre Creek and the
coastline. Archaeologists and linguists believe the Juaneno were a subdivision of the Luiseno because the
Juaneno spoke a dialect of Luiseno at European contact.
The Juaneno were organized into villages of 50 to 150 people headed by a hereditary chief and generally
located near permanent water sources. Each village used a specific territory and included satellite locations
used for seasonal food gathering. Families and groups lived seasonally in temporary camps set up to use
specific resources such as groves of oak trees, abundant game, or source rocks for stone tools.
A formal tribal government was established in the 1980s. The Juaneno Band members are part of the
Acjachemen Nation.
Historic Land Uses
The historic topographic maps described below were obtained from the US Geological Survey's website
USGS 2013). The southern and northern portions of the project area are shown on the Newport Beach and
Anaheim quadrangles, respectively; the border between the two quadrangles is between 5th Street and
Hazard Avenue.
1896 Santa Ana quadrangle and 1898 Anaheim quadrangle, scale (each) 1:62,500 (0.98 mile per inch):
Approximately 15 structures are scattered in and near the project area. One north south roadway and
several casttwest roadways are shown.
I The southern put ofthe site is shown on the Santa Ana quadrangle in 1896; the northern pact ofthe site is sho vn on the Garden
Grove quadrangle in 1935).
Page 5.34 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
1932 Newport Beach and 1935 Garden Grove quadrangles, scale (each) 1:31,680 (two inches per
mile): Development onsite is still sparse and scattered. The main north south roadway onsite is Buaro
Street where Harbor Boulevard is now. There is a two- square -block subdivision between 1st and 5th
Streets in the eastern part of the project area. A Pacific Electric railroad track2 passes through the
northeast part of the project area.
1949 Newport Beach and Anaheim quadrangles, scale (each) 1:24,000 (2.65 inches per mile): much of
the project area is in agricultural use. Harbor Boulevard now extends through the middle of the project
area, and Willowick Golf Club is shown in the northeast portion. Development is still scattered and
relatively sparse through much of the project area, including along Harbor Boulevard. Ten square blocks
that appear to be residential development are west and south of Willowick Golf Club. The Pacific
Electric railroad track remains in the northeast portion.
1965 Newport Beach and Anaheim quadrangles, scale (each) 1:24,000 (2.65 inches per mile): Much of
the project area is now shown as urbanized, especially the part east of Harbor Boulevard. No agricultural
use is shown onsite, although there are small areas of agricultural use offsite near the east and north
project area boundaries. Much of the project area west of Harbor Boulevard is shown as vacant. The
Garden Grove Municipal Golf Course and several radio towers are shown where the Willowick Golf
Club was shown in 1949.
Cultural Resources
A cultural records search was completed at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at
California State University, Fullerton, on May 1, 2013. The project area and a 0.5 mile radius surrounding the
project area was searched.
Archaeological Resources
No archaeological sites or isolates,3 either historic or prehistoric, have been identified onsite or within 0.5 mile
of the project area (SCCIC 2013). Most of the project area has not been previously surveyed for cultural
resources. The SCCIC contains records submitted by archaeologists and historians from previous cultural,
historic, and historic architectural investigations. Therefore, the lack of records for the project area does not
mean there are no cultural resources onsite and the archaeological sensitivity of the site is unknown.
One recorded prehistoric archaeological site in the City is mentioned in the City's General Plan Land Use
Element. The site is near Santiago Creek in the northwestern part of the City, the confluence of Santiago
Creek and the Santa Ana River is approximately two miles east - northeast of the north end of the project
area. The Acjachemen Quanefio) people, whose traditional tribal territory is in southern Orange County, were
2 The Pacific Electric Railway was an electric interurban trolley system in southern California.
3 An archaeological site is the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or
structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itselfpossesses historic, cultural, or archaeological value regardless
of the value of any existing structure (OHP 1995). An isolate is fewer than three isolated artifacts; and does not contain enough
associated artifacts to form an archaeological site. Isolates are not considered cultural resources, but are used in detemtirring sensitivity
for archaeological resources.
October 2014 Page 5.35
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
known to place their villages generally near permanent water sources (Cogstone 2013). The southeast edge of
the project area is along the Santa Ana River.
Paleontological Resources
No vertebrate fossil localities within the project area boundaries are contained in the vertebrate paleontology
records of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHM 2013). Surface sediments in and near
the entire project area are made up of younger terrestrial Quaternary Alluvium, mainly flood deposits from
the Santa Ana River that flows next to the east project site boundary, with older terrestrial Quaternary
sediments occurring at various depths. These surface deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate
fossils, at least in the uppermost layers; however, one vertebrate fossil locality, LACM 1652, from these
deposits on the western side of the Santa Ana River, north - northeast of the project area along Rio Vista
Avenue south of Lincoln Avenue,4 produced a fossil specimen of sheep, Otis, at shallow but unstated depth.
The closest vertebrate fossil locality in older Quaternary sediments is LACM 4943, north - northeast of the
proposed project area and situated almost due east of locality LACM 1652 along Fletcher Avenue east of
Glassell Streets LACM 4943 is somewhat higher in elevation than the project area, but produced fossil horse,
Equus, at a depth of 8-10 feet below the surface.
5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 provides direction on determining significance of impacts to
archaeological and historical resources. Generally, a resource shall be considered "historically significant" if
the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code
Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852), including the following:
Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's
history and cultural heritage;
Is associated the with lives of persons important in our past;
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or is not included in a local register of historical resources, does not preclude a lead
agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource.
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
The intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Avenue is approximately 5.8 miles north - northeast of the project site.
s The intersection of Fletcher Avenue and Glassell Street is approximately 5.8 miles northeast of the project site.
Page 5.36 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
C -1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5.
C -2 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5.
C -3 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
CA Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds
would be less than significant: C -1 and C -4. These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis.
5.3.3 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.3 -1: Future development that would be accommodated by the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use
Transit Corridor Plan could impact unknown archeological and/or paleontological
resources. [Threshold C -2 and C -31
Impact Analysis: The project area is in a highly urbanized, built -out portion of the City and is developed
with a mix of commercial and residential uses. The project area also contains the Willowick Golf Course (an
operating 18 -hole public golf course), Cesar Chavez /Campesmo Park, and Santa Anita Park. Existing uses are
shown in Figure 3 -3, Aerial Photograph. Land uses surrounding the project area include a mix of residential
uses, which vary widely in character and density and include single - family neighborhoods, apartment
complexes, and mobile home communities.
Long -term implementation of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would allow
development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, revitalization /restoration, and roadway improvements)
within the project area, including grading, of unknown sensitive areas. Following is a discussion of potential
impacts on archeological and paleontological resources as a result of project implementation.
Archeological Resources
Archeological resources are the physical remains and traces of past human activity such as artifacts, residues,
and built features. No archaeological sites or isolates, either historic or prehistoric, have been identified onsite
or within 0.5 mile of the project area (SCCIC). Additionally, the project area has no inherent cultural
significance. Furthermore, the majority of the project area is in a highly urbanized, built out portion of the
City and has been heavily disturbed over the years. Since the majority of the project area has been previously
disturbed by grading and construction, it is unlikely that any subsurface archaeological resources currently
exist that could be impacted by ground disturbing activities of future development projects accommodated
by the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan.
October 2014 Page 5.3 -7
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
However, while unlikely, the presence of subsurface archaeological resources in the project area remains
possible. The project area is in a region sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources. One recorded
prehistoric archaeological site in the City is mentioned in the City's General Plan Land Use Element. The site
is near Santiago Creek in the northwestern part of the City, the confluence of Santiago Creek and the Santa
Ana River is approximately two miles east - northeast of the north end of the project area. The southeast edge
of the project area is along the Santa Ana River. Additionally, most of the project area has not been
previously surveyed for cultural resources. Therefore, the lack of records for the project area does not mean
that there are no cultural resources onsite and the archaeological sensitivity of the site is unknown.
Furthermore, grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires greater
depth of soil excavation than in the past could potentially disturb unknown archeological resources.
Therefore, future development accommodated by the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
could potentially unearth previously unrecorded archeological resources.
Archaeological sites are protected by a wide variety of state policies and regulations under the California
Public Resources Code. Cultural and paleontological resources are also recognized as nonrenewable and
therefore receive protection under the California Public Resources Code and CEQA. Review and protection
of archaeological resources is also afforded by CEQA for individual development projects subject to
discretionary actions that are implemented m accordance with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Plan. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during grading and
excavation of a development site under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan, a qualified
archaeologist would assess the find and develop a course of action to preserve the find. Since grading may
result in the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources, impacts are significant.
Sacred Lands File Search
Furthermore, the NAHC performed a Sacred Lands File search of the project area on June 3, 2013. Native
American cultural resources were not identified within the City limits (sce NAHC comment letter in
Appendix D).
Paleontological Resources
No vertebrate fossil localities within the project area boundaries are in the vertebrate paleontology records of
the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHM 2013). Additionally, the majority of the project
area is in a highly urbanized, built out portion of the City and has been heavily disturbed over the years. Since
the majority of the project area has been previously disturbed by grading and construction, it is unlikely that
any subsurface paleontological resources currently exist that could be impacted by ground disturbing
activities of future development projects accommodated by the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Plan.
However, while unlikely, the presence of subsurface paleontological resources in the project area remains
possible. Two vertebrate fossil localities, LACM 1652 and LACM 4943, were identified in the project vicinity.
Additionally, grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires greater
depth of soil excavation than in the past could potentially cause the disturbance of unknown paleontological
resources. Excavations deeper than approximately six feet below ground surface may encounter significant
Page 5.3-% PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
vertebrate fossils in older Quaternary sediments. Grading or shallow excavations at lesser depths in the
younger Quaternary alluvial sediments onsite are unlikely to uncover significant fossil vertebrate remains.
Therefore, future development accommodated by the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
that requires grading six feet below ground surface could potentially unearth previously unrecorded
paleontological resources and result in a significant impact.
Tribal Consultation
In accordance with SB 18, the City of Santa Ana sent a written request to NAHC on June 13, 2013,
requesting a list of tribes to consult that could be affected by implementation of the Harbor Boulevard
Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan. NAHC responded on June 19 with a Native American Tribal Consultation
list of eight representatives from six tribes with traditional lands or cultural places associated with the project
area that should be consulted during the project review process. The City sent invitation letters to
representatives of these six tribes on June 27 formally inviting them to consult with the City during the
project review process. The intent of the consultation was to provide an opportunity for interested tribes to
work together with the City during the project planning process to identify and protect tribal cultural
resources. To date, none of the tribes have submitted formal requests for consultation.
5.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with other planned projects in the City of Santa Ana,
in accordance with the City's General Plan (see Section 4.4, Assump ions Regarding Cumulative lVacts), could
result in cumulative impacts to cultural resources. Development or redevelopment activities in other areas of
the City in accordance with the City's General Plan could unearth unknown significant cultural resources. The
potential for impacts to cultural resources from other cumulative projects is unknown, but likely similar to
those of the proposed project. Destruction of significant cultural resources from one or more of the
cumulative projects could constitute a significant cumulative impact.
However, similar to the proposed project, other development projects would be required to undergo
additional discretionary review and would be subject to the same resource protection requirements and
CEQA review as the proposed project. For example, other development projects would require some degree
of ground disturbing monitoring, which would minimize the potential to disturb significant cultural
resources. If cultural resources were found, they would be addressed through the necessary testing, archiving,
and recovery prior to development of the site. Neither the proposed project nor other cumulative
development are expected to result in significant impacts to cultural resources provided that site - specific
surveys and test and evaluation excavations are conducted, as necessary, to determine whether the resources
are unique cultural resources, and appropriate mitigation is implemented, including, but not limited to,
compliance with existing requirements. Additionally, the proposed project has incorporated mitigation that
would reduce the potential for the project to contribute to cumulative impacts to cultural resources.
Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative impacts to cultural resources would be less than
significant and less than cumulatively considerable.
October 2014 Page 5.3 -9
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
5.3.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
California Public Resources Code Sections 5020 - 5029.5; 5079 - 5079.65; 5097.9 - 5097.998; 5097.98
Tribal Consultation under Senate Bill 18
5.3.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Without mitigation, the following impact would be potentially significant:
Impact 5.3 -1 Project implementation could impact unknown archeological and /or paleontological
resources in the project area.
5.3.7 Mitigation Measures
3 -1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to
increased depth, the project applicant for each development or redevelopment project considered for
approval pursuant to the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan shall provide letters to
the City of Santa Ana from a qualified archaeologist and paleontologist (for excavations six feet
below ground surface and deeper) who meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional
Qualifications Standards. The letters shall state that the project applicant has retained these
individuals, and that the consultant(s) will be on call during all grading and other significant ground -
disturbing activities. In the event archeological or paleontological resources are discovered during
ground disturbing activities, the professional archeological or paleontological monitor shall have the
authority to halt any activities adversely impacting potentially significant cultural resources until they
can be formally evaluated. Suspension of ground disturbances in the vicinity of the discoveries shall
not be lifted until the archaeological or paleontological monitor, in coordination with the
construction contractor, has evaluated discoveries to assess whether they are significant cultural
resources, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA. If significance criteria are
met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification,
radiocarbon dates as applicable, and other special studies; they shall be offered for curation or
preservation to a repository with a retrievable collection system and an educational and research
interest in the materials, such as the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History or California
State University, Fullerton, or other local museum or repository. If no museum or repository is
willing to accept the resource, the resource shall be considered the property of the City, and may be
stored, disposed of, transferred, exchanged, or otherwise handled by the City at its discretion.
5.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Adherence to regulatory requirements and implementation of the mitigation measure outlined above would
reduce the potential impacts to cultural resources to less than significant levels. Therefore, no significant
unavoidable adverse impacts relating to cultural resources would result from project implementation.
Page 5.3 -10 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
5.3.9 References
Cogstone, Inc. 2013, May. Archaeological Assessment for the Warner Avenue from Main Street to Grand
Avenue Widening Project.
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHN1). 2013, May 23. Vertebrate Paleontology Records
Search.
South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton (SCCIC). 2013, May 1.
Cultural Records Search and Historical Resources Inventory.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2013. Topovicwc http: / /ngmdb.usgs.gov /maps /TopoView /.
US Geological Survey (USGS). 2006. Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30'X 60'
Quadrangles, California. http://pubs.usgs.gov /of/ 2006 /1217/of2006- 1217_map /of2006-
1217 —geo1_map.pdf.
October 2014 Page 5.3 -11
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Tbispage is intentionally le, ft blank.
Page 5.3 -12 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
5.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the
Harbor Corridor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan to impact geological and soil resources in the City of Santa
Ana and to be impacted by geological and soils conditions in the project area.
5.4.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Setting
State, regional, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines related to geology and soils that are potentially
applicable to the proposed project are summarized below.
State
California Alqurst -Paolo Earthquake FaultZonrngAct
The Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was signed into state law in 1972, and amended, with its
primary purpose being to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture by prohibiting the location of structures for
human occupancy across the trace of an active fault. The act requires the State Geologist to delineate
earthquake fault zones" along faults that are "sufficiently active" and "well defined." The act also requires
that cities and counties withhold development permits for sites within an earthquake fault zone until geologic
investigations demonstrate that the sites are not threatened by surface displacement from future faulting.
Pursuant to this act, structures for human occupancy are not allowed within 50 feet of the trace of an active
fault.
Seismic Hazard Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act (SHMA) was adopted by the state in 1990 for the purpose of protecting
the public from the effects of nonsurface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including strong ground shaking,
liquefaction, seismically induced landslides, or other ground failure caused by earthquakes. The goal of the
SHMA is to minimize loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards. The California
Geological Survey (CGS) prepares and provides local governments with seismic hazard zones maps that
identify areas susceptible to amplified shaking, liquefaction, earthquake - induced landslides, and other ground
failures.
California Building Code
Current law states that every local agency enforcing building regulations, such as cities and counties, must
adopt the provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) within 180 days of its publication. The
publication date of the CBC is established by the California Building Standards Commission and the code is
also known as Title 24, Part 2, of the California Code of Regulations. The most recent building standard
adopted by the legislature and used throughout the state is the 2010 version of the CBC, often with local,
more restrictive amendments that are based on local geographic, topographic, or climatic conditions. These
codes provide minimum standards to protect property and public safety by regulating the design and
October 2014 Page 5.4 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to
mitigate the effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions. The procedures and limitations for the
design of structures are based on site characteristics, occupancy type, configuration, structural system height,
and the strength of ground motion with specified probability of occurring at the site.
Requirements for GeotecbnicalInnestigations
Requirements for geotechnical investigations are included in CBC Appendix J, Section J104 (Engineered
Grading Requirements). As outlined in Section J104, applications for a grading permit are required to be
accompanied by plans, specifications, and supporting data consisting of a soils engineering report and
engineering geology report. Additional requirements for subdivisions requiring tentative and final maps and
for other specified types of structures are contained in California Health and Safety Code Sections 17953 to
17955 and in Section 1802 of the 2010 CBC. Testing of samples from subsurface investigations is required,
such as from borings or test pits. Studies must be done as needed to evaluate slope stability, soil strength,
position and adequacy of load hearing soils, the effect of moisture variation on load hearing capacity,
compressibility, liquefaction, differential settlement, and expansiveness.
City ofSanta Ana
The City of Santa Ana adopted the most recent CBC by reference, with certain amendments, into Chapter 8
Buildings and Structures), Article 2 (Building Code), of the City's Municipal Code.
Geologic Setting
Regional Setting
The project area is in the Los Angeles Basin, a coastal plain consisting of thick layers of sediment deposited
by local rivers and with a slight south -to- southwest slope. The Los Angeles Basin, in turn, is in the
northwestern end of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province, a region of northwest trending mountains
and valleys in southwestern California and extending south into Mexico.
ProjectArea
The project area is underlain by young alluvial fm deposits, designated Qyfa and Qyfsa on Figure 5.4 -1,
Geologic Map. These materials are unconsolidated to moderately consolidated silt, sand, pebbly cobbly sand,
and bouldery alluvial -fan deposits having slightly to moderately dissected surfaces, and are of Holocene and
late Pleistocene age (USGS 2006). The Holocene Epoch extends from the present to approximately 11,500
years before present (ybp); the Pleistocene Epoch extends from about 11,500 ybp to approximately 1.8
million ybp. Elevations in the project area range from approximately 90 feet above mean sea level (amsl)
along the northeastern boundary to approximately 60 feet amsl along the southwestern boundary. The project
area has a southwest slope of approximately 0.3 percent.
Groundwater
The project area is above the Main Orange County Groundwater Basin. Groundwater contours under the
project area in June 2011 were approximately at mean sea level near the northern end and approximately 10
Page 5.4 -2 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
feet below sea level near the southern end (OCWD 2011). Therefore, depth to groundwater under the project
area is estimated at approximately 90 feet near the northern end and approximately 70 feet near the southern
end.
Geologic Hazards
Seismic Hazards: Faults and Ground Shaking
A fault is a break or fracture between moving blocks of rock. Faults showing evidence of surface
displacement within about the last 11,000 years are considered active.
MeasuEng Earthquakes
Energy Released. The energy released by an earthquake is measured as moment magnitude (Mw). The
moment magnitude scale is logarithmic; therefore, each one -point increase in magnitude represents a tenfold
increase in amplitude of the waves and a 32 -fold increase in energy. That is, a magnitude 7 earthquake
produces 100 times (10 x 10) the ground motion amplitude of a magnitude 5 earthquake.
Ground Motion. Motion at the ground surface during an earthquake is measured as horizontal ground
acceleration in g, where g is the acceleration of gravity.
Effects on Buildings and Peoples' Sensations. The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale is a
qualitative scale of how earthquakes are felt by people and how they affect buildings. The MMI is a 12 -point
scale ranging from Intensity I, which is rarely felt by people, to Intensity XII, in which damage to structures is
total and objects are thrown into the air (USGS 2012). In California, the estimated relationship between peak
ground acceleration and MMI intensity is shown in Table 5.41.
Table 5.4 -1 Estimated Relationship between Peak Ground Acceleration and Intensitv
Peak Ground Acceleration, g MMI Effects
0.039 -0.092 V Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects
overturned. Pendulum clacks may stop.
0.092 -0.18 VI Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved, a few instances offallen plaster.
Damage slight.
Damage negligible in buildings ofgood design and construction, slight to moderate in well -
0.18-0.34 VII built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures,
some chimneys broken.
Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary
0.34 -0.65 VIII substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of
chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned.
Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well -designed frame structures
0.65 -1.24 IX thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings
shifted off foundations.
MMI X: Some well -built wooden structures destroyed, most masonry and frame structures
1.24 X+ destroyed with foundations. Rails bent.
MMI XII: Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown into the air.
Source: Wald 1999. Notes: a = acceleration of aravity.
October 2014 Page 5.4 -3
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Faults
The nearest mapped active fault to the project area is the Newport Inglewood Fault in Huntington Beach,
approximately 6.2 miles southwest of the project area. Other active faults in the region include the Whittier
Fault, approximately 12.9 miles to the north; the Chino Fault, approximately 19.5 miles to the northeast; and
the Palos Verdes Fault Zone, approximately 17 miles southwest offshore in the Pacific Ocean (CGS 2013; see
Figure 5.42, Fault Mali). An uncertain location of an unnamed fault, not classified as active, crosses Harbor
Boulevard northwest southeast approximately 0.2 mile south of the southern project boundary. A second
uncertain location of an unnamed fault, also not classified as active, extends north south approximately 0.9
mile west of the segment of Harbor Boulevard in the project area (see Figure 5.41, Geolog*Map).
Historical Earthquakes in the Region
Historical earthquakes that caused substantial ground shaking in the region include:
Wrightwood Earthquake of 1812 (magnitude 7.5 [estimated]; San Andreas [probable]);
Elsinore Earthquake of 1910 (magnitude 6, Elsinore Fault)
SanJacinto Earthquake of 1918 (magnitude 6.8, San Jacinto Fault)
North San Jacinto Fault Earthquake of 1923 (magnitude 6.3, San Jacinto Fault)
Long Beach Earthquake of 1933 (magnitude 6.4; Newport Inglewood Fault);
San Fernando Earthquake of 1971 (magnitude 6.6, San Fernando Fault)
Landers Earthquake of 1992 (magnitude 7.3; several faults);
Northridge Earthquake of 1994 (magnitude 6.7; Northridge Thrust) (SCEDC 2013).
Ground Shaking
Ground shaking in the project area with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, that is, an average
return period of 475 years, is estimated between 0.3 g and 0.4 g where g is the acceleration of gravity. That
intensity corresponds to intensity VII to VIII on the MMI scale.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a loss of strength and stiffness in soil due to ground shaking; it typically occurs within 50 feet
of the surface, in saturated, loose, fine- to medium grained sandy to silty soils. Liquefaction can substantially
damage structures and can cause structures to sink or tilt. Three conditions are needed for liquefaction:
ground shaking with acceleration of about 0.2 g or greater; loose, unconsolidated sediments; and saturated
soil within approximately 50 feet of the surface. The entire project area is in a zone of required investigation
for liquefaction designated by the California Geological Survey (CGS 1998x, 1998b). Most of the project area
is also mapped as an area of potential liquefaction in Exhibit 5, Potential Liquefaction Areas, of the City's
General Plan.
Page 5.44 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Figure 5.4 -1 Geologic Map
5. Environmental Analysis
fs a -
II n
Qyfsa.
r R
Westmins er Ave Z
1Ia
Hazard Ave
L I I j "
y fsFT- stst
r
I
M FaddervAve .
je Glo{,iriia Avi o
r' '4ve 1
9
Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Conventional Zoning
Basemap Source: USGS 2006
ad
1
3
T r-
o as
Scale (Miles)
PlaceWorkr
3i.
i 1
i
h LLLL
U)
I QY a _
ad
1
3
T r-
o as
Scale (Miles)
PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Tbisliage intentionally left blank.
Page 5.46 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Figure 5.4 -2 Fault Map
5. Environmental Analysis
A - " Heghts nap Satellite MyTapo TerrainRNera' 1 NP'7) _ wnMIE. ' RovAand
v x i ,. + HPlyhls I,.' On
l nfelns ,
I
TTFR —ti. rf ' 1atetoFew • \` .431
Downey _ Ph,, Sou FA
d Whitle'•'3 La Habra \ /.
m v
Le Mirada Hre,t
Nov
S, '
443 P MAl loelV
yy °•.eT YoNal nda
91
Fullerton Placentia / \G`
4O
Lakeotl 44
OQ y ewaian 442 Anaheimtcsees : 9s.
i:_
Orange
X t I
h „-a Grove n wetn`-'
itWestinipster k `
Sez aes , Santa Ana.Tustin t Sill )
5 , \Fq&
V Ill
tame
PIDiect Site
r f
Orsnge,` Gmintg Airpotl , Irvine
is
Lake Fora51
a I
Beach \ II emir
Z O
h
3'12l% i I - I:JEO
rr
r,' i
I `
Niguel
Fault along which historic (last 200 years)
displacement has occurred
Holocene fault displacement (during past 11,700 years)
without historic record
Late Quaternary fault displacement
Quaternary fault (age undifferentiated; Quaternary Period
extends from the present to 1.6 million years before present)
A-- Pre - Quaternary
Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Basemap Source: CGS 2011
6Ee
MlssloVleto
T '
1
q`a ahc Sanh
l Margarita i
i
r r
fl
1
S,e,J ,- aois'aw
O
p
NOTE. Fault traces on
land are indicated by
solid lines where well lo-
cated, by dashed lines
where approximately
located or inferred, and
by dotted lines where
concealed by younger
rocks orby lakesorbays.
0 6
Scale (Miles)
PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Tbisliage intenbonaly kft blank.
Page 5.4-% PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Other Geologic Hazards
Ground Subsidence
Land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal is common in groundwater basins. Subsidence of
approximately 0.5 inches per year near Santa Ana was observed between 1993 and 1999, coinciding with a
period of net water withdrawal in the region. However, there has been no indication that the land surface
changes caused, or are likely to cause, any structural damage in the area. The potential for problematic land
subsidence is reduced by maintaining groundwater levels and basin storage within its historical operating
range. In the event that land subsidence becomes a problem in a localized area, the Orange County Water
District would work with local officials to investigate and remediate the problem (OCWD 2009).
Expansive Sails
Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or swell as the moisture content changes;
the shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Arid or semiarid areas with
seasonal changes of soil moisture experience a much higher frequency of problems from expansive soils than
areas with higher rainfall and more constant soil moisture (COGS 2011). The City of Santa Ana is in a
semiarid region with marked seasonal changes in precipitation: most rain falls in winter, and there is a long
dry season in summer and autumn. Therefore, Santa Ana's climate is such that a relatively high incidence of
soil expansion is expected where soils contain the requisite clay minerals.
Collapsible Sails
Collapsible soils shrink upon being wetted, being subject to a load, or under both conditions.
5.4.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
G -1 Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault. (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42)
u) Strong seismic ground shaking.
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction.
iv) Landslides.
G -2 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
October 2014 Page 5.4 -9
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
G -3 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project and potentially result in on- or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse.
G -4 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1B of the Uniform building Code (1994,
creating substantial risks to life or property.
G -5 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds
would be less than significant: G -l.i, G -l.iv, G -2, and G -5. These impacts will not be addressed in the
following analysis.
5.4.3 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.4 -1: Future development in accordance with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor
Plan would not subject people and structures to substantial adverse hazards from ground
shaking. [Threshold G -1.ii]
ImpactAnalrus: Buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would add residents,
employees, and development intensity within the project area. The project area is in a seismically active
region; faults and historic earthquakes in the region are described above in the Geologic Hazards discussion
of Section 5.41, Envimnmental Setting. Therefore, project implementation could subject people and structures
to hazards from ground shaking.
However, seismic shaking is a risk throughout southern California, and the project area is not at greater risk
of seismic activity or impacts than other areas. Additionally, the state regulates development in California
through a variety of tools that reduce hazards from earthquakes and other geologic hazards. The 2010
California Building Code has provisions to safeguard against major structural failures or loss of life caused by
earthquakes or other geologic hazards. The City of Santa Ana has adopted by reference the most recent
version of the CBC into its municipal code. Projects considered for approval under the Harbor Boulevard
Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would be required to adhere to the provisions of the CBC, which are
imposed on project developments by the City during the building plan check and development review
process. For example, Chapter 16 of the CBC contains requirements for design and construction of
structures to resist loads, including earthquake loads. Compliance with the requirements of the CBC for
structural safety during a seismic event would reduce hazards from strong seismic ground shaking.
Individual development projects that would be accommodated under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use
Transit Corridor Plan would also be required to have a geotechnical investigation conducted of the site.
Requirements for geotechmcal investigations are included in CBC Appendix J, Section J104. Applications for
Page 5.4 -10 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a grading permit must be accompanied by plans, specifications, a soils engineering report, and engineering
geology report. The geotechnical investigation would be required to calculate seismic design parameters for
the project specific to the site and land use type, which would be implemented in the design of the proposed
structures. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 5.4 -2: Future development in accordance with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor
Plan would not expose people and structures to substantial adverse hazards from
liquefaction or other seismic - related ground failure. [Threshold G- 1.iii]
lmpactAnalysis: The entire project area is in a zone of required investigation for liquefaction designated by
the California Geological Survey (CGS 1998a; CGS 1998b). Most of the project area is also mapped as an
area of potential liquefaction in Exhibit 5, Potential Liquefaction Areas, of the City's General Plan.
Therefore, future development in accordance with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
could subject people and structures to hazards from liquefaction.
However, while the project area is within a liquefaction zone, individual development projects considered for
approval under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would be required to adhere to
existing building and grading codes, including Chapter 8 (Buildings and Structures), Article 2 (Building Code)
of the City's Municipal Code. These codes contain provisions for soil preparation to minimize hazards from
liquefaction and other seismic related ground failures. Projects considered for approval under the Harbor
Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would be required to adhere to the provisions of all applicable
building and grading codes, which are imposed on project developments by the City during the building plan
check and development review process. Compliance with the requirements of the applicable building and
grading codes would reduce hazards arising from liquefaction.
Additionally, as standard procedure by the City of Santa Ana, grading and soil compaction requires the
preparation of site - specific grading plans, soils and geotechnical reports (which must address liquefaction and
other potential soil stability hazards), and hydrology studies, must be submitted to and reviewed and approved
by the City before any grading activities. Each geotechnical investigation report would have recommendations
for site grading and engineering of fill soils to minimize hazards from liquefaction and other geologic hazards
identified in that investigation. Submittal of these technical plans and studies would ensure that hazards from
liquefaction and other seismic ground failure would not arise, since they would be prepared in accordance
with grading and engineering standards outlined in the most current CBC. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
Impact 5.4 -3: Project buildout would not expose people or structures to substantial hazards from ground
subsidence, collapsible soils, and expansive soils. FThresholds G -3 and G -4]
Impact Analysis: Ground subsidence is the settling or sinking of the ground. Natural conditions, such as
seismic ground shaking, and human activities, such as groundwater extraction, can cause subsidence. There is
no indication that land surface changes caused or are likely to cause, any structural damage in the City of
Santa Ana. However, most of the project area is mapped as an area of potential subsidence in Exhibit 4,
Potential Subsidence Areas, of the City's General Plan. Therefore, future development in accordance with the
October 2014 Page S.¢77
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan could subject people and structures to hazards from
subsidence.
Collapsible soils are unlikely on developed land where soils were previously engineered and compacted to
support development. Collapsible soils would be more likely on vacant land. The project area is highly
urbanized, and the majority of the area is developed. Only a few sparsely scattered vacant lots exist, mostly
north of 1st Street.
Fine - grained soils, such as silts and clays, may contain variable amounts of expansive clay minerals that can
undergo significant volume changes with changes in moisture content. The upward pressures induced by the
swelling of expansive soils can have significant harmful effects on structures and other surface improvements.
Expansive soils could be present within the project area.
However, individual projects developed pursuant to the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
would be required to meet the most current requirements of the CBC. For example, Chapter 18 of the CBC
has requirements for excavation, grading, and fill; load bearing values of soils; and foundations, footings, and
piles. Compliance with these requirements would ensure that there would not be substantial impacts related to
ground subsidence, collapsible soils, or expansive soils.
Additionally, as standard procedure by the City of Santa Ana, grading and soil compaction requires the
preparation of site specific grading plans, soils and geotechnical reports (which must address ground
subsidence, collapsible soils, expansive soils, and other potential soil stability hazards), and hydrology studies,
which must be submitted to and reviewed and approved by the City before any grading activities. Each
geotechnical investigation report would have recommendations for site grading and engineering of fill soils to
minimize hazards from ground subsidence, collapsible soils, expansive soils, and other geologic hazards
identified in that investigation. Submittal of these technical plans and studies would ensure that hazards
arising from these potential geologic hazards would not occur, because they would be prepared in accordance
with grading and engineering standards outlined in the most current CBC. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
5.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
Impacts relating to soils and geologic influences are site specific and generally cannot be considered in
cumulative terms. Mitigation of geologic, seismic, and soil impacts of other cumulative development projects
in accordance with the City's General Plan (see Section 4.4, Assump ions Begar&ng Cumulatim Imps ir) would
also be specific to each site and based on geotechnical studies. Additionally, as with the proposed project,
other development projects in the City would be subject to compliance with modern building standards, such
as the CBC, that reduce geologic and seismic related risks. Furthermore, as standard procedure by the City of
Santa Ana, grading and soil compaction requires the preparation of site - specific grading plans, soils and
geotechnical reports (which must address ground subsidence, collapsible soils, expansive soils, and other
potential soil stability hazards), and hydrology studies, which must be submitted to and reviewed and
approved by the City before any grading activities. Therefore, no adverse cumulative impacts related to soils
and geology are anticipated. In consideration of the preceding factors, the project's contribution to
Page 5.4 -12 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
cumulative geology and soils impacts would be Tendered less than considerable, and therefore less than
cumulatively significant.
5.4.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
State
California Building Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 2)
Local
City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Chapter 8 (Buildings and Structures), Article 2 (Building Code)
5.4.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts
would be less than significant: Impacts 5.4 -1, 5.42, and 5.43.
5.4.7 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
5.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of existing regulations and standard conditions identified above would reduce potential
impacts associated with geology and soils to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, no significant
unavoidable adverse impacts relating to geology and soils have been identified.
5.4.9 References
California Geological Survey (CGS). 2013, May 29. 2010 Geologic Map of California.
http: //w .. quake. ca. gov/ gmaps /GMC /stategeologi=ap.htrnl.
1998a, April 15. Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Anaheim Quadrangle.
http: / /gmw.consrv.ca.gov /shmp/ download/ quad /ANAHEIM /maps /ozn_mah.pdf.
1998b, April 15. Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Newport Beach Quadrangle.
http: / /gmw.consrv.ca.gov /shmp/ download/ quad /NEWPORT_BEACH /maps /ozn_newb.pdf.
Colorado Geological Survey (COGS). 2011, April 28. Definition of Swelling Soils.
http: / /geosurvey.state.co.us /hazards /Swelling %20Soils /Pages /Def"tion.aspx.
Orange County Water District. 2011, December 20. Groundwater Elevation Contours for the Principal
Aquifer. http: //w ..ocwd.com/ Portals /0 /Pdf /jme_WL2011L2.pdf.
2009, July 9. Ground Water Management Plan 2009 Update.
http: //w ..ocwd.com /Portals /0 /News/ PubhcationsReports /GWMPJuly2009Update.pdf.
October 2014 Page 5.4 -13
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC). 2013, May 14. Significant Earthquakes and Faults:
Chronological Earthquake Index. http: //w ..data.scec.org /significant /chron- index.html.
US Geological Survey (USGS). 2006. Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30'X 60'
Quadrangles, California. http: // pubs. usgs. gov /of/2006/1217/of2006- 1217_map/
42006- 1217 —geo1_map.pdf.
US Geological Survey (USGS). 2012, July 24. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/mercalh.php.
Wald, David J., et al. 1999, August. Relationships Between Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity,
and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California. Earthquake Spectra 15 No. 3.
Page 5.4 -14 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
5.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential for the Harbor Boulevard
Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan project (proposed project) to cumulatively contribute to greenhouse gas
GHG) emissions. Because no single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in global
concentrations of GHG emissions, climate change impacts of a project are considered on a cumulative basis.
The chapter evaluates consistency of the project with the strategies outlined in the California Air Resources
Board's (CARB) Scoping Plan in accordance with the GHG reduction goals of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and
strategies proposed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to reduce vehicle miles
traveled (VM'I) in the region, in accordance with Senate Bill 375 (SB 375).
5.5.1 Environmental Setting
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large
amounts of beat trapping gases, known as GHG, to the atmosphere. Climate change is the variation of
earth's climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activities. The primary
source of these GHG is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has
identified four major GHG water vapor,' carbon (CO2), methane (CHa), and ozone (Oz) —that are the likely
cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHG
identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons (IPCC 2001).2 Table 5.5-
1 lists the GHG applicable to the proposed project and their relative global warming potentials (GWP)
compared to CO2. The major GHGs are briefly described below.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal),
solid waste, trees and wood products, and respiration, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g.,
manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (sequestered) when it is absorbed
by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.
I Water vapor (1120) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water
vapor is not considered a pollutant
2 Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly, by absorbing sunligbt, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making it melt faster) and by
interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is the most strongly ligbt xbsorbing component of particulate matter (PM) emitted
from burning fuels such as coal, diesel, and biomass. Reducing black carbon emissions globally can have immediate economic, climate, and public
bealth benefits. California has been an international leader in reducing emissions of black carbon, with close to 95 percent control expected by 2020
due to existing progouns that targetreducing PM from diesel engines and burning activities (GARB 2013).
October 2014 Page 5.5 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 5.5 -1 GHG and Their Relative Global Warminq Potential Compared to CO2
GHG Atmospheric Lifetime ears
Global Warming Potential
Relative to CO21
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50 to 200 1
Methane (CH4)2 12 ( ±3) 21
Nitrous Oxide (N20) 120 310
Hydrofluorocarbons:
HFC -23 264 11,700
HFC -32 5.6 650
HFC -125 32.6 2,800
HFC -134a 14.6 1,300
HFC -143a 48.3 3,800
HFC -152a 1.5 140
HFC -227ea 36.5 2,900
HFC -236fa 209 6,300
HFC -4310mee 17.1 1,300
Peduoromethane: CFa 50,000 6,500
Peduoroethane: 02F6 10,000 9,200
Peduorobutane: 04ho 2,600 7,000
Peduoro-2- methylpentane: 06F14 3,200 7,400
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 23,900
Source: IPCC 2001.
Based on 100 -Year Time Horizon of the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of the air pollutant relative to CO2.
2 The methane GWP includes the direct effects and those indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric watervapor.
The indirect effect due to the production of CO2 is not included.
Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane
emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and from the decay of organic waste in
municipal landfills and water treatment facilities.
Nitrous oxide (N20) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during combustion of
fossil fuels and solid waste.
Fluorinated gases are synthetic, strong GHGs that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes.
Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone - depleting substances. These gases are typically
emitted in smaller quantities, but they are potent GHGs, sometimes referred to as high GWP gases.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are GHGs covered under the 1987 Montreal Protocol and used for
refrigeration, air conditioning, packaging, insulation, solvents, or aerosol propellants. Since they are not
destroyed in the lower atmosphere (troposphere, stratosphere), CFCs drift into the upper atmosphere
where, given suitable conditions, they break down ozone. These gases are also ozone - depleting gases and
are therefore being replaced by other GHG compounds covered under the Kyoto Protocol.
Perfluomcorbons (PFCs) are a group of human made chemicals composed of carbon and fluorine
only. These chemicals (predominantly perfluoromethane [CFa] and perfluoroethane [C2F6]) were
Page 5.5 -2 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
introduced as alternatives, along with HFCs, to the ozone - depleting substances. In addition, PFCs are
emitted as by- products of industrial processes and are also used in manufacturing. PFCs do not harm the
stratospheric ozone layer, but they have a high global warming potential.
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is a colorless gas soluble in alcohol and ether, slightly soluble in water. SF6 is
a strong GHG used primarily in electrical transmission and distribution systems as an insulator.
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) contain hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon atoms.
Although ozone - depleting substances, they are less potent at destroying stratospheric ozone than CFCs.
They have been introduced as temporary replacements for CFCs and are also GHGs.
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) contain only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. They were
introduced as alternatives to ozone - depleting substances to serve many industrial, commercial, and
personal needs. HFCs are emitted as by- products of industrial processes and are also used in
manufacturing. They do not significantly deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, but they are strong GHGs
USEPA 2012, IPCC 2001).
California's GHG Sources and Relative Contribution
California is the second largest emitter of GHG in the United States, only surpassed by Texas, and the tenth
largest GHG emitter in the world. However, California also has over 12 million more people than the state of
Texas. Because of more stringent air emission regulations, in 2001 California ranked fourth lowest in carbon
emissions per capita and fifth lowest among states in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption per unit of
Gross State Product (total economic output of goods and services) (CEC 2006a).
CARB's latest update to the statewide GHG emissions inventory was conducted in 2012 for year 2009
emissions.3 In 2009, California produced 457 million metric tons (NMfCO2C) of CO2- equivalent (CO2C)
GHG emissions? California's transportation sector is the single largest generator of GHG emissions,
producing 37.9 percent of the state's total emissions. Electricity consumption is the second largest source,
comprising 22.7 percent. Industrial activities are California's third largest source of GHG emissions,
comprising 17.8 percent of the state's total emissions. Other major sources of GHG emissions include
commercial and residential, recycling and waste, high global warming potential GHGs, agriculture, and
forestry (CARB 2012a).
Human Influence on Climate Change
For approximately 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHG in the atmosphere
remained relatively constant During the 20th century, however, scientists observed a rapid change in the
climate and climate change pollutants that are attributable to human activities. The amount of CO2 bas
3 Methodology for determining the statewide GHG inventory is notthe same as the methodology used to determine statewide GHG
emissions under Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32).
COrequivalence is used to show the relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and
contribute to the greenhouse effect. The global warming potential of a GHG is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the
gas molecule in the atmosphere.
October 2014 Page 5.53
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
increased by more than 35 percent since preindustrial times and has increased at an average rate of 1.4 parts
per million (ppm) per year since 1960, mainly due to combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation (IPCC
2007). These recent changes in climate change pollutants far exceed the extremes of the ice ages, and the
global mean temperature is warming at a rate that cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Human
activities are directly altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of climate
change pollutants (CAT 2006).
Climate change scenarios are affected by varying degrees of uncertainty. IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment
Report projects that the global mean temperature increase from 1990 to 2100, under different climate change
scenarios, will range from 1.4 to 5.8 °C (2.5 to 10.4 °F). In the past, gradual changes in the earth's temperature
changed the distribution of species, availability of water, etc. However, human activities are accelerating this
process so that environmental impacts associated with climate change no longer occur in a geologic
timeframe but within a human lifetime (CAT 2006).
Potential Climate Change Impacts for California
Like the variability in the projections of the expected increase in global surface temperatures, the
environmental consequences of gradual changes in the Earth's temperature are also hard to predict. In
California and western North America, observations of the climate have shown: 1) a trend toward warmer
winter and spring temperatures, 2) a smaller fraction of precipitation is falling as snow, 3) a decrease in the
amount of spring snow accumulation in the lower and middle elevation mountain zones, 4) an advance
snowmelt of 5 to 30 days earlier in spring, and 5) a similar shift (5 to 30 days earlier) in the timing of spring
flower blooms (CAT 2006). According to the California Climate Action Team (CAT), even if actions could
be taken to immediately curtail climate change emissions, the potency of emissions that have already built up,
their long atmospheric lifetimes (sce Table 5.5 -2), and the inertia of the Earth's climate system could produce
as much as 0.6 °C (Ll °F) of additional warming. Consequently, some impacts from climate change are now
considered unavoidable. Global climate change risks are shown in Table 5.5 -2 and include impacts to public
health, water resources, agriculture, sea level, forest and biological resources, and electricity impacts. Specific
climate change impacts that could affect the project include health impacts from a reduction in air quality,
water resources impacts from a reduction in water supply, and increased energy demand.
Page 5.54 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 5.5 -2 Summary of Global Climate Change Risks to California
Impact Category Potential Risk
Public Health Impacts Poor air quality made worse
More severe heat
Water Resources Impacts Decreasing Sierra Nevada snow pack
Challenges in securing adequate water supply
Potential reduction in hydropower
Loss of winter recreation
Agricultural Impacts Increasing temperature
Increasing threats from pests and pathogens
Expanded ranges of agricultural weeds
Declining productivity
Irregular blooms and harvests
Coastal Sea Level Impacts Accelerated sea level rise
Increasing coastal floods
Shrinking beaches
Worsened impacts on infrastructure
Forest and Biological Resource Impacts Increasing risk and severity of wildfires
Lengthening ofthe wildfire season
Movement offorest areas
Conversion of forestto grassland
Increasing threats from pest and pathogens
Declining forest productivity
Shifting vegetation and species distribution
Altered timing of migration and mating habits
Loss of sensitive or slow- moving species
Electricity Potential reduction in hydropower
Increased energy demand
Sources: CEC 2006a; CEC 2008.
Regulatory Setting
Regulation of GHG Emissions on a National Level
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG
emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on-
road vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPNs final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court
decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not in
and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements, but allow the EPA to finalize the GHG
standards proposed m 2009 for new light duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department
of Transportation (EPA 2009).
The EPNs endangerment finding covers emissions of six key GHGs ---- CO2, C114, N20, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and SFbwhich have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by
scientists in the United States and around the world (the fast three are applicable to the proposed project).
October 2014 Page 5.5S
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
In response to the endangerment finding, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule that
requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (large stationary sources, etc) to report GHG emissions data.
Facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons (NITCO2e) or more per year are required to submit an annual report.
Regulation of GHG Emissions on a State Level
Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in
Executive Order 5- 03 -05, Assembly Bill 32, and Senate Bill 375.
Executive Order-S-03-05
Executive Order 5 -3 -05, signed June 1, 2005, set the following GHG reduction targets for the state:
2000 levels by 2010
1990 levels by 2020
80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
AssemblyBill32, the Global Warming Solutions Act (2006)
Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 was passed by the California state
legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG
emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets established in Executive Order 5 -3 -05.
AB 32 directed CARB to adopt discrete early action measures to reduce GHG emissions and outline
additional reduction measures to meet the 2020 target. Based on the GHG emissions inventory conducted for
the Scoping Plan by CARB, GHG emissions in California by 2020 are anticipated to be approximately 596
XMITCOze. In December 2007, CARB approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 NMITCOze (471 million tons)
for the state. The 2020 target requires a total emissions reduction of 169 MMTCOZe, 28.5 percent from the
projected emissions of the business -as -usual (BAU) scenario for the year 2020 (i.e., 28.5 percent of 596
XMITCOZe) (CARB 2008) 5.
In order to effectively implement the emissions cap, AB 32 directed CARB to establish a mandatory reporting
system to track and monitor GHG emissions levels for large stationary sources that generate more than
25,000 MT of COze per year, prepare a plan demonstrating how the 2020 deadline can be met, and develop
appropriate regulations and programs to implement the plan by 2012. The Climate Action Registry Reporting
Online Tool was established through the Climate Action Registry to track GHG emissions.
CABB 2008 Scoping Plan
The final Scoping Plan was adopted by CARB on December 11, 2008. Key elements of CARB's GHG
reduction plan that may be applicable to the proposed project include:
s CARB defines BAU in its Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG
emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission generating sector were compiled and
used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002 -2004 emissions intensities. Under CARB's definition of BAU, new growth is
assumed to have the same carbon intensities as was typical from 2002 through 2004.
Page 5.56 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance
standards (adopted and cycle updates in progress).
Achieving a mix of 33 percent for energy generation from renewable sources (anticipated by 2029.
A California cap- and -trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative (WCI) partner
programs to create a regional market system for large stationary sources (adopted 2011).
Establishing targets for transportation related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and
pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets (several Sustainable Communities Strategies have
been adopted.
Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to state laws and policies, including California's clean car
standards (amendments to the Pavley Standards adopted 2009; Advanced Clean Car standard adopted
2012), goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) (adopted 2009.6
Creating target fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential
gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the state's long -term commitment to AB 32
implementation (in progress).
While local government operations were not accounted for in achieving the 2020 emissions reduction, CARB
estimates that land use changes implemented by local governments that integrate jobs, housing, and services
result in a reduction of 5 MNffCO2e, which is approximately 3 percent of the 2020 GHG emissions
reduction goal. In recognition of the critical role local governments play in the successful implementation of
AB 32, CARB is recommending GHG reduction goals of 15 percent of today's levels by 2020 to ensure that
municipal and community -wide emissions match the state's reduction target.? Measures that local
governments take to support shifts in land use patterns are anticipated to emphasize compact, low impact
growth over development in greenfields, resulting in fewer VM f (CARB 2008).
6 On December 29, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued several rulings in the federal lawsuits
challenging the LCFS. One of the court's rulings preliminarily enjoins the CARB from enforcing the regulation during the pendency
of the litigation. InJanuary 2012, CARB appealed the decision and on April 23, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court granted CARB's
motion for a stay of the injunction while it continues to consider CARB's appeal ofthe lower court's decision.
7 Although the Scoping Plan references a goal for local governments to reduce community GHG emissions by 15 percent from
current (interpreted as 2008) levels by 2020, it does not rely on local GHG reduction targets established by local governments to meet
the state's GHG reduction target of AB 32 Table 5.6 -3 lists the recommended reduction measures, which do not include additional
reductions from local measures.
October 2014 Page 5.5 -7
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 5.5 -3 Scoping Plan GHG Reduction Measures and Reductions toward 2020 Target
Recommended Reduction Measures
Reductions Counted toward
2020 Target of 169 MMTCO2e
Percentage of
Statewide 2020
Target
Cap and Trade Program and Associated Measures
California Light -Duty Vehicle GHG Standards 31.7 19%
Energy Efficiency 26.3 16%
Renewable Portfolio Standard (33 percent by 2020) 21.3 13%
Low Carbon Fuel Standard 15 9%
Regional Transportation-Related GHG Targets' 5 3%
Vehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5 3%
Goods Movement 3.7 2%
Million Solar Roofs 2.1 1%
Medium/Heavy Duty Vehicles 1.4 1%
High Speed Rail 1.0 1%
Industrial Measures 0.3 0%
Additional Reduction Necessary to Achieve Cap 34.4 20%
Total Cap and Trade Program Reductions 146.7 87%
Uncapped Sources/Sectors Measures
High Global Warming Potential Gas Measures 20.2 12%
Sustainable Forests 5 3%
Industrial Measures (for sources not covered under cap and trade program) 1.1 1%
Recycling and Waste (landfill methane capture) 1 1%
Total Uncapped Sources/Sectors Reductions 27.3 16%
Total Reductions Counted toward 2020 Target 174 100%
Other Recommended Measures - Not Counted toward 2020 Target
State Government Operations 1.0 to 2.0 1%
Local Government Operations To Be Determined NA
Green Buildings 26 15%
Recycling and Waste 9 5%
Water Sector Measures 4.8 3%
Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1 1%
Total Other Recommended Measures - Not Counted toward 2020 Target 42.8 NA
Source: CARB 2008.
Notes: The percentages in the right -hand column add up to more than 100 percent because the emissions reduction goal is 169 MMTCOze and the
Scoping Plan identifies 174 MMTCOze of emissions reductions strategies.
MMTCOze: million metric tons of COze
Reductions represent an estimate of what may be achieved from local land use changes. It is not the SIB 375 regional target.
2 According to the Measure Documentation Supplement to the Scoping Plan, local government actions and targets are anticipated to reduce vehicle
miles by approximately 2 percent through land use planning, resulting in a potential GHG reduction of 2 million metric tons of CO2, (or approximately
1.2 percent of the GHG reduction target). However, these reductions were not included in the Scoping Plan reductions to achieve the 2020 target.
Scoping Plan Update
Since release of the 2008 Scoping Plan, CARB has updated the statewide GHG emissions inventory to reflect
GHG emissions in light of the economic downturn and of measures not previously considered in the 2008
Scoping Plan baseline inventory. The updated forecast predicts emissions to be 507 MNfl'CO2e by 2020. The
Page 5.5-8 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
new inventory identifies that an estimated 80 MMTCO2C of reductions are necessary to achieve the statewide
emissions reduction of AB 32 by 2020, 15.7 percent of the projected emissions compared to BAU in year
2020 (i.e., 15.7 percent of 507 MMTCO2C) (CARB 2012b).
CARB is in the process of completing a five -year update to the 2008 Scoping Plan, as required by AB 32. A
discussion draft of the 2013 Scoping Plan was released on October 1, 2013. The 2013 Scoping Plan update
defines CARB's climate change priorities for the next five years and lays the groundwork to reach post 2020
goals in Executive Orders 5 -3 -05 and B -16 -2012. The update includes the latest scientific findings related to
climate change and its impacts, including short -lived climate pollutants. The GHG target identified in the
2008 Scoping Plan is based on IPCC's GWPs identified in the Second and Thud Assessment Reports. IPCC's
Fourth Assessment Report identified more recent GWP values based on the latest available science. CARB
recalculated the 1990 GHG emission levels with these updated GWPs, and the 427 MMTCO2e 1990
emissions level and 2020 GHG emissions limit, established in response to AB 32, is slightly higher, at 431
MMTCO2C (CARB 2013).
The 2013 update highlights California's progress toward meeting the near term 2020 GHG emission
reduction goals defined in the original 2008 Scoping Plan. As identified in the 2013 Scoping Plan update,
California is on track to meeting the goals of AB 32. However, the 2013 Scoping Plan also addresses the
state's longer -term GHG goals within a post 2020 element. The post 2020 element provides a high level view
of a long -term strategy for meeting the 2050 GHG goals, including a recommendation for the state to adopt
a midterm target. According to the 2013 Scoping Plan update, reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990
levels will require a fundamental shift to efficient, clean energy in every sector of the economy. Progressing
toward California's 2050 climate targets will require significant acceleration of GHG reduction rates.
Emissions from 2020 to 2050 will have to decline several times faster than the rate needed to reach the 2020
emissions limit (CARB 2013).
Senate Bi11375
Senate Bill 375. In 2008, SB 375 was adopted to achieve the GHG reduction targets in the Scoping Plan for
the transportation sector through local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Implementation is
intended to reduce VMf and GHG emissions from light duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions
associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long -range transportation plans, investments, and
housing allocations with local land use planning. Specifically, SB 375 requires CARB to establish GHG
emissions reduction targets for each of the 17 regions in California managed by a metropolitan planning
organization (MPO). Pursuant to the recommendations of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee,
CARB adopted per capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total magnitude reduction
target. SCAG is the MPO for the southern California region, which includes the counties of Los Angeles,
Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. SCAG's targets are an 8 percent per capita
reduction from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2020 and a 13 percent per capita reduction from 2005 GHG
emission levels by 2035.
The 2020 targets are smaller than the 2035 targets because a significant portion of the built environment in
2020 has been defined by decisions that have already been made. In general, the 2020 scenarios reflect that
more time is needed for large land use and transportation infrastructure changes. Most of the reductions in
October 2014 Page 5.5 -9
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
the interim are anticipated to come from improving the efficiency of the region's existing transportation
network. The targets would result in 3 MMTCO2e of GHG reductions by 2020 and 15 MMTCO2e of GHG
reductions by 2035. Based on these reductions, the passenger vehicle target in CARB's Scoping Plan (for AB
32) would be met (CARB 2010).
SB 375 requires the MPOs to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in their regional
transportation plan. For the SCAG region, the SCS was adopted April 2012 (SCAG 2012). The SCS
establishes a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and
other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding
goods movement). The SCS is meant to provide growth strategies that will achieve the regional GHG
emissions reduction targets. The SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be
consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers.
Assembly Bill 1493
California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 ( Pavley I). Pavley I is a clean-car
standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light -duty auto to medium duty vehicles)
from 2009 through 2016 and is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by 30
percent in 2016. California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to California by the
EPA. In 2012, the EPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and GHG
emissions standards for model year 2017 through 2025 light -duty vehicles.
Executive Order S -01 -07
On January 18, 2007, the state set a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels sold
within the state. Executive Order S -1 -07 sets a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in CO2e
gram per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The LCFS requires a reduction of 2.5 percent in the carbon
intensity of California's transportation fuels by 2015 and a reduction of at least 10 percent by 2020. The
LCFS applies to refiners, blenders, producers, and importers of transportation fuels and would use market
based mechanisms to allow these providers to choose how they reduce emissions during the fuel cycle using
the most economically feasible methods.
Senate Bills 1078 and 107, and Excutive Order S -14 -08
A major component of California's Renewable Energy Program is the renewable portfolio standard (RPS)
established under Senate Bills 1078 (Sher) and 107 (Simitim). Under the RPS, certain retail sellers of
electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order
to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. Executive Order S -14 -08 was signed in November 2008,
which expands the state's renewable energy standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. In 2011, the
state legislature adopted this higher standard in SBX1-2. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small
hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The increase in renewable sources for electricity
production will decrease indirect GHG emissions from development projects, because electricity production
from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral.
Page 5.5 -10 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
California Building Code
Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the
California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission in June 1977 and updated
triannually (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of
building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow
for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On May 31,
2012, the California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards,
which go into effect on January 1, 2014. Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building
and Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (nonresidential) more energy
efficient than the 2008 standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and
other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses.
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation's first green building
standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) was adopted as part of the California
Building Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24, California Code of Regulations). CALGreen established planning
and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy
Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contammants.8 The
mandatory provisions of the California Green Building Code Standards became effective January 1, 2011.
2006 Appliance Effzciencg Regulations
The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608) were adopted by the
California Energy Commission on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of
Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regulated
appliances and non - federally regulated appliances.
Existing Setting
The existing land uses within the boundaries of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Corridor Transit Plan
includes residential, retail, commercial, and light industrial land uses (see Table 5.1 -4). These land uses
currently generate GHG emissions from mobile sources, natural gas and electricity use, generation of
wastewater and solid waste, and from area sources such as household consumer products and landscaping
equipment.
5.5.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
GHG -1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment.
a The green building standazds became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the code.
October 2014 Page 5.5- 11
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG -2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCAQMD has adopted a significance threshold of 10,000 metric tons (MTCO2C) per year for permitted
stationary) sources of GHG emissions for which SCAQMD is the designated lead agency. To provide
guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents,
SCAQMD has convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group). Based on
the last Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) in September 2010, SCAQMD is proposing to adopt a
tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead
agency:
Tier 1. If a project is exempt from CEQA, project level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than
significant.
Tier 2. If the project complies with a GHG emissions reduction plan or mitigation program that avoids
or substantially reduces GHG emissions in the project's geographic area (i.e., city or county), project level
and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant.
For projects that are not exempt or where no qualifying GHG reduction plans are directly applicable,
SCAQMD requires an assessment of GHG emissions. SCAQMD is proposing a "bright line" screening level
threshold of 3,000 MTCO2C annually for all land use types or the following land- use - specific thresholds:
1,400 MTCO2e for commercial projects, 3,500 MTCO2C for residential projects, or 3,000 MTCO2e for
mixed use projects. This bright line threshold is based on a review of the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research database of CEQA projects. Based on their review of 711 CEQA projects, 90 percent of CEQA
projects would exceed the bright line thresholds identified above. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the
bright line threshold would have a nominal, and therefore, less than cumulatively considerable impact on
GHG emissions:
Tier 3. If GHG emissions are less than the screening level threshold, project level and cumulative GHG
emissions are less than significant.
Tier 4. If emissions exceed the screening threshold, a more detailed review of the project's GHG
emissions is warranted.
SCAQMD has proposed an efficiency target for projects that exceed the screening threshold. The current
recommended approach is per capita efficiency targets. SCAQMD is not recommending use of a percent
emissions reduction target. Instead, SCAQMD proposes a 2020 efficiency target of 4.8 MTCO2e per year per
service population (MTCO2C /year /SP) for project level analyses and 6.6 MTCO2e /year /SP for plan level
projects (e.g., program level projects such as general plans). Service population is defined as the sum of the
residential and employment populations provided by a project. The per capita efficiency targets are based on
the AB 32 GHG reduction target and 2020 GHG emissions inventory prepared for CARB's 2008 Scoping
Page 5.5 -12 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Plan.9 For the purpose of this project, SCAQMD's project level thresholds are used because the plan level
thresholds are more applicable at a General Plan level. If projects exceed these per capita efficiency targets,
GHG emissions would be considered potentially significant in the absence of mitigation measures.
5.5.3 Environmental Impacts
Methodology
The analysis in this section is based on buildout of the proposed land use plan as modeled using the
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod); trip generation provided by IBI Group (Appendix H of
this EIR) as modeled using the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) (see Appendix H
to this EIR); waste generation based on waste generation rates provided by the California Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle); and water and wastewater generation based on the Santa Ana
Water Utility's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Life cycle emissions are not included in this
analysis because not enough information is available for the proposed project, and therefore life cycle GHG
emissions would be speculative. 10 GHG modeling is included in Appendix C.
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.5 -1: Development of the proposed land uses within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Plan would not result in a substantial increase of GHG emissions that would
exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's proposed efficiency target of
4.8 MTCO2e. [Threshold GHG -11
impact Analysis: A project does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global
climate change; therefore, the GHG chapter measures a project's contribution to the cumulative
environmental impact. The development contemplated by the proposed project would contribute to global
climate change through direct emissions of GHG from onsite area sources and vehicle trips generated by the
project, and indirectly through offsite energy production required for onsite activities, water use, and waste
disposal. Annual GHG emissions were calculated for construction and operation of the project. Construction
emissions were amortized into the operational phase in accordance with SCAQMD's proposed methodology.
The total and net increases in GHG emissions associated with the proposed project are shown in Table 5.5 -4.
9 SCAQMD took the 2020 statewide GHG reduction target for land - use -only GHG emissions sectors and divided it by the 2020
statewide employment for the land use sectors to derive a per capita GHG efficiency metric that coincides with the GHG reduction
targets ofAB 32 for year 2020.
10 Life cycle emissions include indirect emissions associated with materials manufacture. However, these indirect emissions involve
numerous parties, each of which is responsible for GHG emissions of their particular activity. The California Resources Agency, in
adopting the CEQA Guidelines Amendments on GHG emissions found that lifecycie analyses was not warranted for project specific
CEQA analysis in most situations, for a variety of reasons, including lack of control over some sources, and the possibility of double -
counting emissions (see Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, December 2009). Because the amount of materials
consumed during the operation or construction of the proposed project is not known, the origin of the raw materials purchased is not
known, and manufacturing information for those raw materials are also not known, calculation of life cycle emissions would be
speculative. A life<ycie analysis is not warranted (OPR 2008).
October 2014 Page 5.5 -13
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 5.5 -4 Annual Operational Phase GHG Emissions
Source
GHG Emissions MTCO2elyear: 2035
Existing
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use
Transit Corridor Plan' Change
Area 554 3,468 2,914
Energy2 10,752 14,805 4,052
Transportation 15,625 41,270 25,644
Waste 2,859 6,818 3,959
Water 577 2,432 1,855
Construction - Amortized 0 5,323 5,323
Total All Sectors 30,368 74,115 43,747
Per Service Population (SP)3 4,638 20,138 NA
Project Efficiency (MTCO2e/SP) 6.55 3.68 NA
Proposed SCAQMD Efficiency Metric 4.8 4.8 NA
Exceeds Efficiency Metric NA No NA
Source: CalEEMod Version 2011.1.1. Based on 2035 transportation emission rates.
For purposes of this GHG analysis, buildings on proposed land uses are assumed to comply with the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency
Standards, which are 25 and 30 percent more energy efficient for residential and nonresidential buildings, respectively, than the 2008 standards.
This analysis assumes new buildings of all land use types exceed the 2008 standards by 25 percent. Includes water efficiency improvements
required under CALGreen.
2 For the purposes of this GHG analysis, existing buildings are assumed to achieve the 2005 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. However, it is
likely, that based on the existing housing stock many of the units were constructed prior to the modem building and energy efficiency standards
and are therefore even less efficient.
3 Service population based on:
Existing - 3,252 residents and 1,386 employees within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan boundaries.
Future - 18,579 residents and 1,559 employees within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Condor Plan boundaries.
As shown in this table, the net increase in GHG emissions of 43,747 MTCO2e from Project related
operational activities would exceed SCAQMD's draft bright line screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all
land use types. The increase in residential and retail land uses within the specific plan boundary is the main
factor for the increase in overall GHG emissions. Since the draft bright line screening threshold would be
exceeded, a detailed emissions analysis of the project's efficiency compared to the draft SCAQMD GHG per
capita threshold is included. The project's efficiency is determined from the total emissions divided by the
project's service population, which is the number of people who live or work within the specific plan area.
At buildout, the project would generate approximately 74,115 MTCO2C of GHG per year and exceed the
SCAQMD draft bright line screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. However, buildout of the proposed
project would decrease the per capita GHG emissions within the specific plan area to 3.68 MTCO2e per
service population (employees and residents), which would be below the SCAQMD efficiency standard of 4.8
MTCO2e per service population. Although implementation of the proposed project would increase overall
emissions, it would also increase the land use intensity along the Harbor Boulevard corridor resulting in a
reduction of per capita emissions. The corridor is currently served by public transit bus lines, and there are
plans within the coming decade for the establishment of a bus rapid transit route and stops along the section
of the corridor within the proposed project plan area (see Impact 5.5 -2 discussion). In addition, development
of residential and nonresidential land uses in proximity to each other along with the public transportation
options would likely reduce VM'17. Furthermore, construction of new structures would introduce buildings
Page 5.5 -14 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
that would be more energy efficient than existing structures. These facets of the proposed project would
contribute to the overall reduction of GHG emissions on a per capita basis. Therefore, the project related
GHG emissions are not considered substantial enough to result in a significant cumulative impact of GHG
emissions. The project's cumulative contribution from GHG emissions would be less than significant.
Impact 5.5 -2: The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not conflict with plans
adopted with the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. [Threshold GHG -2]
impact Analysis: The City of Santa Ana is in the process of preparing but has not yet adopted a climate
action plan. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB's Scoping
Plan and SCAG's 2012 RTP /SCS. A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below:
CARB Scoping Plan
In accordance with AB 32, CARB developed the Scoping Plan to outline the state's strategy to achieve 1990
level emissions by year 2020. To estimate the reductions necessary, CARB projected statewide 2020 BAU
GHG emissions and identified that the state as a whole would be required to reduce GHG emissions by 28.5
percent from year 2020 BAU to achieve the targets of AB 32 (CARB 2008). Since release of the 2008
Scoping Plan, CARB has updated the 2020 GHG BAU forecast to reflect GHG emissions in light of the
economic downturn and measures not previously considered in the 2008 Scoping Plan baseline inventory.
The revised BAU 2020 forecast shows that the state would have to reduce GHG emissions by 21.6 percent
from BAU without Pavley and the 33 percent RPS, or 15.7 percent from the adjusted baseline (i.e., with
Pavley and 33 percent RPS) (CARB 2012b).
Since adoption of the 2008 Scoping Plan, state agencies have adopted programs identified in the plan, and
the legislature has passed additional legislation to achieve the GHG reduction targets. Statewide strategies to
reduce GHG emissions include the LCFS and changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards (e.g.,
Pavley I and 2017 -2025 CAFE standards). The GHG emissions in Table 5.5 -4 include reductions associated
with the Pavley fuel efficiency improvements (adopted in 2009).
SCAG's 2012 RTP /SCS
SCAG's 2012 RTP /SCS was adopted April 4, 2012. It identifies multimodal transportation investments,
including bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail transit, heavy rail transit, commuter rail, high -speed rail, active
transportation strategies (e.g., bike ways and sidewalks), transportation demand management (MA4)
strategies, transportation systems management, highway improvements (interchange improvements, high -
occupancy vehicle lanes, high- occupancy toll lanes), arterial improvements, goods movement strategies,
aviation and airport ground access improvements, and operations and maintenance to the existing multimodal
transportation system. SCAG's RTP /SCS identifies that land use strategies that focus new housing and job
growth in areas served by high quality transit areas and other opportunity areas would be consistent with a
land use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation network, which
emphasizes system preservation, active transportation, and transportation demand management measures
SCAG 2012).
October 2014 Page 5..5 -15
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan is a mixed used project that would increase land use
intensity along the Harbor Boulevard corridor. Harbor Boulevard and intersecting roadways such as
Westminster Avenue, West First Street, and McFadden Avenue are currently served by local bus lines. In the
coming decade, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) plans to establish BRT routes along
segments of Westminster Avenue and Harbor Boulevard that are within the City of Santa Ana. As shown in
Figure 5, Proposed Zoning Designations, three proposed BRT stops are within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use
Transit Corridor Plan area. With the existing bus service and planned BRT routes and stops, intensifying
residential, office, and commercial land uses along this corridor would be consistent with the SCS. Therefore,
the project would not conflict with the 2012 RTP /SCS.
5.5.4 Cumulative Impacts
Project related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide.
Therefore, impacts identified under Impact 5.5 -1 are not project specific impacts to global warming, but the
proposed projects contribution to this cumulative impact. Because the projects GHG emissions are not
considered substantial, the projects GHG emissions and contribution to global climate change impacts are
not considered cumulatively considerable, and therefore less than significant.
5.5.5 Existing Plans, Policies, and Programs
AB 32: California Global Warming Solutions Act
Executive Order 5 -3 -05: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets
Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB1493)
Title 24 California Code of Regulations, Part 6 (Building and Energy Efficiency Standards)
Title 24 California Code of Regulations, Part 11 (California Green Building Code)
Title 20 California Code of Regulations (Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards)
Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard)
California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881
Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368
Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078)
5.5.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts
would be less than significant: 5.5 -1 and 5.5 -2.
5.5.7 Mitigation Measures
No potentially significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required
Page 5.5 -16 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
5.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No mitigation measures have been identified and impacts are less tban significant.
5.5.9 References
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2013, October. Climate Change Scoping Plan First Update,
http: //w ..a b.ca.gov /cc /scopingplan/2013 _update /discussion_clraft.pdf.
2012a, April. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000 -2009. By Category as Defined by the
Scoping Plan.
2012b. Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures.
http : //w .. orb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/status—of-scoping—plan—measuces.pdf
2010, August. Staff Report Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for
Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375.
2008, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change.
California Climate Action Team (CAT). 2006, March. Climate Action Team Report to Governor
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2008. The Future Is Now, An Update on Climate Change Science,
Impacts, and Response Options for California, CEC- 500.2008 -0077.
2006a, December. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004.
Report CEC- 600 - 2006 - 013 -SF.
2006b. Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California, 2006 Biennial Report, California
Climate Change Center, CEC -500- 2006 -077
2006c, December. Refining Estimates of Water Related Energy Use in California. CEC- 500 -2006-
118. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. Based on the electricity use for Southern California.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001.2001 IPCC TbirdAssessment Rep rt Climate Cbange
2001.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2012, April. 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation
Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS). http: / /rtpscs.scag.m.gov /Pages /default.aspx
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2010, September 28. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA
Significance Thresholds Working Group Meeting 15.
http: //w ..agmd.gov /ceqa /handbook /GHG /2010 /sept28mtg /sept29.htrnl.
October 2014 Page 5..5 -17
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
http: //w .. epa. gov/ climatechmge /ghgenlissions /gases.htrnl.
Modeling
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2012. California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEEMod), Version 2011.1.1.
Page 5.5 -18 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
5.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan to result in hazardous impacts in the project area and the
City of Santa Ana. More specifically, this section evaluates environmental and safety hazards associated with
development of the project site, including waste disposal hazards, chemical hazards, and emergency
preparedness programs. Background information on safety hazards provides a basis for the siting of land
uses that would reduce unreasonable risks and protect public health and welfare. Various federal, state,
regional, and local laws and programs that regulate the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials
are also discussed in this section. The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the following technical
report:
Radius Mali [Environmental Database Search], Environmental Data Resources, Inc, March 19, 2013
A complete copy of this report is included in Appendix E of this EIR.
5.6.1 Environmental Setting
Hazardous Materials and Waste
Hazardous materials refer generally to substances that have corrosive, toxic, flammable, and /or reactive
properties and have the potential to harm human health and /or the environment. Hazardous materials are
components of products (household cleaners, industrial solvents, paint, pesticides, etc) and used in the
manufacturing of products (e.g., electronics, newspapers, plastic products). Hazardous materials can include
petroleum products, natural and synthetic gases, acutely toxic chemicals, and other toxic chemicals. They are
used in agriculture, commercial, and industrial uses; businesses; hospitals; and households. Accidental releases
of hazardous materials can occur from a variety of causes, including construction and demolition activities,
highway /roadway incidents, building /structure foes, shipping accidents, and industrial incidents.
Regulatory Setting
Several federal, state, and local programs regulate the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous
materials and hazardous waste. Federal and state statutes, as well as local ordinances and plans, regulate
hazardous waste management. These regulations reduce the hazard that such substances may pose to people
and businesses under normal daily circumstances and as a result of emergencies and disasters. Potentially
relevant federal, state, regional and local laws, regulations, programs, and plans applicable to the proposed
project are summarized below.
Federal
Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation and Liabi& &Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) is a law
developed to protect the water, air, and soil resources from the risks created by past chemical - disposal
October 2014 Page 5.6 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
practices. This law is also referred to as the Superfund Act and regulates sites on the National Priority List
NPL), which are called Superfund sites.
Emergency Planning and Comm unity, Right -To -KnowAct
In 1986, Congress passed the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. Title III of this regulation
may be cited as the "Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act of 1986" ( EPCRA). EPCRA
required the establishment of state commissions, planning districts, and local committees to facilitate the
preparation and implementation of an emergency plan. Under the requirements, local emergency planning
committees (LEPCs) are responsible for developing a plan for preparing for and responding to a chemical
emergency, including.
An identification of local facilities and transportation routes where hazardous materials are present.
The procedures for immediate response in case of an accident (this must include a community wide
evacuation plan).
A plan for notifying the community that an incident has occurred.
The names of response coordinators at local facilities.
A plan for conducting drills to test the plan
The emergency plan is reviewed by the State Emergency Response Commission and publicized throughout
the community. The LEPC is required to review, test, and update the plan each year. The Orange County
Environmental Health Department (EHD) is responsible for coordinating hazardous material and disaster
preparedness planning and appropriate response efforts with city departments and local and state agencies.
The goal is to improve public and private sector readiness and mitigate local impacts resulting from natural or
man -made emergencies.
Another purpose of the EPCRA is to inform communities and citizens of chemical hazards in their areas.
Sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA require businesses to report to state and local agencies the location and
quantities of chemicals stored onsite. Under section 313, manufacturers are required to report chemical
releases for more than 600 chemicals. In addition to chemical releases, regulated facilities are also required to
report offsite transfers of waste for treatment or disposal at separate facilities, pollution prevention measures,
and chemical recycling activities. The EPA maintains the Toxic Release Inventory database, which documents
the information that regulated facilities report annually.
Resource Consermtion and RecoveryAct
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is the principal federal law that regulates generation,
management, and transportation of hazardous waste. Hazardous waste management includes the treatment,
storage, or disposal of hazardous waste.
Page 5.6 -2 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Title 29, Code ofFederal Regulations, Section 1926.62
Title 29, CFR Section 1926.62, sets standards for occupational health and environmental controls for lead
exposure in construction, regardless of the lead content of paints and other materials. The standard includes
requirements addressing exposure assessment, methods of compliance, respiratory protection, protective
clothing and equipment, hygiene facilities and practices, medical surveillance, medical removal protection,
employee information and training, signs, recordkeeping, and observation and monitoring.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regulation 29 CFR Standard 192662
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Regulation 29 CFR Standard 1926.62 regulates
the demolition, renovation, or construction of buildings involving lead materials. It includes requirements for
the safe removal and disposal of lead and the safe demolition of buildings containing lead based paint or
other lead materials.
State
Hazardous Materials Release Noti&cation
Many state statutes require emergency notification of a hazardous chemical release
California Health and Safety Codes Sections 25270.7, 25270.8, and 25507
California Vehicle Code Section 23112.5
California Public Utilities Code Section 7673, (PUC General Orders #22 -B, 161)
California Government Code Sections 51018, 8670.25.5 (a)
California Water Codes Sections 13271, 13272,
California Labor Code Section 6409.1 (b) 10
Requirements for immediate notification of all significant spills or threatened releases cover owners,
operators, persons in charge, and employers. Notification is required regarding significant releases from
facilities, vehicles, vessels, pipelines, and railroads. In addition, all releases that result in injuries or harmful
exposure to workers must be immediately reported to the California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration pursuant to the California Labor Code Section 6409.1(b).
Hazardous Materials Disclosure Programs
The Unified Program administered by the State of California consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent
the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities for environmental and
emergency management programs, which include: Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and
Inventories (business plans), the California Accidental Release Prevention (CaIARP) Program, and the
underground storage tank (UST) program. The Unified Program is implemented at the local government
level by Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs).
October 2014 Page 5.6 -3
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The CUPA for the City of Santa Ana is the Orange County EHD, which is responsible for regulating
hazardous materials business plans and chemical inventory; hazardous waste and tiered permitting;
underground storage tanks; aboveground storage tanks; and risk management plans.
Hazardous Materials Business Plans
Both the federal government (Code of Federal Regulations) and the State of California (California Health
and Safety Code) require all businesses that handle more than a specified amoumt or "reporting quantity"
of hazardous or extremely hazardous materials to submit a hazardous materials business plan to its CUPA.
According to the EHD guidelines, the preparation, submittal, and implementation of a business plan is
required by any business that handles a hazardous material or a mixture containing a hazardous material in
specified quantities.
Business plans must include an inventory of the hazardous materials at the facility. Businesses must update
their business plan at least every three years and the chemical portion every year. Also, business plans must
include emergency response plans and procedures to be used in the event of a significant or threatened
significant release of a hazardous material. These plans need to identify the procedures for immediate
notification of all appropriate agencies and personnel, identification of local emergency medical assistance
appropriate for potential accident scenarios, contact information for all company emergency coordinators, a
listing and location of emergency equipment at the business, an evacuation plan, and a training program for
business personnel.
The EHD currently reviews submitted business plans and updates. Businesses that handle hazardous
materials are required by law to provide an immediate verbal report of any release or threatened release of
hazardous materials if there is a reasonable belief that the release or threatened release poses a significant
present or potential hazard to human health and safety, property, or the environment. The EHD is also
responsible for conducting compliance inspections of regulated facilities in Orange County.
California Accidental Release Prevention Program
CaIARP became effective on January 1, 1997, in response to Senate Bill 1889. CaIARP aims to be proactive
and therefore requires businesses to prepare risk management plans, which are detailed engineering analyses
of the potential accident factors present at a business and the mitigation measures that can be implemented
to reduce this accident potential. This requirement is coupled with the requirements for preparation of
hazardous materials business plans under the Unified Program, implemented by the CUPA.
Leaking [Underground Storage Tanks
Leaking USTs have been recognized since the early 1980s as the primary cause of groundwater contamination
from gasoline compounds and solvents. In California, regulations aimed at protecting against UST leaks have
been in place since 1983 (Health and Safety Code). This occurred one year before RCRA was amended to add
Subtitle I, requiring UST systems to be installed in accordance with standards that address the prevention of
future leaks. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the lead California regulatory agency in
the development of UST regulations and policy.
Page 5.64 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Older tanks are typically single walled steel tanks. Many of these have leaked as a result of corrosion,
punctures, and detached fittings. As a result, the State of California required the replacement of older tanks
with new double walled fiberglass tanks with flexible connections and monitoring systems. UST owners were
given 10 years to comply with the new requirements until December 22, 1998. However, many UST owners
did not act by the deadline, so the state granted an extension till January 1, 2002. The California Regional
Water Resources Control Board (RWQCB), in cooperation with the Office of Emergency Services (OES),
maintain an inventory of leaking USTs in a statewide database.
Califomia Code ofRegrulations
Title 22, Division 4.5, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) sets the requirements for hazardous waste
generators; transporters; and owners or operators of treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. These regulations
include the requirements for packaging, storage, labeling, reporting, and general management of hazardous
waste prior to shipment. In addition, the regulations identify standards applicable to transporters of
hazardous waste. These regulations specify the requirements for transporting shipments of hazardous waste,
including manifesting, vehicle registration, and emergency accidental discharges during transportation.
California Fire Code
The 2010 California Fire Code (CCR Title 24 Part 9) sets requirements for building materials and methods
pertaining to fire safety and life safety, fire protection systems in buildings, emergency access to buildings, and
handling and storage of hazardous materials.
California Health and Safety Code
Sections 17920.10 and 105255 of the California Health and Safety Code require that lead be contained during
demolition activities.
Regional
South Coast-Air Quality ManagementDistn ctRule 1403
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403 governs the demolition of buildings
containing asbestos materials. Rule 1403 specifies work practices with the goal of minimizing asbestos
emissions during building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated
disturbance of asbestos- containing material (ACM). The requirements for demolition and renovation
activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM
handling and cleanup procedures, storage, and disposal requirements for asbestos- containing waste materials.
Should ACM be identified, Rule 1403 requires that ACM be safely removed and disposed of, if possible. If it
is not possible to safely remove ACM, Rule 1403 requires that safe procedures be used to demolish the
building with asbestos in place without resulting in a significant release of asbestos.
Environmental Conditions
As shown in Figures 3 -1, Regional Location, and 3 -2, Local Vicinity, the project area generally includes parcels
adjacent to Harbor Boulevard between Westminster Avenue and Lilac Way and parcels along Westminster
October 2014 Page 5.65
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street one -half mile east of Harbor Boulevard. The corridor's northern and
southern ends are adjacent to the city boundaries of Garden Grove and Fountain Valley, respectively.
Existing Land Uses
The project area currently has roughly two million square feet of commercial uses distributed fairly evenly
along the corridor. Existing commercial uses occur both midblock and at intersections and are dominated by
auto service and sales, but also include grocery stores, service businesses, and restaurants. The project area
contains 739 residential units, including multifamily residential and mobile home communities accessed from
Harbor Boulevard and single - family residential areas along Jackson Street. The project area also contains the
Willowick Golf Course (an operating 18 hole public golf course), Cesar Chavez /Campesmo Park, and Santa
Anita Park. Existing uses are shown in Figure 3 -3, AerialPhotograph.
Historic Uses
Historic topographic maps described below were obtained from the US Geological Survey's website. The
project area is shown on the Newport Beach and Anaheim quadrangles (Garden Grove quadrangle of
Anaheim quadrangle in 1935); the border between the two quadrangles is between 5th Street and Hazard
Avenue.
1896 Santa Ana quadrangle and 1898 Anaheim quadrangle, scale (each) 1:62,500 (0.98 mile per inch):
Approximately 15 structures are scattered in and near the project area. One north south roadway and
several casttwest roadways are shown.
1932 Newport Beach and 1935 Garden Grove quadrangles, scale (each) 1:31,680 (two inches per
mile): Development in the project area is still sparse and scattered. The main north south roadway in the
project area is Buaro Street, where Harbor Boulevard is now. There is a two- square -block subdivision
between 1st and 5th Streets in the eastern part of the project area. A Pacific Electric railroad track'
passes through the northeast part of the project area.
1949 Newport Beach and Anaheim quadrangles, scale (each) 1:24,000 (2.65 inches per mile): much of
the site is shown in agricultural use. Harbor Boulevard now extends through the middle of the project
area, and Willowick Golf Club is shown in the northeast portion. Development is still scattered and
relatively sparse through much of the project area, including along Harbor Boulevard. Ten square blocks
that appear to be residential development are west and south of Willowick Golf Club. The Pacific
Electric railroad track remains in the northeast part of the project area.
1965 Newport Beach and Anaheim quadrangles, scale (each) 1:24,000 (2.65 inches per mile): Much of
the project area is now shown as urbanized, especially the portion east of Harbor Boulevard. No
agricultural use is shown within the project area, although there are small areas of agricultural use offsite
near the east and north site boundaries. Much of the project area west of Harbor Boulevard is shown as
I The Paufic Electric Railway was an electric interurban trolley system in southern California.
Page 5.66 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
vacant. The Garden Grove Municipal Golf Course and several radio towers are shown where the
Willowick Golf Club was shown m 1949.
Database Search Results
Environmental databases were searched for listings on and within specified radii of the project site by
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) on March 19, 2013 (see Appendix E). Listings within the project
area are shown in Table 5.6 -1 and mapped in Figure 5.6 -1, Hazardous Materials Sites. Listings are clustered; due
to the scale of the map and the clustering of multiple hazardous materials sites represented by single map
reference numbers, some sites listed as onsite in Table 5.6 -1 may be offsite within a few hundred feet of the
project area boundary.
Table 5.6 -1 Environmental Database Listinas within the Proiect Area
Map
No. Address Name Database'
Reason for Listing and
Regulatory Status
14 1417 N Susan St Ecco Equipment
Corporation
LUST:
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Case closed
UST:
Registered Underground Storage Tank(s)
AST:
Registered aboveground storage tank
RCRA -SQG
Resource Conservation and Recovery Ad
RCRA)
Small Quantity Generator of Hazardous
Waste (SQG)
Marco Rentals Inc. AST
1501 N Susan St Anderson Asphalt Paving
Co.
LUST Case closed
UST
Union Car Wash /Beacon
Bay
LUST Case closed
1514 N Susan Street #B Re -Store Furniture EMI:
Toxic and criteria air pollutant emissions
1602 N Susan Street #A Rick's Cabinet Mfg EMI
3300 Westminster Ave Thien Tao Auto Service
Center
RCRA -SQG
3400 W Westminster Ave Auto Collision Works EMI
RCRA -SQG
3636 Westminster Ave Bowers Tractor Sery Inc UST
3630 Westminster Ave Bicknell Property LUST Case closed
3628 Westminster Ave Bowers Tractors RCRA -SQG
3500 Westminster Ave Two -Tone Body & Paint EMI
RCRA -SQG
Jessie's Autobody & Paint EMI
Mustang Specialists RCRA -SQG
3526 W Wesminster Ave Auto Collision & Frame, Inc. RCRA -SQG
3630 W Westminster Ave Westminster Asia Plaza NPDES:
October 2014 Page 5.6 -7
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Table 5.6 -1 Environmental Database Listings within the Project Area
Map Reason for Listing and
No. Address Name Database' Regulatory Status
NPDES Wastewater Discharge permit
3412 Westminster Ave Milo Equipment Corp UST
12031 W Westminster AI's Foreign Car Repair RCRA -SQG
Ave
16 3800 Westminster Ave Pieper - Schroeder Prop. LUST Case Closed
3802 Westminster Ave Hasty Alignment RCRA -SQG
3822 W 17th St Quaker State Minit -Lube UST
RCRA -SQG
13950 Harbor Blvd Jiffy Lube Store #1991 UST
18 3230 W Westminster Ave 1 -0ay Paint & Body Centers EMI
SWRCY:
Recycling Center
CHMIRS: Release of natural gas
California Hazardous Material Incident from pipe.
Reporting System Jan. 2012. No cleanup
needed.
PROC:
Hazardous Waste Processor
RCRA -SQG
3122 Westminster Ave Adonai Body Works EMI
International Body Works RCRA -SQG
3132 W 17th St McCalla Div Layne Western RCRA -SQG
Co
19 4200 W Westminster Ave Not listed CDL:
Clandestine Drug Lab
4214-4302 Westminster Northern Trust Property LUST Case closed
Ave
4214 Westminster Blvd Vacant lot UST
25 1506 N Clinton St Oasis Drinking Waters LUST Release of gasoline
affected drinking water
aquifer. Cleanup in 2011
and 2012 via soil vapor
extraction; pumping and
treating of groundwater;
and air sparging 2 Case
open. Verification
monitoring ongoing early
2013.
UST
1600 N Clinton Wade's Automotive RCRA -SQG
26 815 N Harbor Blvd Frodson RV Repair Service RCRA -SQG
890 Harbor Blvd Service Station CHMIRS Car repair shop alleged to
have been allowing various
fluids to go down a storm
drain.
925 N Harbor Blvd Statewide Inc RCRA -SQG
Page 5.6-8 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Table 5.6 -1 Environmental Database Listings within the Project Area
Map
No. Address Name Database'
Reason for Listing and
Regulatory Status
980 N Harbor Blvd #C The Transmission Specialist RCRA -SQG
1000 N Harbor Blvd Not listed ERNS:
Emergency Response Notification
System
Automotive Fluid: brake
shop suspected of
intentionally dumping.
1991.
Oneway Auto &
Transmission
RCRA -SQG
1020 N Harbor Blvd A & J Auto Body EMI
1122 N Harbor Blvd Dick's Vacuum Truck
Service
HWP:
Permitted Hazardous Waste Facilities
Geraldine DUrston RCRA -SQG
1310 N Harbor Blvd Orange County Pump Co. UST
1314 N Harbor Blvd Not listed US CDL:
US Clandestine Drug Lab
1514 N Harbor Blvd Appliance Refinishing Co. EMI
RCRA -SQG
28 3424 W Washington Ave Not listed CDL Abandoned drug lab waste
30 1001 N Jackson St Tony's Recycling Registered Waste Tiro Hauler
HAULERS)
36 510 N Harbor Blvd Eceno Lube and Tune UST
37 3117 W 5th St Rice Auto Parts NPDES
3125 W 5th St Rocco's Truck Wrecking WDS
RCRA -SQG
NPDES
3017 W 5th St Willowick Golf Course UST
AST
3101 W 5th St Lieberman Broadcasting,
Inc.
FTTS INSP:
Inspection(s) pursuant to Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act
FIFRA) and /or Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA)
39 2818 W 5th St Durham Transportation Co. UST
Orce Steel & Supply UST
40 517 N Susan St Not listed CDL
3226 W 5th St Chevy Truck & Foreign
Auto
WDS
NPDES
3311 W 5th St Not listed CDL Abandoned drug lab waste
3297 W 5th St Not listed CHMIRS A cylinder of hydrogen
chloride gas from drug lab
was left in park. The pads
was evacuated for five
hours. No one was
hospitalized.
41 3426 W 5th St A&A Paint & Body Shop EMI
October 2014 Page 5.6 -9
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Table 5.6 -1 Environmental Database Listings within the Project Area
Map
No. Address Name Database'
Reason for Listing and
Regulatory Status
3409 W 5th St Ferman's Truck Wrecking NPDES
WDS
43 3617 W 5th St OC Auto Parts Rebuilder RCRA -SQG
46 402 N Laurel Ave Not listed. ERNS Cyanide (20lbs.),
hydrochloric acid (10lbs.),
sulfuric acid (15 lbs.)
abandoned on roadside,
cleaned up by contractor.
50 125 S Harbor Blvd Rodriguez Tires & Wheels HAULERS
101 S Harbor Blvd Mobil Station 18 -F34 UST
Pieper Property LUST Case closed
Metro Cars UST
200 S Harbor Blvd B Recycling SWRCY
115 N Harbor Blvd Advantage Auto Repair RCRA -SQG
205 N Harbor Blvd Hi Q Engine RCRA -SQG
228 N Harbor Blvd CVS Pharmacy RCRA -LQG
312 N Harbor Blvd A A Fredds Auto Service RCRA -SQG
51 226 N Jackson St Not listed CDL
52 222 N Laurel Ave Not listed CDL
53 221 N Figueroa St Not listed CDL
56 3411 W isth St Bolsa Appliance EMI
58 3621 W 1st St Presto-Matic Auto Supply CERC -NFRAP
60 36351st St #A Not listed CDL
3625 W 1st St Not listed CDL
3701 W 1st St C & RAppliance, Rose
Baclet
EMI
63 3312 W 1st St JNJ Enterprises LUST Case closed
Toritos Market LUST Case closed
UST
66 288 S Harbor Blvd Our Lady of Lavang
Catholic Church
NPDES
69 406 S Gunther Ave Not listed OPS: US Dept. ofTransportation Office of
Pipeline Safety Incident and Accident
Data
Release of natural gas &
consequent fire from valve
failure. 1983.
70 423 S Harbor Blvd Carbel Inc. ERNS Discharge of paint sludge
from closing car dealership
411 S Harbor Blvd McJacks Auto Restoration EMI
71 3411 Camille St Not listed CDL
72 3618 W Camille St #A Not listed CDL
73 520 S Harbor Blvd Harbor Medical Plaza NPDES
76 3700 W McFadden Ave La Altenita Recycling
Center
SWRCY
3701 W McFadden Ave J & M Muffler & Radiator RCRA -SQG
3701 W McFadden Ave J & J Machine RCRA -SQG
Page 5.6 -10 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Table 5.6 -1 Environmental Database Listings within the Project Area
Map
No. Address Name Database'
Reason for Listing and
Regulatory Status
G
3721 W McFadden Ave Not listed CHMIRS 28 gallons of drug lab
waste removed
CDL
Rick Krohers Kustoms RCRA -SQG
3685 W McFadden Ave Classic Custom Finishing
Inc.
EMI
3695 W McFadden Ave H & W Mfg EMI
3655 W McFadden Ave Sherwood Shutter Corp. EMI
RCRA -SQG
3617 W McFadden Ave Pro Japanese Auto Repair RCRA -SQG
78 3701 McFadden Ave Rob's Auto Body RCRA -SQG
79 3600 W McFadden Ave Wal -Mart #2517 AST
RCRA -LQG, RCRA -SQG
80 822 S Harbor Blvd Harbor Moving Center LUST Case closed
UST
U -Haul Center #715-50 LUST Case closed
UST
752 S Harbor Blvd Elegant Cleaners EMI
RCRA -SQG
702 S Harbor Blvd Shell #702 LUST Case closed
UST
KrkorTutunjian LUST
83 914 S Harbor Blvd Withers Tire RCRA -SQG
1101 S Harbor Blvd Holiday Word RCRA -SQG
1107 S Harbor Blvd The Pep Boys RCRA -SQG
1111 S Harbor Harbor Blvd Car Wash UST
Orange Harbor Car Wash LUST Case closed
UST
Hi -Tech Car Wash LUST Case closed
Source. EDR 2013.
Database abbreviations:
AST -= Aboveground StorageTank
CDL = Clandestine Drug Lab
CERC- NFRAP= Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System No Further Remedial Action Planned
CHMIRS = California Hazardous Material Incident Reporting System
EMI = Toxic and criteria air pollutant emissions
EnviroStor = Muftiple types of sites
ERNS = Emergency Response Notification System
FTTP INSP = Inspection(s) pursuant to Federal Insectickte, Fungicide, &
Rodentickte Ad(FIFRA) and /or Toxic Substances Control Ad(TSCA)
HAULERS = Registered Waste Tire Haulers
HWP = HazardousWaste Processor
LUST = Leaking Underground StorageTank
NPDES = Wastewater Discharge Permit
OPS =US Dept. ofTransportation Office of Pipeline Safety Incident and Accident Data
PROC = Hazardous Waste Processor
RCRA -LQG = Resource Conservation and Recovery Ad (RCRA) LargeQuantity
GeneratorofHazardous Waste (LQG)
RCRA -SQG = Resource Conservation and Recovery Ad (RCRA) -Small Quantity
GeneratorofHazardous Waste (SQG)
US CDL= US Clandestine Drug Lab
UST = Underground StorageTank
WDS = Waste Discharge System, State Water Resources Control Board.
Air sparging is the injection of clean err into a site where groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). TheVOCs evaporate into the injected air,
which is then vented outfortreatment
October 2014 Page 5.6 -77
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Additional environmental database listings were in the EDR Radius Map. These listings document generation,
or shipment of hazardous wastes from a project site; however, these listings do not document existing or past
releases of hazardous materials, or an imminent threat of release of hazardous materials. These listings
include 144 sites for which manifests of hazardous waste shipments are listed in the Haznet database
maintained by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal /EPA). Addresses for each of these
listings are provided in the Executive Summary (pages 1 -32) of the EDR Radius Report included as
Appendix E; details for each listing are provided in the Map Findings section of the EDR Radius Report.
Also note that leaking underground storage tank (LUST) and registered UST sites are usually listed on more
than one database. For instance, a UST site may be listed on the UST, Statewide Environmental Evaluation
and Planning System (SWEEPS), Facility Inventory (FTD), and Cortese databases; for brevity, those listings
are condensed in Tables 5.6 -1 and 5.6 -2 into a single UST database listing. There are 16 LUST listings and 21
UST listings in the project area.
011site Environmental Database Listings
Environmental database listings within 0.25 mile of the project area are listed in Table 5.6 -2.
Table 5.6 -2 Offsite Environmental Database Listin s within 0.25 Mile of the Project Site
Map
No. Address Name Database
Reason for Listing and
Regulatory Status
6 13732 Clinton Ave Orangewood Academy LUST Case closed
7 13731 Harbor Blvd,
Garden Grove
Five Star Dealership LUST Case closed
Nissan ofGarden Grove UST
RCRA -SQG
Quality Nissan UST
9 13741 Clinton St Emerald Isle Mobile Home
Park
EnviroStor No Further Action
determination 2010
VCP (Voluntary Cleanup Program)
10 13811 A Better Way Ideal Uniform Rental
Service
SLIC (Spills, Leaks, Investigation, and
Cleanup)
Release of
tetrachloroethylene,
tdchloroethylene affected
groundwater other than
drinking water aquifer. Site
remediation 2012. Case is
open.
RCRA -LQG
13812 A Better Way Seal Black Co. UST
NPDES
EMI
Not reported AST
13782 A Better Way Parsons/Bubeck Trust SLIC Case closed.
11 13861 Harbor Blvd,
Garden Grove
Santa Ana Suzuki RCRA -SQG
Harbor Auto Collision UST
RCRA -SQG
Freeway RV UST
Page 5.6 -12 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Table 5.6 -2 Offsite Environmental Database Listings within 0.25 Mile of the Project Site
Map Reason for Listing and
No. Address Name Database Regulatory Status
13831 Harbor Blvd, Toyota /Garden Grove Used RCRA -SQG
Garden Grove Cars
Target Datsun UST
13812 Harbor Blvd, Bobs Radiator RCRA -SQG
Garden Grove
12 13901 West St, Hot Wire Electric Co. RCRA -SQG
Garden Grove
13881 West St, DeLorean Motor Center RCRA -SQG
Garden Grove
13841 West St, Expertee Jaguar RCRA -SQG
Garden Grove
13821 West St, J & F Manufacturing RCRA -SQG
Garden Grove
13832 West St, Ebbtide Maune RCRA -SQG
Garden Grove
13812 West St, Garden Grove Auto Ctr RCRA -SQG
Garden Grove
13781 West St, H -Auto Dismantling WDS
Garden Grove UST
South Coast Bobcat LUST Case Closed
NPDES
14 13931 Enterprise Dr, Coast Chemical Industries RCRA -LQG
Garden Grove ECI RCRA -SQG
13932 Enterprise Dr, Electron Plating CERC- NFRAP:
Garden Grove Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
No Further Remedial Action Planned
WDS:
Waste Discharge System, State Water
Resources Control Board
NPDES
UST
Envirostor Operations & Maintenance
0&M) agreement related
to completed cleanup, land
use restrictions.
RCRA -LQG
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA)
Large Quantity Generator of Hazardous
Waste (LQG)
12191 Manners Way, Alphanetics LUST Case Closed
Garden Grove
12161 Mariners Way, Sea and Sun Textile RCRA -SQG
Garden Grove Punters
October 2014 Page 5.6 -13
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Table 5.6 -2 Offsite Environmental Database Listings within 0.25 Mile of the Project Site
Map
No. Address Name Database
Reason for Listing and
Regulatory Status
13961 Nautilus Dr,
Garden Grove
SR Engineering RCRA -SQG
13962 Nautilus Dr,
Garden Grove
T A Tung Superior Engines RCRA -SQG
15 11901 Westminster Ave,
Garden Grove
B & D Metal Finishing CERC -NFRAP
4002 Westminster Ave Adohr Farms LUST Case closed
UST
RCRA -SQG
TRIS (Toxic Chemical Release Inventory
System)
Release of nitrate
compounds, nitric acid
FTTS
NPDES
EMI
Stremick's Heritage Foods WDS
UST
Not reported AST
13962 Seaboard Circle,
Garden Grove
Renew Construction RCRA -SQG
Garcia Recycling UST
WDS
NPDES
SWRCY
13961 Seaboard Circle,
Garden Grove
Envirospectrum, Inc. PADS (PCB Activity Database):
generators, transporters, storers, or
disposers of polychlorinated biphenyls
PCBs)
13902 Seaboard Circle,
Garden Grove
Custom Floors Inc. UST
16 13960 Harbor Blvd,
Garden Grove
Statueland- Fountainland UST
13972 Harbor Blvd,
Garden Grove
City of Garden Grove UST
19 11701 Westminster Ave,
Garden Grove
S I Auto UST
Spee Dee Oil Change &
Tune -Up
UST
20 4320 Westminster Ave Autech Auto Center RCRA -SQG
11611 Westminster Ave,
Garden Grove
Coast Yellow Cab RCRA -SQG
Snow House Movers Inc. UST
Not reported AST
11621 Westminster Ave,
Garden Grove
Rogers Grading LUST Case closed
UST
21 12610 Westminster Ave Allstar Remanufacturing RCRA -SQG
12650WestminsterAve,
Garden Grove
Shurflo RCRA -SQG
Page 5.6 -14 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Table 5.6 -2 Offsite Environmental Database Listings within 0.25 Mile of the Project Site
Map
No. Address Name Database
Reason for Listing and
Regulatory Status
22 4518 Westminster Ave Archies Texaco LUST Release of gasoline
affected drinking water
aquifer. Site assessment
2004. Case open.
UST
Arohies Tires & Towing LUST Case closed
RCRA -SQG
UST
Arohies Market & Exxon UST
Arohies Valero UST
11541 Westminster Ave,
Garden Grove
NB Body -Paint and
Mechanic
LUST Case closed
UST
RCRA -SQG
EMI
23 14300 Clinton St,
Garden Grove
Not listed CDL
27 1522 N Newhope St Sparkletts Dunking Water
Corp
LUST Case closed
UST
RCRA -SQG
EMI
McKesson Water Products
Inc.
UST
1522 E WarnerAve Copley Investors LP LUST
32 802 N Fairview St Otsuka Farms UST
33 625 N Fairview St Ada Auto Repair & Electric RCRA -SQG
711 N Fairview St GG Express Inc. SWRCY
34 4322 W Silver Dr Luno Waste Oil HWi (Hazardous Waste Transporters)
44 501 N Newhope St Santa Ana Fire Station q8 LUST Case closed
UST
45 4108 W 5th St Kens Oil Co. RAATS: RCRA Administration Action
Tracking System (enforcement actions -
major violators)
47 410 N Fairview Ave Goodwill Industries Orange
Co.
LUST Case closed
UST
RCRA -SQG
414 N Fairview Ave Shell Service Station
Richard Yegencan
LUST Case closed
UST
61 2926 W 1st St M C Nottingham Co. LUST Case closed
UST
65 4426 W 1st St Bee Petroleum Svc Station LUST Case closed
UST
Superior Propane LUST Case closed
October 2014 Page 5.6 -75
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Table 5.6 -2 Offsite Environmental Database Listinas within 0.25 Mile of the Proiect Site
Map Reason for Listing and
No. Address Name Database Regulatory Status
4505 W 1st St G & M Oil #30 LUST Release of gasoline
affected drinking water
aquifer. Cleanup by pump
treat groundwater 2004,
site assessment 2007.
Case is open.
Database abbremations:
AST -= Aboveground Storage Tank
CDL = Clandestine Drug Lab
CERC -NFRAP = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System No Further Remedial Action Planned
CHMIRS = California Hazardous Material Incident Reporting System
EMI = Toxic and criteria air pollutant emissions
EnviroStor = Multiple types of sites
ERNS = Emergency Response Notification System
FTTP IN SP = Inspection(s) pursuant to Federal Insectickle, Fungicide, &
Rodentickle Ad (FIFRA) and/or Toxic Substances Control Ad (TSCA)
HAULERS = Registered Waste Tire Haulers
HW P = Hazardous Waste Processor
Existing Hazardous Materials in the Project Area
Asbestos - Containing Materials
LUST = Leaking Underground Storage Tank
NPDES = Wastewater Discharge Permit
OPS = US Dept. of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety Incklent and Accident
Data
PROC = Hazardous Waste Processor
RCRA -LQG = Resource Conservation and Recovery Ad (RCRA) Large Quantity
Generator of Hazardous Waste (LQG)
RCRA -SQG = Resource Conservation and Recovery Ad (RCRA) -Small Quantity
Generator of Hazardous Waste (SQG)
US CDL= US Clandestine Drug Lab
UST = Underground Storage Tank
Asbestos is the name of a group of silicate minerals that are heat resistant, and thus were commonly used as
insulation and fire retardant Inhaling asbestos fibers has been shown to cause lung disease (asbestosis) and
lung cancer (mesothelioma (DTSC 2010). Beginning in the early 1970s, a series of bans on the use of certain
ACMs in construction were established by the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Most US
manufacturers voluntarily discontinued the use of asbestos in certain building products during the 1980s.
Requirements for limiting asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities are specified
Page 5.6 -16 PlaceWorkr
UST
Station 004 UST
75 626 S Newhope St U C Auto Service LUST Case closed
UST
87 15872 Harbor Blvd,
Fountain Valley
Roy Mitsuuchi NPDES
UST
88 12300 Lilac St Santa Ana City Dump
closed)
SWF/LF (Solid Waste Facility /Landfill
Facility
Housing tract and mobile
home park developed over
site.
89 11470 Edinger Ave 1X Arco Station LUST Case closed
United Oil UST
11520 Edinger Ave Fountain Valley Mobil LUST Case closed
UST
90 16031 Harbor Blvd Grand Auto Store #110 LUST Case closed
91 16142 S Harbor Blvd Withers Tire Inc. LUST Case closed
RCRA -SQG
Database abbremations:
AST -= Aboveground Storage Tank
CDL = Clandestine Drug Lab
CERC -NFRAP = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System No Further Remedial Action Planned
CHMIRS = California Hazardous Material Incident Reporting System
EMI = Toxic and criteria air pollutant emissions
EnviroStor = Multiple types of sites
ERNS = Emergency Response Notification System
FTTP IN SP = Inspection(s) pursuant to Federal Insectickle, Fungicide, &
Rodentickle Ad (FIFRA) and/or Toxic Substances Control Ad (TSCA)
HAULERS = Registered Waste Tire Haulers
HW P = Hazardous Waste Processor
Existing Hazardous Materials in the Project Area
Asbestos - Containing Materials
LUST = Leaking Underground Storage Tank
NPDES = Wastewater Discharge Permit
OPS = US Dept. of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety Incklent and Accident
Data
PROC = Hazardous Waste Processor
RCRA -LQG = Resource Conservation and Recovery Ad (RCRA) Large Quantity
Generator of Hazardous Waste (LQG)
RCRA -SQG = Resource Conservation and Recovery Ad (RCRA) -Small Quantity
Generator of Hazardous Waste (SQG)
US CDL= US Clandestine Drug Lab
UST = Underground Storage Tank
Asbestos is the name of a group of silicate minerals that are heat resistant, and thus were commonly used as
insulation and fire retardant Inhaling asbestos fibers has been shown to cause lung disease (asbestosis) and
lung cancer (mesothelioma (DTSC 2010). Beginning in the early 1970s, a series of bans on the use of certain
ACMs in construction were established by the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Most US
manufacturers voluntarily discontinued the use of asbestos in certain building products during the 1980s.
Requirements for limiting asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities are specified
Page 5.6 -16 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
in SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition /Renovation Activities). Due to the age of
many of the buildings in the project area, they have a high potential for containing ACME.
Lead
Lead was formerly used as an ingredient in paint (before 1978) and as a gasoline additive; both of these uses
have been banned. Lead is listed as a reproductive toxin and a cancer- causing substance; it also impairs the
development of the nervous system and blood cells in children (DTSC 2010). Those demolishing pre 1978
structures may presume the buildings contain lead based paint (LBP) without having an inspection for LBP.
Due to the age of many of the buildings in the project area, they have a high potential of containing LBP.
Potential Hazardous Materials on the Project Site
Much of the project area is shown in agricultural use (orchards and row crops) in aerial photographs from
1953 (whole site), 1958 (central and south parts of site), and 1961 (north part of site). Scattered areas of row
crop agriculture are shown onsite in 1972 aerial photographs (NETR 2013). Therefore, project site soils may
be contaminated with agricultural chemicals, including pesticides and fertilizers, remaining from past
agricultural uses.
5.6.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
H -1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials.
H -2 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
H -3 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance, or
waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
H -4 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment.
H -5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area.
H -6 For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area.
H -7 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
October 2014 Page 5.6 -17
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
H -8 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland foes,
including where wildlands are adjacent to the urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands.
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds
would be less than significant: H -1, H -5, H -6, H -7, and H -8. These impacts will not be addressed in the
following analysis.
5.6.3 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for potentially significant impacts. The
applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
The term "hazardous material' is defined in different ways by different regulatory programs. For purposes of
this environmental document, the definition of "hazardous material' is similar to that in the California
Health and Safety Code, Section 25501:
Hazardous materials that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical
characteristics, pose a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or
to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment
Hazardous waste" is a subset of hazardous materials, and the definition is essentially the same as that in the
California Health and Safety Code, Section 25517, and in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22,
Section 66261.2:
Hazardous wastes are those that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical,
chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either cause, or significantly contribute to an
increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or pose a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored,
transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.
Hazardous materials can be categorized as hazardous nonradioactive chemical materials, radioactive materials,
and biohazardous materials (infectious agents such as microorganisms, bacteria, molds, parasites, viruses, and
medical waste).
Impact 5.6 -1: Future development that would be accommodated under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use
Transit Corridor could create significant hazards through accidental release of hazardous
materials. [Thresholds H -2 and H -31
ImpactAnalysis:
The project area is in a highly urbanized, built out portion of the City. It is generally surrounded by
residential uses, which vary widely in character and density and include single - family neighborhoods,
apartment complexes, and mobile home communities. There are two schools adjacent to the southern
boundary of the project area (Harbor Learning Center and Russell Elementary) and six schools within one-
Page 5.6 -18 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
quarter mile of the project area (Clinton Mendenhall Elementary, Hazard Elementary, Newhope Elementary,
Orangewood Academy, Spurgeon Intermediate, and Community Day Intermediate and High School).
Individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit
Corridor would involve the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials, in varying quantities, during
the construction and operation phases of each project. Additionally, future development of individual
projects would involve demolition of existing buildings that could contain ACM and LBP, and disturbance of
soil that could be contaminated with hazardous materials from current and historic industrial and commercial
land uses and with agricultural chemicals from historic agricultural land uses.
Following is a discussion of the impacts of the use of hazardous materials and potential release of hazardous
materials on schools, people, and the environment from operation and construction of the project.
Hazardous Materials Associated with Project Construction and Operation
Project Operation
Operation of individual development projects accommodated by the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit
Corridor (which would consist of mostly residential and commercial uses) would involve the use of small
quantities of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes, such as paints, solvents /cleaners,
fuels /greases, and landscaping products. Hazardous materials typically used in residences and commercial
uses anticipated under the proposed project would be present but would not be used or disposed of in large
enough quantities to pose a hazard. Project implementation would not result in a substantial net increase in
the use of hazardous materials or generation of hazardous waste. Additionally, when used correctly, these
cleaning and maintenance materials would not result in a significant hazard to residents in the project area.
Project residents and commercial businesses would also have access to the City's various hazardous waste and
recycling programs, including the Universal Waste Program. Through this program, residents are provided
with collection of universal waste, such as electronics, batteries, and fluorescent tubes. Residents can also take
their universal waste to the Household Hazardous Waste Collection centers at the county landfills. The
County of Orange also offers free disposal for hazardous waste materials at locations throughout the county.
Additionally, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials by residents and commercial
businesses of the proposed project would also be required to comply with existing regulations of several
agencies, including the DTSC, EPA, State of California Occupational Safety & Health Administration
CalOSHA), Orange County EHD (the CUPA for Santa Ana), and City of Santa Ana Fire Department
SAID). Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of
hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an
appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts to occur.
Furthermore, the individual development project that would be accommodated by the Harbor Boulevard
Mixed Use Transit Corridor would be constructed and operated with strict adherence to all emergency
response plan requirements of the City and SAID. The permitted land uses under the proposed project
would also not generate air toxics that would require a permit by SCAMQD.
October 2014 Page 5.6 -19
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Therefore, long -term operations of the proposed project would not involve routine transport, storage, use,
and disposal of substantial amounts of hazardous materials, and no impacts would occur.
Project Construction
Construction activities of the individual development projects that would be accommodated under the
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor would use larger amounts of hazardous materials than would
project operation, such as fuels, lubricants, and greases in construction equipment and coatings used in
construction. However, the materials used would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to
pose a significant safety hazard. These activities would also be short term or one time.
Additionally, as with project operation, the use, transport, and disposal of construction related hazardous
materials would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations. Compliance with applicable laws and
regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would ensure that all
potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the
potential for safety impacts to occur. For example, all spills or leakage of petroleum products during
construction activities are required to be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the
material remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations. All contaminated waste would
be required to be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility.
Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements of the City and SAID would be
required through the duration of the construction of each individual development project. Therefore, no
hazards to the public or the environment would arise from the routine use of hazardous materials during
project construction, and no impacts would occur.
Hazardous Materials Existing Onsite
Building Materials
Construction of individual development projects that would be accommodated under the Harbor Boulevard
Mixed Use Transit Corridor would involve the demolition of the existing buildings, structures, parking area
and drive aisles, and other site improvements. Due to the age of many of the buildings and structures
throughout the project area, it is likely that ACM and LBP were used in the construction of these structures.
Demolition can cause encapsulated ACM to become friable and, once airborne, it is considered a carcinogen.
Such releases could pose significant risks to persons living and working in and around the project site.
However, all demolition activities would be required to comply with the SCAQMD's Rule 1403, OSHA Rule
29 CFR Part 1926.62, and Sections 17920.10 and 105255 of the California Health and Safety Code. Rule 1403
requires that buildings be surveyed for ACM prior to any demolition or renovation activities. If ACM is
identified, it must be safely removed and disposed of. If this is not possible, Rule 1403 requires that safe
procedures be used to demolish the building with asbestos in place without resulting in a significant release of
asbestos. The OSHA Regulation 29 CFR Standard 1926.62 regulates the demolition, renovation, or
construction of buildings involving lead materials. It includes requirements for the safe removal and disposal
of lead and the safe demolition of buildings containing LBP or other lead materials. Sections 17920.10 and
Page 5.6 -20 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
105255 of the California Health and Safety Code require that lead be contained during demolition activities.
Compliance with SCAQMD's Rule 1403, OSHA Regulation 29 CFR Standard 1926.62, and Sections 17920.10
and 105255 of the California Health and Safety Code would ensure that no significant impacts related to
existing ACM or LBP in the project area, if encountered, would occur.
However, to further prevent impacts from the potential release of ACM or LBP associated with individual
development projects under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor, an ACM and LBP survey of
existing buildings and structures would be required prior to demolition activities, as outlined in Mitigation
Measure 6 -1. With adherence to existing regulations and implementation of this mitigation measure, no
impacts related to ACM or LBP would occur.
soils
Grading and construction activities of the individual development projects that would be accommodated
under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor would involve the disturbance of onsite soils. Soils
on certain sites of the project area could be contaminated with hazardous materials due to current and
historical industrial and commercial land uses and agricultural chemicals from historical agricultural land uses.
Exposure of contaminated soils to workers and the surrounding environment would result in a significant
impact. Any contaminated soils encountered on individual development project sites would be required to be
removed prior to grading activities and disposed of offsite in accordance with all applicable regulatory
guidelines. However, to ensure that impacts from contaminated soils do not occur, Mitigation Measure 6 -2
has been provided at the end of this section. With adherence to existing regulations and implementation of
this mitigation measure, impacts arising from the potential of encountering contaminated soils onsite during
project grading activities would not occur.
Impact 5.6 -2: Certain sites of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor are included on a list of
hazardous materials sites. [Threshold H -4]
Impact Analysis: Individual development projects that would be accommodated under the Harbor
Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor would involve ground disturbance that could encounter existing
hazardous materials in site soils from listed hazardous materials sites. There are several hundred hazardous
materials sites listed within the project area. More specifically, there are 144 Haznet site (hazardous waste
shipment manifest), and Table 5.6 -1, Environmental Database Listings ndthin the Project Area, lists 135 sites.
Additionally, LUST and registered UST sites are usually listed on more than one database. For brevity, those
listings are condensed in Tables 5.6 -1 and 5.6 -2 into a single UST database listing. There are 16 LUST listings
and 21 UST listings within the project area.
Fifty -three database listings document onsite hazardous materials releases into the environment: 16 LUST
cases, 17 emissions inventory (EMI) toxic and criteria air pollutant emissions sites; 13 clandestine drug lab
CDL) sites; three California Hazardous Material Incident Reporting System (CHNIIRS) sites; three
Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) sites; and one Office of Pipeline Safety Incident and
Accident Data (OPS case.
October 2014 Page 5.6 -21
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
There is one open LUST case onsite: Oasis Drinking Waters at 1506 North Clinton Street in Santa Ana. A
release of gasoline affected the drinking water aquifer. Cleanup was conducted in 2011 and 2012 via soil
vapor extraction, pumping and treating of groundwater, and air sparging.2 The case is open; verification
monitoring was ongoing in early 2013. One UST with the associated fuel dispenser and piping were removed
from the site in 1997. A site workplan written in 2005 does not document subsequent removal of additional
tanks, dispensers, and /or piping (Frey 2005), suggesting that the release stopped no later than 1997.
Some of the EMI listings document ongoing emissions. Whether emissions have stopped or are ongoing is
not documented in the EDR report; therefore, as a conservative estimate, it is assumed that all 17 EMI
listings document ongoing emissions. The 16 closed LUST cases, 3 CHMIRS sites, 3 ERNS sites, and 1 OPS
site all document past hazardous materials releases.
All of the hazardous materials releases documented in Table 5.6 -1 are known to regulatory agencies. Apart
from the 17 EMI listings, the only listing documenting further required action is the open LUST case.
Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial hazard to people or the environment related to listed
hazardous materials sites onsite.
Due to the fact that there are numerous sites within and in proximity of the project area that have been listed
in a hazardous materials database, the potential for impacts exists from hazardous substance contamination.
Individual development projects that would be accommodated under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use
Transit Corridor may be impacted by hazardous substance contamination remaining from historical
operations on a particular site that may pose a significant health risk resulting a significant impact.
Hazardous substance contaminated properties are regulated at the federal, state, and local level, and are
subject to compliance with stringent laws and regulations for investigation and remediation. For example,
compliance with the CERCLA, RCRA, California Code of Regulations, Title 22, and related requirements
would remedy any potential impacts caused by hazardous substance contamination. Future development
would be required to comply with these existing laws and regulations. In addition, mitigation has been
incorporated to ensure that contaminated sites are remediated prior to construction.
5.6.4 Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor would not combine with other
cumulative development in accordance with the City's General Plan (see Section 4.4, Assumptions Regarding
Cumulative lVacts, in Chapter 4) to result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials. As outlined in the previous regulatory setting discussion in Section 5.6.1, Enrimnmental
Setting, numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations ensure that hazardous materials and wastes are
used, stored, transported, and disposed of appropriately. Similar to the proposed project, development of
other planned projects within the City of Santa Ana, in accordance with the City's General Plan, would be
required to adhere to the existing local, state, and federal laws and regulations governing the use, storage,
transport, or disposal of hazardous materials and waste.
2 Air sparging is the injection of dean air into a site where groundwater is contaminated with VOCs. The VOCs evaporate into the
injected air, which is then vented out for treatment
Page 5.6 -22 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Moreover, with compliance to regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures, the
proposed project would not result in any hazardous conditions with regard to building materials or soil
contamination and would not combine with other development projects to result in a cumulatively
considerable impact with respect to these potential hazards. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to
cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials and Nvaste or the creation of any health hazards would not
be significant and less than cumulatively considerable.
5.6.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regulation 29 CFR Standard 1926.62
California Health and Safety Code Sections 17920.10 and 105255
California Health and Safety Codes Sections 25270.7, 25270.8, and 25507
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5
5.6.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant:
Impact 5.6 -1 Significant hazards through accidental release of hazardous materials could occur as
a result of demolition and grading activities.
Impact 5.6 -2 Sites within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor are included on a list
of hazardous materials sites.
5.6.7 Mitigation Measures
Impact 5.6 -1
6 -1 Prior to the issuance of demolition permits for any buildings or structures that would be
demolished in conjunction with individual development projects that would be
accommodated by the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor, the project applicant
shall conduct the following inspections and assessments for all buildings and structures
onsite and shall provide the City of Santa Ana's Planning and
B10dinP Agency with a copy of the report of each investigation or assessment
The project applicant shall retain a certified lead inspector /assessor to inspect buildings
and structures onsite for lead based paint "P). The inspector /assessor's report shall
include requirements for abatement, containment, and disposal of LBP, if encountered,
in accordance with the State of California Occupational Safety & Health Administration
Rule 29 CFR Part 1926.
October 2014 Page 5.6 -23
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The project applicant shall retain a licensed or certified asbestos consultant to inspect
buildings and structures onsite for asbestos- containing materials (ACM). The
consultant's report shall include requirements for abatement, containment, and disposal
of ACM, if encountered, in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management
District's Rule 1403.
6 -2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for new development within the Harbor Boulevard
Mixed Use Transit Corridor, the project applicant shall submit a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) to identify environmental conditions and determine whether
contamination is present. The Phase I ESA shall be prepared by a Registered Professional
Engineer and in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Standard E 1527.05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment Process. If recognized environmental conditions related to soils are identified in
the Phase I ESA, the project applicant shall perform soil sampling as a part of a Phase II
ESA. If contamination is found at significant levels, the project applicant shall remediate all
contaminated soils in accordance with state and local agency requirements (DTSC, RWQCB,
Orange County Fire Authority, etc.). All contaminated soils and /or material encountered
shall be disposed of at a regulated site and in accordance with applicable laws and
regulations prior to the completion of grading. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a
report documenting the completion, results, and any follow -up remediation on the
recommendations, if any, shall be provided to the Building Official and the City of Santa
Ana's Planning and Building--Agency evidencing that all site
remediation activities have been completed.
Impact 5.6 -2
Mitigation Measure 6 -2 applies to this impact.
5.6.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures identified above would
reduce potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials to a less than significant level.
Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating hazards have been identified.
5.6.9 References
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2010, September 13. Glossary of Environmental Terms.
http: //w .. dtsc. ca. gov/ InformationResources /Glossary_of Enviro=ental_Terms.cfm.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2013, March 19. Radius Map [Environmental Database Search].
Frey Environmental, Inc. 2005, November 29. Workplan, Additional Soil and Groundwater Investigation,
Former Oasis Drinking Waters, 1506 N. Clinton Street, Santa Ana, California.
http: / / geotracker .waterboards.ca.gov /esi /uploads /geo_ report /7797209024/TO605902113.PDF.
Page 5.6 -24 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
5.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential impacts to hydrology and
water quality conditions in the City of Santa Ana from implementation of the proposed Harbor Boulevard
Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan. Hydrology deals with the distribution and circulation of water, both on
land and underground. Water quality deals with the quality of surface and groundwater. Surface water is water
on the surface of the land and includes lakes, rivers, streams, and creeks. Groundwater is water below the
surface of the earth. The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the following technical studies:
Harbor CorridorMixed Um Transit Corridor Drainage Study, IBI Group, March 18, 2013
A complete copy of this study is included in Appendix F to this EIR.
5.7.1 Environmental Setting
Relevant federal, state, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the
proposed project are summarized below. They are designed to achieve regional water quality objectives and
thereby protect the beneficial uses of the region's surface water and groundwater.
Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water-Act
The federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act [CWA]) is the principal statute
governing water quality. The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into
the waters of the United States and gives the EPA the authority to implement pollution control programs,
such as setting wastewater standards for industry. The statute's goal is to end all discharges entirely and to
restore, maintain, and preserve the integrity of the nation's waters. The CWA regulates both the direct and
indirect discharge of pollutants into the nation's waters. The CWA sets water quality standards for all
contaminants in surface waters and makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point
source into navigable waters, unless a permit is obtained under its provisions. The CWA mandates permits for
wastewater and stormwater discharges, requires states to establish site specific water quality standards for
navigable bodies of water, and regulates other activities that affect water quality, such as dredging and the
filling of wetlands. The CWA also funded the construction of sewage treatment plants and recognized the
need for planning to address nonpoint sources of pollution. Section 402 of the CWA requires a permit for all
point source (a discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, such as a pipe, ditch, or channel) discharges of
any pollutant (except dredge or fill material) into waters of the U.S.
National PollutantDischarge Elimination System
Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) program promulgated under Section
402 of the CWA, all facilities that discharge pollutants from any point source into waters of the U.S. are
required to obtain an NPDES permit. The term pollutant broadly includes any type of industrial, municipal,
and agricultural waste discharged into water. Point sources are discharges from publicly owned treatment
October 2014 Page 5.7 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
works (POTWs), discharges from industrial facilities, and discharges associated with urban runoff While the
NPDES program addresses certain specific types of agricultural activities, the majority of agricultural
facilities are defined as nonpoint sources and are exempt from NPDES regulation. Pollutant contributors
come from direct and indirect sources. Direct sources discharge directly to receiving waters, whereas indirect
sources discharge to POTWs, which in turn discharge to receiving waters. Under the national program,
NPDES permits are issued only to direct point source discharges. The National Pretreatment Program
addresses industrial and commercial indirect dischargers. Municipal sources are POTWs that receive primarily
domestic sewage from residential and commercial customers. Specific NPDES program areas applicable to
municipal sources are the National Pretreatment Program, the Municipal Sewage Sludge Program, Combined
Sewer Overflows (CSOs), and the Municipal Storm Water Program. Nonmunicipal sources include industrial
and commercial facilities. Specific NPDES program areas applicable to these industrial /commercial sources
are: Process Wastewater Discharges, Non - Process Wastewater Discharges, and the Industrial Storm Water
Program. NPDES issues two basic permit types: individual and general. Also, the EPA has recently focused
on integrating the NPDES program further into watershed planning and permitting (USEPA 2004).
The NPDES has a variety of measures designed to minimize and reduce pollutant discharges. All counties
with storm drain systems that serve a population of 50,000 or more, as well construction sites one acre or
more in size, must file for and obtain an NPDES permit. Another measure for minimizing and reducing
pollutant discharges to a publicly owned conveyance or system of conveyances (including roadways, catch
basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man -made channels and storm drains, designed or used for collecting and
conveying stormwater) is the EPAs Storm Water Phase II Final Rule. The Phase II Final Rule requires an
operator (such as a city) of a regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) to develop,
implement, and enforce a program (e.g., best management practices [BMPs], ordinances, or other regulatory
mechanisms) to reduce pollutants in post construction runoff to the City's storm drain system from new
development and redevelopment projects that result in the land disturbance of greater than or equal to one
acre. The City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency is the local enforcing agency of the MS4 NPDES permit.
NationalFlood Insurance Program
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 mandate the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to evaluate flood hazards. FEMA provides Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) for local and regional planners to promote sound land use and floodplam
development, identifying potential flood areas based on the current conditions. To delineate a FIRM, FEMA
conducts engineering studies referred to as Flood Insurance Studies (FISs). The most recent FIS and FIRM
was completed and published for Santa Ana on December 3, 2009. Using information gathered in these
studies, FEMA engineers and cartographers delineate Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) on FIRMS.
The Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA) requires owners of all structures in identified SFHAs to purchase
and maintain flood insurance as a condition of receiving federal or federally related financial assistance, such
as mortgage loans from federally insured lending institutions. Community members within designated areas
are able to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) afforded by FEMA. The NEW is
required to offer federally subsidized flood insurance to property owners in those communities that adopt
and enforce floodplam management ordinances that meet minimum criteria established by FEMA. The
Page 5.7 -2 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 further strengthened the NFIP by providing a giant program
for state and community flood mitigation projects. The act also established the Community Rating System
CRS), a system for crediting communities that implement measures to protect the natural and beneficial
functions of their floodplams, as well as managing erosion hazards.
The City of Santa Ana, under NEW, has created standards and policies to ensure flood protection. These
policies address development and redevelopment, compatibility of uses, required predevelopment drainage
studies, compliance with discharge permits, enhancement of existing waterways, cooperation with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Orange County Flood Control District for updating, and method
consistency with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and proposed BMPs.
State
Porter - Cologne Water QuabtyAct
The Porter - Cologne Water Quality Act (Water Code sections 13000 et seq.) is the basic water quality control
law for California. Under this act, the State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB) has ultimate control
over state water rights and water quality policy. In California, the EPA has delegated authority to issue
NPDES permits to the SWRCB. The state is divided into nine regions related to water quality and quantity
characteristics. The SWRCB, through its nine RWQCBs carries out the regulation, protection, and
administration of water quality in each region. Each regional board is required to adopt a Water Quality
Control Plan or Basin Plan that recognizes and reflects the regional differences in existing water quality, the
beneficial uses of the region's ground and surface water, and local water quality conditions and problems. The
City of Santa Ana is in the Santa Ana River Basin, Region 8, in the Lower Santa Ana River Watershed. The
Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (8) was updated in 2008. This Basin Plan gives
direction on the beneficial uses of the state waters within Region 8, describes the water quality that must be
maintained to support such uses, and provides programs, projects, and other actions necessary to achieve the
standards established in the Basin Plan.
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans
Pursuant to the CWA, in 2009, the SWRCB issued a statewide general NPDES Permit for stormwater
discharges from construction sites (Order No. 2009- 0009 -DWQ; NPDES No. CAS000002). Under this
Statewide General Construction Activity Permit (GCP), discharges of stormwater from construction sites
with a disturbed area of one or more acres are required to either obtain individual NPDES permits for storm
water discharges or to be covered by the GCE Coverage by the GCP is accomplished by completing and
filing a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and developing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). Each applicant under the GCP must ensure that a SWPPP is prepared prior to
grading and is implemented during construction. The SWPPP must list BMPs implemented on the
construction site to protect stormwater runoff, and must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical
monitoring program for "non- visible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a
monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the state's 303(d) list of impaired
waters.
October 2014 Page 5.7 -3
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Existing Conditions
Regional Drainage
The project area is in the Santa Ana River Watershed (see Figure 5.7 -1, Santa Ana River Watershen). The Santa
Ana River Watershed includes much of Orange County, much of western Riverside County, part of
southwestern San Bernardino County, and a small portion of Los Angeles County. The watershed is bounded
by the Santa Margarita watershed to the south, on the east by the Salton Sea and Southern Mojave
watersheds, and on the north /west by the Mojave and San Gabriel watersheds, respectively. The watershed
covers approximately 2,800 square miles in area with about 700 miles of rivers and major. The Santa Ana
River extends 96 miles from the San Bernardino Mountains in San Bernardino County to the Pacific Ocean at
the boundary between the cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach.
The part of the Santa Ana River Watershed in Orange County is apportioned into several smaller watersheds
by OCWatersheds, an agency of the County of Orange Department of Public Works. The project area is in
two of the watersheds designated within Orange County: the Anaheim Bay — Huntington Harbor Watershed
and the Orange County portion of the Santa Ana River Watershed.'
Anaheim Bag — Huntington HaLbor Watershed
The Anaheim Bay — Huntington Harbor Sub watershed spans much of central and western Orange County.
Drainage in the Anaheim Bay — Huntington Harbor Sub watershed is via the East Garden Grove -
Wintersburg Channel, Westminster Channel, Anaheim Barber City Cbannel, and Bolsa Chica Channel,
southwest to Bolsa Bay /Huntington Harbor, which is contiguous with the Pacific Ocean (see Figure 5.7 -2,
Regional Drainage. Bolsa Bay, Huntington Harbor, and Anaheim Bay (in order from southeast to northwest)
are all contiguous. The main outlet to the Pacific Ocean is at the west end of Anaheim Bay on the Seal Beach
Naval Weapons Station in the City of Seal Beach. An inlet channel connects the southeast end of Bolsa Bay
to the ocean. Bolsa Bay is in the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve managed by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDF)V. Most of Anaheim Bay is in the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge administered
by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Huntington Harbor is a developed, small craft marina with mostly
residential and some commercial land uses alongside channels. The outermost part of Anaheim Bay (nearest
the ocean is an engineered port used by the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station.
Santa Ana Raver Watershed, Orange Count? Portion
The Santa Ana River Watershed spans most of northeastern Orange County and part of central Orange
County (see Figure 5.7 -2, Regional Drainage. Drainage in the Santa Ana River Watershed is southwest via the
Santa Ana River to the Pacific Ocean.
I The Santa Ana River Watershed designated by OCWatersheds is only pact of the section of the Santa Ana River Watershed in
Orange County (see Figure 2, RegionalDrainage).
Page 5.74 PlaceWorkr
wQ
O
O
U)
ca
0CoA=
LUcaui
ca
LL.
vai
O
Cn
ol
04
r J9
O
Cn
ol
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Tbisliage intentionally left blank.
Page 5.76 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Figure 5.7 -2 Regional Drainage
5. Environmental Analysis
Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Conventional Zoning
Basemap Source: OC PlanninglGlS 2010
o z
Scale (Miles)
PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Tbisliage intentionally left blank.
Page 5.7-8 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Local Surface Waters and Drainage
The majority of the project area is developed, with only a few vacant lots remaining. The project area consists
of predominantly impervious areas, with a few unpaved back lots where cars are stored. The existing runoff
coefficient for the project area was calculated to be approximately 70 percent (IBI 2013).
As noted in the drainage study prepared by IBI, it is assumed that the lots in the project area surface -drain to
Harbor Boulevard and other side streets, and the runoff is captured and conveyed in the storm drain systems.
Runoff is managed by a combination of closed and open drainage channels. A 90 -inch culvert crosses
Harbor Boulevard at Washington Street. A second large closed drainage system is midway between fast and
fifth Streets. All drainage ultimately discharges into the Orange County Flood Control Cbannel (sce Appendix
F).
Boyle Engineering prepared a Drainage Engineering Report m 1993 for the entire City of Santa Ana. The
results of the report for the existing drainage system in the project area are provided in Table 5.7 -1. The
existing drainage system in the project area is shown in the detailed drainage maps contained in the drainage
study prepared by IBI (sce Appendix F). As shown in the table, many of the drainage pipes in the project area
are currently deficient. A storm drain project was completed along Harbor Boulevard in 1996. Many of the
deficiencies shown in the 1993 Boyle Report and summarized in Table 5.7 -1 were remedied with the 1996
storm drain project (IBI 2013).
Table 5.7 -1 Existing Proiect Area Drainage Svstem and
Pipe ID Ez Diam. Roadway Pipe Total
Location Node teD Node (inches) Runoff, (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) I Deficiency (cfs)
17th Street to 5th Street
Northeast from south end of Harper
St
0302 -0303 13.3 0 0 0.0 13.3
Harbor Boulevard from 17th St to
Washington Ave
0325 -0326 26.4 2.3 39.6 41.9 0.0
0326 -0327 26.4 29.2 39.6 68.8 0.0
0327 -0328 26.4 29.2 39.6 68.8 0.0
17th St From Seaboard Cir to East
Garden Grove - Wintersburg
Channel
0330 -0377 17.5 6.6 0 6.6 10.9
Near intersection of Harbor Blvd /1st
St
0406 -0407 15.2 12.5 0 12.5 2.7
0407 -0408 36 15.2 12.5 21.3 33.8 0.0
0426 -0427 20.7 12.5 0 12.5 8.2
0427 -0428 20.7 12.5 0 12.5 8.2
0428 -0408 28.2 12.5 0 12.5 15.7
0408 -0409 48 54.0 12.5 87.6 100.1 0.0
Harbor Blvd south of 1st St 0581 -0582 15.6 12.5 0 12.5 3.1
West ofHarbor Blvd just north of
Camile St
0582 -0586 TxF 309.2 0 1128.3 1128.3 0.0
Harbor Blvd north of McFadden
Ave
0571 -0572 18.3 12.5 0 12.5 5.8
0572 -0573 18.3 12.5 0 12.5 5.8
October 2014 Page 5.7 -9
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Table 5.7 -1 Existing Project Area Drainage System and Capacities
Existinqq. i
Runoff, cfs
Cap ity
21.2
Deficiency cfsLocation
Pipe ID
Node to Node
Ex Diana.
inches
Roadway
cfs
Pipe
cfs
Clinton St and 5th St 0717 -0718 38.7 3.1 0 F76.9
35.6
5th St east from Jackson St 0718 -0715 68.7 3.1 0 65.6
5th St, Jackson St to Figueroa St 0715 -0723 60 86.0 3.1 73.8
48
9.1
0723 -0724 66 120.7 3.1 95.2
54
22.4
0724 -0705 66 121.8 3.1 95.2 98.3 23.5
Harbor Blvd, 11th Stto 5th St 0702 -0703 29.2 12.5 20.6 33.1 0.0
0703 -0704 39.6 12.5 33.4 45.9 0.0
5th St east from Harbor Blvd 0704 -0705 36 50.7 0 75.6 75.6 0.0
Figueroa St south from 5th St 0705 -0734 72 177.1 25.3 120.0 145.3 31.8
0734 -0736 72 180.8 25.3 120.0 145.3 35.5
0736 -0737 72 180.8 0 120.0 120.0 60.8
0737 -0735 72 180.8 12.5 120.0 132.5 48.3
1st St from Harper St to Figueroa
St
0743 -0744 48 28.5 12.5 91.1 103.6 0.0
0744 -0745 54 36.7 12.5 88.2 100.7 0.0
0745 - 0746 54 45.3 12.5 162.5 175.0 0.0
0746 - 0747 54 54.3 12.5 124.7 137.2 0.0
Harbor Blvd between 1st St and
Camile St
0747 - 0748 54 62 0 124.7 124.7 0.0
0748- 0735 54 62 12.5 124.7 137.2 0.0
McFadden Ave, Jackson St to
Harbor Blvd
0804 -0805 28.7 4.6 0.0 4.6 24.1
0805 -0806 45.3 4.6 0.0 4.6 40.7
McFadden Ave west ofHarbor Blvd 0573 -0574 18.3 1.6 0 1.6 16.7
0574 -0575 36 1 19.6 1.6 1 29.9 31.5 0.0
McFadden Avenue to south HCP boundary
Dennis St near Kent St 0651 -0652 21.2 25.3 0 25.3 0.0
Kent St near Elliot PI 0652 -0653 21.2 25.3 0 25.3 0.0
Dennis St and Lenhardt Ave 0661 -0662 13.1 25.3 0 25.3 0.0
0662 -0663 13.1 25.3 0 25.3 0.0
Harbor Blvd, McFadden Ave to
south project area boundary
0806 - 0807 48 58.2 29.2 64.4 93.6 0.0
0807- 0808 54 62.1 29.2 88.2 117.4 0.0
0808 -0819 63 103.1 29.2 133 162.2 0.0
Soumz:1B12013.
Surface Water Quality
Beneficial Uses
Beneficial uses are uses to which water can be put for the benefit of people and /or wildlife. Beneficial uses
for surface waters and groundwater in the Santa Ana River Basin are set forth in the Basin Plan. Beneficial
uses of receiving waters are listed below in Table 5.7 -2.
Page 5.7 -10 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Table 5.7 -2 Beneficial Uses of Receiving Waters
Soumz: SARWQCB 2008.
1 Access pmhibiled by US Navy.
3 Access limned to one day per month by US Navy.
3 Access to pad or all of area pmhibiled by OC Public World.
Water Quality Impairments
Water quality impairments in receiving waters included on the EPA 2010 Section 303(d) list of Water Quality
Limited Segments are listed in Table 5.7 -3. The Santa Ana River (Reach 1) is not included on the EPAs list.
October 2014 Page 5.7-77
Beneficial Uses
p 13
o
p t= d rn
O
9Zp
Cp E LLE
p)S
N 6m
E c w op
oC
Water
Bodyv
Anaheim Bay — Outer X 3 X X X X X XBay
Anaheim Bay - Seal
Beach National Wildlife z X X X X X X X
Refuge
Huntington Harbor X X X X X X X X
Bolsa Bay X X X X X X X X X
Bolas Chica Ecological X X X X X X X XReserve
Santa Ana River
Reach 1 (from just
south of Victoria Street 3 X X X
in Costa Mesa to 17th
Street in Santa Ana)
Soumz: SARWQCB 2008.
1 Access pmhibiled by US Navy.
3 Access limned to one day per month by US Navy.
3 Access to pad or all of area pmhibiled by OC Public World.
Water Quality Impairments
Water quality impairments in receiving waters included on the EPA 2010 Section 303(d) list of Water Quality
Limited Segments are listed in Table 5.7 -3. The Santa Ana River (Reach 1) is not included on the EPAs list.
October 2014 Page 5.7-77
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Table 5.7 -3 Water Quality Impairments
Water Body Pollutant Total Maximum Daily Load (rMDL) Status
Anaheim Bay Dielddn (tissue) Required, expected completion date 2019
Nickel Required, expected completion date 2019
PCBs (Polychlorinated
biphenyls) (tissue)
Required, expected completion date 2019
Sediment Toxicity Required, expected completion date 2019
East Garden Grove Wintersburg
Channel
Ammonia (un- ionized) Required, expected completion date 2021
Huntington Harbor Chlordane Required, expected completion date 2019
Copper Required, expected completion date 2019
Lead Required, expected completion date 2019
Nickel Required, expected completion date 2019
PCBs (Polychlorinated
biphenyls) (tissue)
Required, expected completion date 2019
Pathogens Required, expected completion date 2019
Sediment Toxicity Required, expected completion date 2019
Soumz: USEPA 2011a.
Dieldrin and chlordane are organochlorine insecticides. Poydibrinated biphenyls (PCBs) are chlorinated hydrocarbons that were lonnerly used asinsulation and coolant in
electrical equipment
Groundwater
The project area lies over the Main Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin) that underlies most of north
and central Orange County (see Figure 5.7 -3, Main Orange County Groundwater Basin).
Groundwater Quality
Most water pumped from the Basin for municipal use is of potable quality. Five water treatment systems treat
groundwater ffom the Basin for four types of contaminants: salinity; total dissolved solids (IDS); nitrate; and
color from the remains of ancient vegetation. The facilities, and contaminants that each facility treats, are:
Tustin Main Street Desalter: nitrate
Tustin 17 Street Desalter: nitrate, TDS
Mesa Colored Water Treatment Facility: colored water
Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) Deep Aquifer Treatment System: color
IRWD Irvine Desalter: salt
In 2010, the total volume of water treated at seven treatment facilities in Orange County, five of which are
within the Basin, was 17,864 acre -feet. This is less than 10 percent of the 201,075 acre -feet of groundwater
pumped from the Basin that year. The Basin provides 60 to 70 percent of the domestic water for 2.55 million
people (Malcolm -Punic 2011).
Page 5.7 -12 PlaceWorkr
R'Qzw
azzLL
oa
o°
v
z
0
X_
O
KO
K
x
N
T
CO
N
6
EdC
O O
0
WCI!'1
OU
Z S_
WElJ
S_
M
L( 7
t
LL
h
mm
cn
0
I N
1 m C C
101
Z U0 o .
O
o
Y
LL o `N U E
h S ST .
I .Q
a dyT
Q Y N I Of
gqyfC
W mY
Ql
1L
s
c c y $
ysc
i
q m 6 O4
ed `+F 4
o
M+21 Io IFg uz$
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Tbisliage intentionally left blank.
Page 5.7 -14 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Flood Hazards
Designated Flood Zones
Much of the northern half of the project area is in Zone A, a 100 year flood zone designated by FEMA, as
shown in Figure 5.7 -4, Flood Hazard Zones. Areas along the west side of Harbor Boulevard from 1st Street
north to 5th Street are in Zone A, as are areas along both sides of Harbor Boulevard from 5th Street north to
Westminster Avenue. The remainder of the project area, south of the above - specified areas, is in Shaded
Zone X, meaning that it is protected from 100 year floods by levees (FEMA 2009a, 2009b).
Seismically Induced Dam Inundation
Approximately the west half of the City of Santa Ana is in the dam inundation area for Prado Dam, which is
located on the Santa Ana River 18 miles northeast of the project area. The following information and analysis
is from a dam inundation analysis prepared by The Planning Center I DC&E for a proposed charter school at
2840 West 1st Street in Santa Ana, just east of the 1st Street Bridge over the Santa Ana River (The Planning
Center I DC&E 2013).
Prado Dam is owned and operated by the Los Angeles District of the Army Corps of Engineers and was
completed in 1941. It provides flood control and groundwater recharge capability for Orange County. The
dam is on the Santa Ana River approximately two miles west of the City of Corona near the head of Santa
Ana Canyon. Its primary purpose is to reduce the risk of damage from floods in the metropolitan areas of
Orange County, and it was built after a catastrophic flood on the Santa Ana River in 1938.
Prado Dam is an earth filled dam with a height of 106 feet and a reservoir capacity of 217,000 acre -feet. Its
functioning capacity was recently increased due to the construction of the Seven Oaks Dam, which was
completed in 1999 and is approximately 40 miles upstream on the Santa Ana River. During a flood, Seven
Oaks Dam will store water destined for Prado Dam for as long as the reservoir pool at Prado Dam is rising.
When the flood threat at Prado Dam has passed, Seven Oaks Dam will begin to release its stored flood water
at a rate that does not exceed the downstream channel capacity. Working in tandem, the Prado and Seven
Oaks Dams provide increased protection to Orange County.
Flood protection improvements along the Santa Ana River are being implemented as part of the Santa Ana
River Mamstem Project, including improvements to Prado Dam: raising the dam height 28.4 feet;
constructing a new outlet works to more than triple the existing outlet capacity; raising the concrete spillway
20 feet; constructing levees or dikes in the basin to protect properties; and stabilizing approximately 1.5 miles
of bluff along the Santa Ana River downstream of the Interstate 15 bridge in the City of Norco.
These improvements will increase Prado Dam's current 70 year level of protection to 190 -year protection and
will increase the reservoir capacity from 217,000 to 362,000 acre -feet. In addition, the downstream channel
capacity of the Santa Ana River will be increased from 9,350 cubic feet per second (cfs) to approximately
30,000 cfs, further reducing the potential for flooding (CCCD 2012). All work on the Santa Ana River
Channel is scheduled for completion in 2014, and all work on Prado Dam is scheduled for completion by
2018. Completion of these projects will significantly reduce flood risks on the Santa Ana River and the
October 2014 Page 5.7 15
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
potential for flood inundation from Prado Dam. The Army Corps of Engineers is also planning to update
the dam inundation maps by 2020 (USACE 2013).
The latest available dam inundation map for Prado Dam was produced in 1985 by the Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE 1985). Note that this map was prepared prior to all of the improvements to the dam and
the Santa Ana River and therefore overestimates the flood potential and dam inundation area. The peak
outflow of the hypothetical flood wave would be contained within Santa Ana Canyon and then spread out
across the alluvial plain to encompass an area more than 10 miles wide by the time it reached the project site.
The nearest cross - section to the project area shows that the first arrival time of the flood wave would be
approximately 6.25 hours with a maximum depth of flow of 4 feet at 7.25 hours. With improvements in the
Santa Ana River, which can now convey 30,000 cfs (3.2 times the previous capacity), this could result in a
proportional decrease in the flow depth to 1.25 feet in the vicinity of the project area.
5.7.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
HYD -1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
HYD -2 Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted.
HYD -3 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial
erosion or siltation on or off site.
HM-4 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off site.
HYD -5 Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff
HYD -6 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
HYD -7 Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.
HYD -8 Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.
HM-9 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
HYD -10 Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Page 5.7 -16 PlaceWorkr
NAR90R BL U MILKED USE TRANSITCORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Figure 5.7-0 Flood Hazard Zones
5. Environmental Analysis
a 1paa
S— FEMA2013 Scale (Feel)
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Tbisliage intentionally left blank.
Page 5.7 -7% PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds
would be less than significant: HYD -10. This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis.
5.7.3 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Buildout of the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan would involve the following net increases: 3,884 dwelling
units; 15,327 persons; 13,721 square feet of commercial uses; and 173 employees. All of the changes in
development potential would occur throughout various areas of the Harbor Corridor Plan.
No changes to development potential would occur in the 120 -acre Conventional Zoning Area. There would
be no hydrology or water quality impacts to the Conventional Zoning Area since no new development would
occur in this area and the existing land uses would remain. As a result, the analysis below focuses on the
portion of the project that covers the Harbor Corridor Plan.
Impact 5.7 -1: Development pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan would not substantially change the
amount of impervious surfaces in the project area and would therefore not substantially
Impact Analysis: The project area is in a highly urbanized area of the City, it is not used for groundwater
recharge and is not in or near any groundwater recharge areas. Additionally, much of the existing commercial
and automotive land uses in the project area are developed with buildings and paved parking lots with
minimal landscaping. Approximately 11.6 acres of the project area are vacant and 4.5 acres are open space,
for a total of approximately 16.1 acres of land uses consisting of pervious surfaces.
Development standards for landscaping outlined in the Harbor Corridor Plan would result in approximately
20 percent, or 50.6 acres, of parcelized area within the project area being landscaped at project buildout. This
area would include private yards; common areas in private development projects; and landscaping in public
rights- of-way such as parkways and medians. This does not include Willowick Golf Course, which is outside
of the Harbor Corridor Plan area. Project implementation would therefore increase impervious surfaces in
the project area. Furthermore, priority development projects as defined in the MS4 Permit2 would be required
to infiltrate, filter, or treat runoff flow rates or volumes specified in the MS4 Permit. Therefore,
implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would not substantially reduce groundwater recharge.
2 Priority development projects for which WQMPs are required include:
Redevelopment projects adding or replacing 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces.
Development projects creating 10,000 square feet or more ofimpervious surfaces.
Restaurants of 5,000 or more square feet area.
Puking lots of 5,000 square feet or more.
October 2014 Page 5.7 -19
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 5.7 -2: Development pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan would not substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the project area in a manner that would result in a substantial erosion or
siltation on- or offsite. [Thresholds HYD -3]
Impact Analysis: Erosion and siltation impacts potentially resulting from individual development projects
that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan would, for the most part, occur during the
construction phase, which would include site preparation and grading activities. However, there is a potential
for erosion and siltation to occur during project operation.
Construction Impacts
Individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan would be
required to prepare and implement a SWPPP pursuant to the GCP during grading and construction. The
SWPPP would specify BMPs that individual project applicants would implement prior to and during grading
and construction to minimize erosion and siltation impacts on and offsite. Adherence to the 13MPs in the
SWPPP would reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from project related grading and construction
activities. Therefore, project implementation would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
individual development sites or the project area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or offsite.
Operation Impacts
The majority of the project area is developed and consists of impervious surfaces (buildings, driveways, and
other paved areas). Currently, approximately 11.6 acres of the project area are vacant and consist of bare soil.
However, these areas are slated for development under the Harbor Corridor Plan and would not always
remain undeveloped bare soil. Additionally, development standards for landscaping outlined in the Harbor
Corridor Plan would result in approximately 20 percent, or 50.6 acres, of parcelized area within the project
area being landscaped at project buildout. There would be no substantial areas of bare or disturbed soil onsite
at project completion that would be vulnerable to erosion. Therefore, implementation of the Harbor
Corridor Plan would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area m a manner that
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite.
Impact 5.7 -3: Development pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan would increase the amount of
impervious surfaces in the project area and would therefore increase surface water flows
into drainage systems within the watershed. [Thresholds HYDA and HYD -5]
Impact Analysis: Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would increase impervious surfaces in the
project area through the development of individual project sites. The majority of impervious surfaces would
come from development of the existing vacant lots, which make up approximately 11.6 acres of the project
area. At project completion, the Harbor Corridor Plan area is estimated to generate 15 percent more runoff
than in current conditions; that is, approximately 80 percent of stormwater within the project area would be
expected to run off ( 131 2013). With project drainage volumes were forecast by adding 15 percent to existing
estimated drainage volumes. Needed storm drain improvements for project generated drainage were
identified by comparing with project drainage volumes to existing capacities.
Page 5.7 -20 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The Drainage Engineering Report prepared in 1993 by Boyle Engineering has shown that the existing
drainage system is deficient and unable to convey the current runoffs. Table 5.7 -4 reveals the pipe capacities
and deficiencies if the recommendations of the Drainage Engineering Report were implemented and the
existing flows were increased by 15 percent to account for the implementation of the proposed project. As
shown in the table, after completion of specified drainage improvements, no drainage deficiencies would
remain, with the exception of the pipe segment from 0702 to 0703, which would be deficient by 0.5 cfs. All
other capacities would be sufficient to handle the project development flows.
The recommendations made in the Drainage Engineering Report prepared by Boyle Engineering would need
to be implemented in order to convey existing runoff as well as future Harbor Boulevard corridor flows from
implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan. Mitigation has been provided at the end of this section
requiring that improvements outlined in the Drainage Engineering Report, which are summarized in the
drainage study prepared by IBI and highlighted in the detailed storm drain maps provided in the study (see
Appendix F), be implemented by the City of Santa Ana.
Additionally, during the City's development review process, individual development projects that would be
accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan would be required to comply with the requirements in effect at
the time building permits are issued, including payment of the required Drainage Area Master Plan Fees, as
outlined in Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 34193. The Drainage Area Master Plan Fees are necessary in
order to fund needed improvements to the City's drainage system to reduce the cumulative impacts caused by
new development, and are apportioned to new development based on new development's fair share of the
estimated costs of the improvements. These fees are payable at the rates in place at the time of building
permit issuance.
October 2014 Page 5.7 -21
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Table 5.7 -4 Future Pipe Capacity
17th Street to 5th Street
Northeast from south end of
0406 -0407
Exist Future Capacity Total 1 15 % Fu[. I Future
0.0
I
0302 -0303 0.00
Capacity Prop. PipeI Capacity Capacity Flow Deficiency
Location Pipe ID cfs) inches) cfs) cfs) cfs) cfs)
17th Street to 5th Street
Northeast from south end of
0406 -0407 12.50 18 5.8 18.3 17.5 0.0
Harper St 0302 -0303 0.00 27 17.0 17.0 15.3 0.0
17th St From Seaboard Cir to
12.50 24 12.4 24.9 23.8 0.0
0428 -0408
East Garden Grove - Wintersburg 0330 -0377 6.60 27 17.0 23.6 20.1 0.0
Channel
18 5.8 18.3 17.9 0.0
Harbor Blvd north of McFadden
Ave
0571 -0572
5th Street to McFadden Avenue
Near Harbor Blvd /1st St
intersection 0406 -0407 12.50 18 5.8 18.3 17.5 0.0
1st St Westof Harbor Blvd to
Mountain View St
0426 -0427 12.50 24 12.4 24.9 23.8 0.0
0427 -0428 12.50 24 12.4 24.9 23.8 0.0
0428 -0408 12.50 30 22.5 35.0 32.4 0.0
Harbor Blvd south of 1st St 0581 -0582 12.50 18 5.8 18.3 17.9 0.0
Harbor Blvd north of McFadden
Ave
0571 -0572 12.50 21 8.7 21.2 21.0 0.0
0572 -0573 12.50 21 8.7 21.2 21.0 0.0
Harbor Blvd, 11th St to 5th St 0702 -0703 33.06 33.1 33.6 0.5
Clinton St and 5 St 0717 -0718 3.10 39 45.3 48.4 44.5 0.0
5 St east from Jackson St 0718 -0715 3.10 51 92.7 95.8 79.0 0.0
5th St, Jackson St to Figueroa St
0715 -0723 76.90 51 92.7 169.6 98.9 0.0
0723 -0724 98.30 57 124.7 223.0 138.8 0.0
0724 -0705 98.30 57 124.7 223.0 140.1 0.0
Figueroa St south from 5th St
0705 -0734 145.30 63 162.9 308.2 203.7 0.0
0734 -0736 145.30 48 78.9 224.2 207.9 0.0
0736 -0737 120.00 57 124.7 244.7 207.9 0.0
0737 -0735 132.50 54 108.0 240.5 207.9 0.0
McFadden Ave, Jackson St to
Harbor Blvd
0804 -0805 4.60 36 36.6 41.2 33.0 0.0
0805 -0806 4.60 42 55.3 59.9 52.1 0.0
McFadden Ave west of Harbor
Blvd
0573 -0574 1.60 30 22.5 24.1 21.0 0.0
Soumz:1B12013.
Page 5.7 -22 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 5.7 -4: During the construction phase of the individual development projects that would be
accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan, adherence to the General Construction Activity
Permit would reduce short-term pollutant concentrations from individual development sites.
Thresholds HYD -1 (part) and HYD -6 (part)]
impact Analysis: Grading and construction activities of individual development projects that would be
accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan could generate oil and grease, trash and debris, pesticides, other
organic compounds such as solvents, degreasers, and compounds in coatings. This would result in a short -
term significant impact on stormwater quality.
However, project applicants for individual development projects would be required to comply with existing
water quality standards and waste discharge requirements during all grading and construction activities. The
GCP issued by SWRCB regulates construction activities on sites of one acre or greater to minimize water
pollution, including sediment and pollutants. Individual development sites would be subject to the GCP,
including the development and implementation of a SWPPP. Project applicants of individual development
projects in the project area would be required to prepare and implement SWPPPs. The SWPPP would specify
BMPs that individual project applicants would implement for protecting water quality by eliminating and /or
minimizing stormwater pollution prior to and during grading and construction and show the placement of
those BMPs. Typical categories of BMPs included in SWPPPs are described in Table 5.7 -5.
Table 5.7 -5 Construction BMPs
Category Purpose Examples
Cover and /or bind soil surface, to prevent soil Mulch, geotextiles, mats, hydroseeding, Erosion Controls particles from being detached and transported by earth dikes, swaleswaterorWind
such as straw bales, sandbags,
Sediment Controls Filter out soil particles that have been detached and fiber rolls, and gravel bag berms, desilting
transported in water. basin, cleaning measures such as street
sweeping
Wind Erosion Controls The aims and methods of wind erosion control are See Erosion Controls above. similar to those of erosion control described above.
Stabilized construction roadways and
Tracking Controls Minimize the tracking of soil offsite by vehicles construction entrances/exits,
entrance/outlet tire wash.
Prohibit discharge of materials other than
stormwater, such as discharges from the cleaning, BMPs specifying methods forgmaintenance, and fueling of vehicles and paving and grinding operations, cleaning, NonStorm Water Management equipment. Conduct various construction fueling, and maintenance of vehicles andControlsoperations, including paving, grinding, and concrete equipment, concrete curing, concretecuringandfinishing, in ways that minimize non - finishing. stormwater discharges and contamination of any
such discharges.
Waste Management and Controls Management of materials and wastes to avoid Spill prevention and control, stockpile
i.e., good housekeeping practices) contamination of stormwater.
management, and management ofsolid
wastes and hazardous wastes.
October 2014 Page 5.7 -23
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP would reduce, prevent, minimize, and /or treat pollutants and prevent
degradation of downstream receiving waters. BMPs identified in the SWPPP would reduce or avoid
contamination of stormwater with sediment and would also reduce or avoid contamination with other
pollutants such as trash and debris; oil, grease, fuels, and other toxic chemicals; pesticides; and nutrients.
Therefore, water quality and waste - discharge impacts from grading and construction activities associated with
individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan would not occur.
Impact 5.7 -5: Operation of individual development projects would reduce or avoid contamination of
stormwater through implementation of the Water Quality Management Plan consistent with
the MS4 Permit. [Thresholds HYD -1 (part) and HYD -6 (part)]
ImpactAnalysis:
Anticipated and Potential Pollutants
Proposed development and redevelopment land use types in the project area include single - family attached,
multifamily, and single - family detached residential uses; retail; office; restaurant; entertainment; and
neighborhood serving commercial land uses. Anticipated and potential pollutants of these uses are listed in
Table 5.7 -6.
Table 5.7 -6 Anticipated and Potential Pollutants Generated by Land Use Type
Notes: X = anticipated; P = potential
Potential pollutant if landscaping is onsite
3 Potential pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas
Including solvents
The commemialAndustrial land use category in the source table is speci5c to developments over 100,000 square feet in building area. Such developments would not
be permitted under the Harbor Corridor Plan. While the soak of new permitted commercial land uses under the Harbor Corridor Plan would be smaller than that
evaluated in the table, the types of anticipated and potential pollutants would be generally similar to those listed above.
5 The project would not permit parking lots as stand -alone land uses, but would permit parlang lots accessory to other land uses within individual project sites.
Pollutants of Concern
Pollutants of concern are anticipated or potential pollutants that are listed by EPA as impairing receiving
water bodies.
Page 5.7 -24 PlaceWorkr
C
rn vm o c o E m
r^
E
l Z d N
H
3
0
Land Use o
Detached Residential X X X X X X X
Attached Residential X X X X PF) P(2)
Commercial /Industrial^ Pty) Pty P(4 PI) X pn X
Restaurants X X X X
Parking Lots5 X PF) P(4 PI) X P(3) X
Notes: X = anticipated; P = potential
Potential pollutant if landscaping is onsite
3 Potential pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas
Including solvents
The commemialAndustrial land use category in the source table is speci5c to developments over 100,000 square feet in building area. Such developments would not
be permitted under the Harbor Corridor Plan. While the soak of new permitted commercial land uses under the Harbor Corridor Plan would be smaller than that
evaluated in the table, the types of anticipated and potential pollutants would be generally similar to those listed above.
5 The project would not permit parking lots as stand -alone land uses, but would permit parlang lots accessory to other land uses within individual project sites.
Pollutants of Concern
Pollutants of concern are anticipated or potential pollutants that are listed by EPA as impairing receiving
water bodies.
Page 5.7 -24 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Pollutants listed as impairing receiving water bodies are in Table 5.7 -3, Abater Quality lVedrments. Of those
pollutants, dieldrin and chlordane are not anticipated or potential pollutants from the proposed project
because they are mainly used as agricultural insecticides and because nearly all uses of these two pesticides
have been halted in the United States. Most uses of dieldrin were banned in the United States in 1987
USEPA 2011b), and most uses of chlordane were voluntarily halted in the United States in 1988 (NPIC
2001).
Therefore, pollutants of concern for the proposed project include: pathogens, heavy metals (copper, lead, and
nickel), nutrients (un- ionized ammonia), organic compounds (PCBs), and sediment toxicity. Operation of
projects within the Harbor Corridor Plan could result in a significant impact on stormwater quality, because
of the potential pollutants that may be generated from the proposed land uses.
Water Quality Management Plans
Priority development projects within the Harbor Corridor Plan would be required to prepare and implement
water quality management plans (WQMPs) specifying BMPs to minimize water pollution by the project.
Categories of BMPs included in WQMPs are described in Table 5.7 -7.
Table 5.7 -7 Cateqories of BMPs in WQMPs
Category I Purpose Examples
BMPs Used in Project Design
Minimizing impervious areas and directly connected
Site Design BMPs Reduce or eliminate postproject runoff impervious areas.
Inclusion of infiltration basins and detention or
retention basins in project designs.
October 2014 Page 5.7 25
Roof runoff controls
Structural Source Control BMPs Reduce the potential for pollutants to Protection ofslopes and channels
enter runoff Efficient irrigation
Storm drain system signage
Biofiltration through constructed project landscape
Treatment Control BMPs Treat contaminated stoonwater before the elements such as bioswales, infiltration trenches,
water is discharged offsite and /or infiltration basins.
Filters
BMPs Used in Project Operation
Education ofowners and employees
Reduce the potental for pollutants Activity restrictons, such as requiring that trash canNonstructuralSourceControlresultingfromactivitesonsitetoenterlidsbeclosedatalltimesandprohibitingoutdoorBMPs
runoff. cooking.
Periodic inspections of water quality features such
as catch basins and filters.
October 2014 Page 5.7 25
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Adherence to the BMPs in the WQMP would reduce, prevent, minimize, and /or treat pollutants and prevent
degradation of downstream receiving waters. BMPs identified in the WQMP would reduce or avoid
contamination of stormwater with sediment and would also reduce or avoid contamination with other
pollutants such as pathogens, heavy metals, nutrients, organic compounds, and sediment toxicity.
Therefore, water quality and waste discharge impacts from operation activities associated with individual
development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan would not occur.
Impact 5.7 -6: Development of projects pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan would place people and
structures in a 100 -year flood zone. [Thresholds HYD -7 and HYD -8]
Impact Analysis: Buildout of the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan would increase numbers of residents,
residential units, commercial square footage, and employees in the project area. Much of the northern half of
the project area is a 100 -year flood zone, as shown in Figure 5.7 -4, Flood Zones. Areas along the west side of
Harbor Boulevard from 1st Street north to 5th Street are in Zone A, as are areas along both sides of Harbor
Boulevard from 5th Street north to Westminster Avenue.
However, multiple flood control improvements have been completed, are under construction, or are planned,
as part of the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project ( SARMP) described above in the Seismically Induced Dam
Inundation discussion of Section 5.7 -1, Envimnmental Setting. The flood insurance rate maps (PTRMs) for the
project area were issued in 2009. The SARMP is scheduled for completion in 2018; some elements of which,
including Seven Oaks Dam, have already been completed. At completion of the SARMP, 100 year flood
zones for flooding from the Santa Ana River are expected to be substantially smaller than they are at present.
For example, channel improvements are underway on a segment of the East Garden Grove- Wintersburg
Channel between Warner Avenue and Bolsa Bay, downstream from the project area in the City of Huntington
Beach, and an area of unincorporated Orange County (OC Public Works 2013). At completion of
improvements under construction and planned along the Santa Ana River and the East Garden Grove -
Wintersburg Channel, it is expected that flood hazards in the project area would be reduced compared to
flood zones designated in the 2009 FIRMS.
Prior to completion of the SARMP improvements, impacts would be significant. Hydrology studies for
individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan would be
required; the studies would have to include estimates of 100 -year flood depth on each respective site from
FEMA. Geotechnical investigations for each such project would also be required to provide
recommendations for grading to raise building pads above 100 -year flood elevations, as required.
Alternatively, individual development projects could request a Letter of Map Correction from FEMA if the
respective project applicants provide substantial evidence that the lowest adjacent grade elevation is already
above the 100 -year flood elevation at that site.
Page 5.7 -26 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 5.7 -7: Project implementation would introduce development in an area of the City that is within the
dam inundation area of Prado Dam. [Threshold HYD -9]
ImpactAna7ysis: The project area is in the dam inundation area for Prado Dam. A dam inundation analysis
for a proposed charter school at 2840 West 1st Street in Santa Ana, approximately 1,230 feet east of the
project area is summarized above in the Seismically Induced Dam Inundation discussion of Section 5.7 -1,
Environmental Setting. Flood control improvements to the Santa Ana River channel and to Prado Dam and
Seven Oaks Dam, both of which are along the Santa Ana River, are described in the Section 5.7 -1. The US
Army Corps of Engineers is planning to update dam inundation maps for Prado Dam by 2020. At that time,
the project area will either be out of the dam inundation area for Prado Dam altogether, or the maximum
flood depth at the project area from dam inundation will be substantially lower than the four feet shown on
the current dam inundation map issued in 1985. Considering the warning time between dam failure and a
flood reaching the project site approximately 6.25 hours—people within the project area would be able to
evacuate or be evacuated before flooding from dam inundation reached the project area.
Additionally, the probability of a catastrophic failure of the Prado Dam during an earthquake or other natural
disaster is very low, and emergency evacuation procedures are in place in the event of dam failure. The dam is
also required by Division 3 of the California Water Code to be monitored periodically for structural safety.
Surveillance measurements of dams in California are the responsibility of the owner and are subject to
supervision by the Department of Water Resources, as specified in the California Water Code. Impacts are
less than significant.
5.7.4 Cumulative Impacts
The area analyzed for water quality impacts is the part of Orange County in the Santa Ana River Watershed,
including the Anaheim Bay — Huntington Harbor Watershed.
Water Quality Impacts
Operation and construction of cumulative development projects in accordance with the City's General Plan
See Section 4.4, AsmVfions Regarding Cumulative Impacts, in Chapter 4) in the Santa Ana River Watershed
would each generate pollutants of types varying by land use. However, as with individual development
projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan, cumulative projects would be required to
prepare and implement WQMPs covering the design and operation phases of the project, and SWPPPs
covering project construction. BMPs implemented by cumulative projects would reduce water quality impacts
of those projects to less than significant levels; therefore, significant cumulative water quality impacts are not
anticipated, and project water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Drainage Impacts
Cumulative development projects in accordance with the City's General Plan within the Santa Ana River
Basin would change amounts of impervious surfaces and thus change amounts of runoff entering storm
drainage systems within the watershed. Priority development projects as defined in the MS4 Permit would be
required to infiltrate, filter, or treat runoff flow rates or volumes specified in the MS4 Permit. Therefore,
October 2014 Page 5.7 -27
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
cumulative projects in conjunction with individual development projects that would be accommodated by the
Harbor Corridor Plan are not expected to cause substantial cumulative impacts to storm drainage capacity in
the region.
Flood Hazard Impacts
Cumulative projects would increase the numbers of people and buildings in 100 -year flood zones and in dam
inundation zones within the Santa Ana. River Watershed. Flood control improvements along the Santa Ana
River would reduce hazards from 100 year floods and from potential dam inundation throughout 100 year
flood zones in the Santa Ana River Watershed in Orange County, and throughout the dam inundation zone
for Prado Dam. Therefore, the proposed projects flood hazard impacts would not be cumulatively
considerable.
5.7.5 Existing Regulations
State
General Construction Activity Permit, Order No. 2009- 0009 -DWQ; NPDES No. CAS000002
City of Santa Ana
MS4 NPDES permit
Drainage Area Master Plan Fees
5.7.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts
would be less than significant: 5.7 -1, 5.7 -2, and 5.7 -7.
Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant:
Impact 5.7 -3 Significant impacts to the storm drain system in the project area could occur as a
result of project implementation.
Impact 5.7 -4 Construction could result in a short -term increase in pollutant concentrations in
runoff.
Impact 5.7 -5 Project implementation could result in a change to the quality of stormwater runoff
Impact 5.7 -6 Individual projects within the Harbor Corridor Plan may be located within a 100
year flood zone.
Page 5.7 -2% PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
5.7.7 Mitigation Measures
Impact 5.7 -3
1 Prior to issuance of grading permits for future development projects in the Harbor Corridor
Plan, applicants shall submit site - specific hydrology and hydraulic Studies to the Public
Works Agency for review and approval. If existing facilities are not adequate to handle
runoff generated by the proposed development, then the applicant shall construct storm
drain improvements. T€-a Storm drain upgrades shallearfftet be implemented prior
to issuance of occupancy permits, ,
7 -2 During the design of individual projects, applicants shall minimize impervious area by
incorporating landscaped areas over substantial portions of a proposed project area.
Furthermore, impervious areas shall be directly connected to landscaped areas or
bioretention facilities to promote filtration and infiltration of stormwater. The nwhcant
must comply with the latest Orange County Model Water Quality Management Plan
WOMP.
Impact 5.7 -4
3 Notice of Intent (NOI). Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for construction sites
with a disturbed area of one or more acres, the project applicant shall provide the City
Engineer with evidence that a NOI has been filed with the State Water Resources Control
Board. Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the State Water
Resources Control Board or Regional Water Quality Control Board, or a letter from either
agency stating that the NOI has been filed.
7 -4 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Prior to the issuance of grading
permits for construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres, the project
applicant shall prepare a SWPPP that will:
Require implementation of best management practices (BMPs) designed with a goal of
preventing a net increase in sediment load in stormwater discharges relative to
preconstruction levels;
During the construction period, prohibit discbarges of stormwater or non -storm water
at levels which would cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable water quality
standards contained in the Basin Plan;
Discuss in detail the BMPs planned for the project related to control of sediment and
erosion, nonsediment pollutants, and potential pollutants in non -storm water discharges;
Describe post construction BMPs for the project;
October 2014 Page 5.7 -29
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Explain the maintenance program for the projects BMPs;
During construction, require reporting of violations to the Regional Board;
List the parties responsible for SWPPP implementation and BMP maintenance during
and after grading. The project proponent shall implement the SWPPP and will modify
the SWPPP as directed by the Storm Water Permit.
Impact 5.7 -5
5 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Prior to the issuance of building permits,
project specific WQMPs shall be submitted for review and approved by the Building
Department. The WQMP shall identify the best management practices (BMPs) that will be
used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff More specifically, the WQMP shall:
Describe the routine and special post construction BMPs to be used at the proposed
development site (including both structural and non - structural measures);
Describe responsibility for the initial implementation and long -term maintenance of the
BMPs;
Provide narrative with the graphic materials as necessary to specify the locations of the
structural BMPs;
Certify that the project applicant will seek to have the WQMP carried out by all future
successors or assigns to the property.
Impact 5.7 -6
Mitigation Measure 7 -1 applies.
7 -6 Prior to the issuance of precise grading permit for any lot or parcel wholly or partially
located within the 100 -year floodplain, the applicant shall furnish to the City Engineer
documentation required by FEMA for approval of the Conditional Letter of Map
Revision /Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR /LOMR) process. The FEMA for revision to the
FIRM and Flood Insurance Study (FIS). The applicant shall pay all preliminary and
subsequent fees as required by FEMA.
5.7.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures identified above would
reduce potential impacts associated with hydrology and water quality to a less than significant level.
Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to hydrology and water quality have been
identified.
Page 5.7 -30 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
5.7.9 References
Coast Community College District (CCCD). 2012. Hazard Mitigation Plan. III -D — Dam Failure.
http: //w ..cccd.edu /haz d_mitigation /docs / Community %2OForum %20PP.pdf.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009a, December 3. Flood Zone Map 06059CO256J.
http: / /mapl.msc.fema.gov /idms /IntraVie ..cgi ?KEY- 84033771&IFIT —l.
2009a, December 3. Flood Zone Map 06059C0143J.
http: / /mapl.msc.fema.gov /idms /IntraVie ..cgi ?KEY- 65262003&IFIT —l.
IBI Group (1131). 2013, March 18. Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor. Drainage Study.
Malcolm Punic. 2011, June. Municipal Water District of Orange County: 2010 Final Urban Water
Management Plan. http: //w .. mwdoc. com/ filsgallery /MWDOC_Final_2010_RUWMP.pdf.
National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC). 2001. Chlordane.
http://npic.orst.edu/factshmts/cblordmegen.pdf.
OC Public Works. 2013, July 3. East Garden Grove- Wintersburg Channel Improvement Project.
http: / /ocflood.com /nfc /projects / construction /east —g rden— rove_faciiity_cO5 /.
The Planning Center I DC&E. 2013, February. Initial Study for: Pacific Technology School.
Santa Ana RegionalWater Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). 2008, February. Water Quality Control Plan
for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan).
http: //w ..swrcb .ca.gov /r gcb8 /water_issues/ programs /basin_plan/index.shtml.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011a, December 21. 2010 Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
List. http: //w ..waterboards.m.gov /water_ issues / programs /tmdl /integrated2010.shtrnl.
2011b, April 18. Aldrin /Dieldrin. http: //w ..epa.gov /pbt /pubs /alclrin.htm.
2004, September. Water Permitting 101. http: //w ..epa.gov /npdes /pubs /101pape.pdf.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013. Dam Safety Pmgram — Prado Dam.
http: //w ..spl.usam.armyrnii /Missions /CivilWorks/ Media /FactShmts /tabid /1321 /Article /2710 /dam-
safety- program. aspx.
1985, August. Prado Dam Emergency Inundation Map, Plate No. 4.
October 2014 Page 5.7 -31
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Tbisliage intentionally left blank.
Page 5.7 -32 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
5.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential impacts to land use in the
City of Santa Ana from implementation of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan. This
section is based on the proposed zoning designations and land uses described in detail in Chapter 3, Project
Desenpfion, and shown in Figure 3 -4, Proposed Land Use Districts and Zoning Designations. The proposed project
has been evaluated to determine its consistency with relevant goals and policies of the City of Santa Ana
General Plan and for consistency with the City's zoning code. In addition, the proposed project has been
evaluated for consistency with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS) and Compass Growth Vision.
Land use impacts can be direct or indirect. Direct impacts are land use incompatibilities, division of
neighborhoods or communities, or interference with other land use plans, including habitat or wildlife
conservation plans. This section focuses on direct land use impacts. Indirect impacts are secondary effects
resulting from land use policy implementation, such as an increase in demand for public utilities or services,
or increased traffic on roadways. Indirect impacts are addressed in other topical sections of this EIR.
5.8.1 Environmental Setting
As shown in Figures 3 -2, Local Vicinity, and 3 -3, Aerial Photograph, the project area comprises approximately
425 acres oriented to Harbor Boulevard in the City of Santa Ana, which is in central Orange County. The
project area generally includes parcels adjacent to Harbor Boulevard between Westminster Avenue and Lilac
Way and parcels along Westminster Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street one -half mile east of Harbor
Boulevard. The corridor's northern and southern ends are adjacent to the city boundaries of Garden Grove
and Fountain Valley, respectively.
Existing Land Uses
The project area currently contains roughly two million square feet of commercial uses distributed fairly
evenly along the corridor. Existing commercial uses occur both at midblock locations and at intersections and
are dominated by auto service and sales, but also include grocery stores, service businesses, and restaurants.
The project area contains 739 residential units, including multifamily residential and mobile home
communities accessed from Harbor Boulevard and single - family residential areas along Jackson Street. The
project area also contains the Willowick Golf Course (an operating 18 hole public golf course), Cesar
Chavez /Campesino Park, and Santa Anita Park. Existing uses are shown in Figure 3 -3, AerialPhotograph.
Surrounding Land Uses
The project area is in a highly urban, built out portion of the City. It is generally surrounded by residential
uses, which vary widely in character and density and include single - family neighborhoods, apartment
complexes, and mobile home communities. Most of the surrounding residential uses are accessed from
streets perpendicular to Harbor Boulevard and not from Harbor Boulevard itself.
October 2014 Page 5.8 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations
Zoning
Adopted in 1992, the North Harbor Specific Plan (NHSP) planned for approximately 345 residential units
and five million square feet of commercial uses on 425 acres. Under the NHSP, land within the project area
falls under seven specific plan zoning districts: General Commercial, Recreational Vehicle /Automotive,
Entertainment, Industrial, Open Space, Single Family Residential, and Townhomes. The existing zoning
designations for the project area are also shown in Figure 41, Current Zoning Designations.
General Plan
General Plan designations for the project area include: Low Density Residential (LR -7), Low Medium Density
Residential (I.MR -11), Medium Density Residential (MR 15), General Commercial (GC), Industrial (IND),
and Open Space (0). A vast majority of the project area, including most parcels adjacent to Harbor
Boulevard, McFadden Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street, are designated for General Commercial uses. The
largest exceptions are the Willowick Golf Course, which is designated for Open Space uses, and the
northeastern portion of the area along Westminster Avenue, which is designated for Office uses.
The Santa Ana General Plan also discusses the NHSP and its application to the project area. It states that the
NHSP was intended to promote commercial development along Harbor Boulevard while minimizing land use
incompatibilities.
Applicable Plans and Regulations
Regional and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project
are summarized below.
Regional
Soutbem Cahfomra Assoeiaaon of Govemments
SCAG is a council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,
and Ventura counties. SCAG is the federally recognized metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for this
region, which encompasses over 38,000 square miles. SCAG is a regional planning agency and a forum for
addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the
environment. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation
under federal and state law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to
analyze then impacts on regional planning programs. As the southern California region's MPO, SCAG
cooperates with the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents.
SCAG has developed regional plans to achieve specific regional objectives. The plans most applicable to the
proposed project are discussed below.
The proposed project is considered a project of regionwide significance pursuant to the criteria outlined in
SCAG's Intergovernmental Review Procedures Handbook November 1995 and Section 15206 of the
Page 5.% -2 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as it encompasses more than 500 residential units.
Therefore, this section addresses the project's consistency with the applicable regional planning guidelines and
policies.
Regional Transportation Ilan /Sustarnable Communities Strategy
On April 4, 2012, SCAG adopted the 2012 -2035 RTP /SCS: Towards a Sustainable Future. SCAG has placed
a greater emphasis than ever on sustamability and integrated planning in the 2012 -2035 RTP /SCS. The
2012 -2035 RTP /SCS vision encompasses three principles that collectively work as the key to the region's
future: mobility, economy, and sustamability. The 2012 -2035 RTP /SCS includes a strong commitment to
reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with Senate Bill 375, improve public health, and
meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards as set forth by the federal Clean Air Act. The 2012 -2035
RTP /SCS provides a blueprint for improving quality of life for residents by providing more choices for
where they will live, work, and play and how they will move around (SCAG 2012).
Compass Growth Vision
In 2004, SCAG adopted the Compass Growth Vision (CGV), which is a response, supported by a regional
consensus, to the land use and transportation challenges facing southern California. SCAG developed the
CGV in an effort to maintain the region's prosperity, continue to expand its economy, house its residents
affordably, and protect its environmental setting as a whole. The CGV is a framework that helps local
jurisdictions address growth management cooperatively and also helps coordinate regional land use and
transportation planning.
In conjunction with the CGV, SCAG also adopted the Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy, which is the part of
the 2004 regional growth forecast policy that attempts to reduce emissions and increase mobility through
strategic land use changes. The 2% Strategy is a guideline for how and where the CGV for southern
California's future can be implemented toward improving measures of mobility, livability, prosperity, and
sustainability for local neighborhoods and their residents. Through extensive public participation and land use
and transportation modeling and analysis, the program has resulted in a plan that identifies strategic growth
opportunity areas (2% Strategy Opportunity Areas). These opportunity areas are roughly 2 percent of the
land area in the southern California region.
With the adoption of the 2012 RTP /SCS, the areas previously known as 2% Strategy Opportunity Areas
were updated by SCAG and replaced with what are now called High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs), which
are a part of, and integrated into, the SCS portion (Chapter 4) of the 2012 RTP /SCS. An HQTA is generally
a walkable transit village or corridor that is within a half mile of a well- serviced transit stop or a transit
corridor with 15 minute or less service frequency during peak commute hours. The overall land use pattern
of the 2012 RTP /SCS focuses jobs and housing in the region's designated HQTA (SCAG 2013). The
majority of the project area is designated a HQTA (SCAG 2013).
5.8.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
October 2014 Page 5.% -3
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
LU -1 Physically divide an established community.
LU -2 Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
Program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
LU -3 Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds
would be less than significant: LU -1 and LU -3.
5.8.3 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.8 -1: Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not conflict
with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating and environmental
effect. [Threshold LU -21
Impact Analysis: The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would replace the existing 425 -
acre NHSP. The plan would change the NHSP so that the project would consist of two separate areas: 1) 305
acres within the boundaries of the existing NHSP generally along Harbor Boulevard (or "Harbor Corridor
Plan", and 2) 120 acres within the existing NHSP in the Willowick Golf Course area (or "Conventional
Zoning Area".
The Harbor Corridor Plan introduces land use and circulation changes to approximately 302 acres of the
NHSP, which includes 252 acres of parcelled lots and approximately 50 acres of right- of-way outside of
parcels. Land use changes under the Harbor Corridor Plan would replace the NHSP's zoning districts with
four Harbor Corridor Plan zones: Transit Node, Corridor, Neighborhood Transitional, and Open Space
described in detail in Chapter 3, Project Desaip ion). Each zone would include its own development standards,
preferred building and frontage types, landscape palette, and strategies promoting integration between new
development and the existing neighborhood.
Table 3 -1, Zoning and Buildout Projections far the Proposed Harbor Corridor Plan, outlines the proposed zoning
designations and summarizes buildout projections of the Harbor Corridor Plan. Proposed zoning is also
shown in Figure 34, Proposed Land Use Districts and Zoning Designations. Adoption of the Harbor Corridor Plan
would allow for the development of up to 4,623 residential units and 1,967,982 square feet of commercial
space within the plan. Buildout of the plan would generate 3,884 additional dwelling units, 15,327 new
residents, 13,721 additional square feet of commercial space, and approximately 173 additional employees in
the plan area over existing uses.
Page 5.84 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would also include improvements to Harbor Boulevard and its
cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Boulevard. Proposed improvements
include the enlargement of sidewalk and parkway areas to facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian travel along
Harbor Boulevard and efficient connections to the regional bicycle network The improvements would
maintain the same rights- of-way and number of travel lanes on the affected roadways.
The remaining 120 acres in the existing NHSP would to be extracted from the NHSP and converted to
conventional zoning. This area would not be included in the Harbor Corridor Plan. Land uses in the area
consist of the Willowick Golf Course and Cesar Chavez /Campesino Park, residential properties along
Jackson Street, and commercial properties along 5th Street. Zoning designations for the parcels in question
were determined based on existing conditions and would be adopted upon repeal of the NHSP. Willowick
Golf Course, Cesar Chavez /Campestno Park, and the properties in between would be zoned Open Space
Area (0), and residential properties along Jackson Street would be zoned Two Family Residential (R2). As
previously stated, no new development is expected in the conventional zoning area, and the proposed land
use designations are consistent with the existing developed condition. Therefore, removing this area from the
NHSP would not result in any land use compatibility impacts.
General Plan Consistency
Per the City's general plan, land use designations for the project area include: Low Density Residential (LR -'),
Low Medium Density Residential (LMR -11), Medium Density Residential (MR -15), General Commercial
GC), Industrial (IND), and Open Space (0). A vast majority of the project area, including most parcels
adjacent to Harbor Boulevard, McFadden Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street, are designated for General
Commercial uses. The largest exceptions are the Willowick Golf Course, which is designated for Open Space
uses, and the northeastern portion of the area along Westminster Avenue, which is designated for Office uses.
The City's general plan also discusses the NHSP and its application to the project area.
The proposed project requires a general plan amendment to designate land uses consistent with the proposed
zoning. A detailed analysis of Harbor Corridor Plan's consistency with the applicable policies of the various
elements of the City's general plan is in Table 5.8 -1. This analysis concludes that the proposed project would
be consistent with the applicable policies of the City's general plan. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not result in significant land use impacts to relevant general plan policies.
Table 5.8 -1 General Plan
Circulation Element
Policy 1A: Maintain at least a level of service "D" I Consistent: As outlined in Section 5.13, Transportation and Traffic, all intersections
on arterial street intersections, except in major would operate at a level of service D or better, and no significant traffic impacts would
development areas. occur with project implementation. Section 5.13 contains further information about the
proposed project's traffic and circulation improvements and an analysis of the project's
potential traffic impacts.
Policy 1.11: Minimize travel impediments on Consistent: Project implementafion would not cause any impediments to bicycle and
bicycle and pedestrian paths. pedestrian paths. In contrast, the proposed project would lead to the development of an
improved bicycle and pedestrian circulafion system along Harbor Boulevard and its
October 2014 Page 5.85
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 5.8 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Santa Ana
General Plan Policies Proect Compliance with Policy
cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Boulevard.
Proposed improvements include the enlargement of sidewalk and parkway areas to
facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian travel along Harbor Boulevard and efficient
connections to the local and regional bicycle network.
Policy 3.1: Support the efforts of regional, state, Consistent: Bravo! Route 543 —the new limited -stop Orange County Transportation
and federal agencies to enhance local and express Authority (OCTA) bus service along Harbor Boulevard—began operating June 10,
bus services. 2013, and is designed for more efficient travel down Harbor Boulevard. Project
implementation would not impede or affect OCTA's ability to provide adequate and
efficient bus service along Harbor Boulevard. No project design features would be
implemented that would intrude into or impede the existing bus stops or travel lanes that
are used by the buses. In contrast, the Harbor Corridor Plan outlines improvements
e.g., provisions for enhanced parkways and streetscapes) that would help enhance the
public right -of -way along the corridor, including the areas around and near existing bus
stops. Project implementation would also enhance OCTA's ability to increase ridership,
because the high -density and mixed -use residential uses permitted along the corridor
would increase the number of people that would use of multimodal forms of
transportation, including OCTA's Bravo! Route 543 and other local bus lines.
Policy 3.5: Enhance sidewalks and pedestrian Consistent: See response to Circulation Element Policy 1. 11, above.
systems to promote their use as a means oftravel.
The design and layout ofthe land uses in the Harbor Corridor Plan would encourage
safe and convenient pedestrian activity through the creation of pedestrian- scaled
development. Additionally, the enhancements called for along the existing roadway -
adjacent sidewalks (e.g., transition of existing sidewalks to parkway - separated
walkways) that front the corridor would help provide a safe, pedestrian- friendly
environment, with strong connectivity to adjacent commercial, residential, and mixed -
use areas.
Policy 3.6: Maximize the use of public rights-of-way Consistent: See responses to Circulation Element Policies 1.11 and 3.5, above.
for pedestrian and bicycle paths.
Policy 3.7: Support system enhancements and Consistent: See response to Circulation Element Policy 1.11, above.
bikeway support facilities that encourage bicycle
usage.
Policy 3.8: Develop bicycle paths that maximize Consistent: See response to Circulation Element Policy 1.11, above.
access to major activity centers, neighboring
jurisdictions, and regional bicycle paths.
Policy 5.2: Enhance street design standards to Consistent: The Harbor Corridor Plan includes streetscape development standards
promote attractive circulation corridors. and design guidelines geared toward the visual improvement of Harbor Boulevard and
its cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Boulevard.
More specifically, the plan calls for standards and guidelines that would enhance the
attractiveness ofthe corridor, such as the need for parkway - separated sidewalks and
enhanced landscaping treatments. The plan also calls for strong architectural and
landscape development standards and design guidelines for development proposed
along the corridor frontage (e.g., residential, commercial, mixed use), which would
ensure the provision of an enhanced and attractive corridor.
Conservation Element
Support local and regional land use and Consistent: See response to Policy 3.1, above. Additionally, as project implementation
transportation plans that increase mass transit is anticipated to increase the number of individuals thatwould seek to make use of
usage and reduce vehicle trips. OCTA's Bravo! Route 543 and other local bus lines, it is expected that the increase in
ridership would lead to a reduction in vehicle trips along the Harbor Boulevard corridor
and its cross - streets (5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster
Boulevard), as well as other roadways throughout the City and region.
Minimize changes in hydrology and pollutant I Consistent: The proposed project's impacts on hydrology and water quality are
Page 5. 86 PlaceWorkr
Table 5.8 -1 General Plan
General Plan Policies
structural and non - structural and Best Management
Practices to mitigate the projected increases in
pollutant loads and flows.
Ensure that post -development runoff rates and
velocities from a site have no significant adverse
impact on downstream erosion and stream habitat.
Element
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
rte .... ... ........... .... . ..,...,..,y .,..,....,..,. .,.. y. ,.., ..,.,,,.....,,... ,,..,.,...,,..,..,,.,
individual development projects would be required to comply with the City's National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements, including the submittal
and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and best management
practices. Additionally, hydrology studies and would be required for individual
development projects at the time development plans are submitted to the City for review
and approval.
Consistent: As noted above, hydrology studies would be required for individual
development projects at the time development plans are submitted to the City for review
and approval. The studies would be required to demonstrate that post -development
runoff rates and velocities from developmentsites would not have a significant adverse
impacton downstream erosion and stream habitat.
Refer to Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a detailed analysis of the
proposed projects potential impacts related to increased site runoff.
Provide energy efficient modes of transportation Consistent: The project area is served by OCTA's Bravo! Route 543 and other local
and fixed facilities to encourage transit, bicycle and bus lines, which would be readily available and accessible to future residents and
walking as regularly used modes of travel. workers that would be generated by the proposed project. Project implementation would
also lead to the development of an improved bicycle and pedestrian circulation system
along Harbor Boulevard and its cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue,
and Westminster Boulevard. Proposed improvements include the enlargement of
sidewalk and parkway areas to facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian travel along Harbor
Boulevard and efficient connections to the local and regional bicycle network.
Encourage higher densities of housing and office Consistent: Project implementation would permit the development of a mix of rental
mixed use) development to relate to areas of and for sale higher -density housing and mixed -use development opportunities along the
higher transportation access and capacity. corridor. For example, the proposed Transit Node zone is characterized by a wide
range of building intensity, including mixed -use flex blocks, liners, stacked flats,
courtyard housing, and live -work units. The zone accommodates retail, restaurant,
entertainment, and other pedestrian -oriented uses at street level, with offices and flats
above in the mixed -use building types, at high intensities and densities. Additionally, the
proposed Corridor zone is applied to properties along Harbor Boulevard between bus
rapid transit stations and is intended to provide housing options and neighborhood
serving uses within walking distance of a transit node. The zone also identifies areas
set aside exclusively for moderate- and high -density residential projects.
Growth Manaqement Element
All new development shall pay its share ofthe Consistent: All new development would be required to pay its share of the street
street improvement costs associated with that improvement costs in accordance with adopted City regulations and ordinances.
development including regional traffic mitigation. Payment ofthe fees would be ensured during the City's building plan check and
development review process.
Refer to Section 5.13, Transportation and Traffic, for a detailed discussion of the
proposed projects local and regional traffic impacts.
October 2014 Page 5.8-7
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 5.8 -1 General Plan
General Plan Policies
Housinq Element
HE -2.3: Encourage the construction of rental Consistent: Project implementation would permit the development of a mix of rental
housing for Santa Ana's residents and workforce, and for sale higher -density housing development opportunities along the corridor. For
including a commitment to very low, low, and example, the proposed Transit Node zone is characterized by a wide range of building
moderate income residents and moderate income intensity, including mixed -use flex blocks, liners, stacked flats, courtyard housing, and
Santa Ana workers. live -work units. Additionally, the proposed Corridor zone identifies areas set aside
exclusively for moderate- and high -density residential projects to facilitate a range of
affordable housing options.
Section 5.10, Population and Housing, further information about the proposed project's
population and housing needs and impacts.
HE -2.4: Facilitate diverse types, prices, and sizes of Consistent: See response to Housing Element Policy HE -2.3, above.
housing, including single - family homes, apartments,
townhomes, mixed /multiuse housing, transit-
oriented housing, multigenerational housing, and
live -work opportunities.
HE -2.5: Require excellence in architectural design Consistent: The Harbor Corridor Plan calls forstrong architectural and landscape
through the use of materials and colors, building development standards and design guidelines for development proposed along the
treatments, landscaping, open space, parking, and corridor (e.g., residential, commercial, mixed use), which would ensure the provision of
environmentally sensitive ( "greenj building and an enhanced and attractive corridor. The standards and guidelines ouflined in the plan
design practices. would ensure the visual improvement of Harbor Boulevard and its surroundings.
Implementation of the standards and guidelines would be ensured during the City's
development review process as individual development projects are submitted to the
City for review and approval.
Land Use Element
Policy 1.6: Support "live /work" opportunities within Consistent: Project implementation would permit the development of a mix of housing
specifically defined areas. and mixed -use development opportunities along the corridor, including live -work. For
example, the proposed Transit Node zone is characterized by a wide range of building
intensity, including mixed -use flex blocks, liners, stacked flats, courtyard housing, and
live -work units.
Policy 1.9: Coordinate street and parkway designs Consistent: See responses to Circulation Element Policies 1.11, 3.5, and 5.2, above.
that are attractive, functional, and compatible with
adjacent onsite development.
Policy 2.2: Support commercial land uses in Consistent: Table 3 -1, Zoning and Buildout Projections for the Proposed Harbor
adequate amounts to accommodate the City's Corridor Plan, outlines the proposed zoning designations and summarizes buildout
needs for goads and services. projections of the plan. Buildout ofthe Harbor Corridor Plan would generate up to
13,721 additional square feet of commercial space and approximately 173 additional
employees in the plan area over existing uses. The proposed Transit Node zone
accommodates retail, restaurant, entertainment, and other pedestrian -oriented uses at
street level.
Policy 2.4: Support pedestrian access between Consistent: Project implementation would support pedestrian access between
commercial uses and residential neighborhoods commercial uses and nearby residential neighborhoods. The mix of commercial uses
which are in close proximity. up to 13,721 additional square feet) that would be accommodated along Harbor
Boulevard as a result of project development would not only be within walking distance
of the residential uses permitted by the proposed project, but also within walking
distance ofthe adjacent and nearby residential neighborhoods that abut and surround
the project area. Additionally, the enhancements called for along the existing roadway -
adjacent sidewalks (e.g., transition of existing sidewalks to parkway - separated
walkways) that front the corridor would help provide a safe, pedestrian- friendly
environment, with strong connectivity to adjacent commercial, residential, and mixed -
use areas. Furthermore, the design and layout of the land uses outlined in the Harbor
Page 5.%-% PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 5.8 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Santa Ana
General Plan Policies Proect Compliance with Policy
Corridor Plan would encourage safe and convenient pedestrian activity through the
creation of pedestrian - scaled development.
Policy 2.6: Encourage the creation of new Consistent: See responses to Land Use Element Policies 2.2 and 2.4, above.
employment opportunities in developments which
are compatible with surrounding land uses, and
provide a net community benefit.
Policy 2.10: Support new development which is Consistent: Project implementation would allow for the development of a mix of
harmonious in scale and character with existing residential, commercial, and mixed uses that would be harmonious in scale and
development in the area. character with existing development along Harbor Boulevard and the surrounding
neighborhoods. A transition of land uses would be implemented under the proposed
project to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. For example, the
Neighborhood Transitional zone provides standards for development that transitions
between the single - family neighborhoods to the north and south of 1st and 5th streets
and the corridor and transit node zones.
The Harbor Corridor Plan also calls forstrong architectural and landscape development
standards and design guidelines for development proposed along the corridor (e.g.,
residential, commercial, mixed use), which would help enhance the visual character of
notonly the corridor, but also of the adjacent and surrounding neighborhoods. The
standards and guidelines in the plan would ensure the visual improvement of Harbor
Boulevard and its surroundings. Implementation of the standards and guidelines would
be ensured during the City's development review process as individual development
projects are submitted to the City.
Policy 3.1: Support development which provides a Consistent: See response to Land Use Element Policy 2.10, above.
positive contribution to neighborhood character and
identity.
Policy 4.5: Encourage development ofemployment Consistent: Project implementation would allow for the development of a mix of
centers and mixed -use projects within targeted residential, commercial, and mixed uses along Harbor Boulevard. The project area is
areas adjacent to major arterial roadways, transit served by OCTA's Bravo! Route 543 and other local bus lines, which would be readily
and freeway corridors. available and accessible to future residents and workers that would be generated by the
proposed project.
Policy 5.5: Encourage development which is Consistent: See response to Land Use Element Policy 2. 10, above.
compatible with, and supportive of surrounding land
uses.
Policy 5.10: Support a circulation system which is Consistent: The proposed projectwould lead to the developmentof an improved pedestrian
responsive to the needs of pedestrians and circulation system along Harbor Boulevard and its cross-streets: 5th Street, 1st Street,
vehicular travel. McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Boulevard. Proposed improvements include the
enlargement ofsidewalk and parkway areas to facilitate safe pedestrian travel along Harbor
Boulevard. The Harbor Condor Plan also calls for development standards and design
guidelines applicable to the proposed project's pedestrian and vehicular circulation system
improvements. All new access drives, roadways, and circulation improvements would be
designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and guidelines in the plan to
ensure that an efficient and safevehicular circulation system is provided.
Policy 5.11: Encourage development which does Consistent: Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would not lead to the
not generate obnoxious fumes, toxins, or hazardous development of uses that would generate obnoxious fumes, toxins, or hazardous
materials. materials, such as industrial plants or manufacturing businesses. Project
implementation calls for the development of residential, commercial, and mixed uses.
Commercial uses would include retail, restaurant, entertainment, and other pedestrian -
oriented uses at street level.
Sections 5.1, Air Quality, and 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, provide a discussion on
potential project impacts related to odors and hazardous materials, respectively.
October 2014 Page 5.% -9
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 5.8 -1 General Plan
General Plan Policies
Noise Element
Require consideration of noise generation potential Consistent: A detailed noise analysis (construction and operation related) was
and susceptibility to noise impacts in the sitting, completed for the proposed project and is included in Appendix G of this EIR.
design and construction of newdevelopments. Additionally, refer to Section 5.9, Noise, for a detailed noise analysis and the proposed
project's design features/elements and mitigation measures that would ensure minimal
noise impacts. As outlined in Section 5.9, project implementation would ensure that all
individual development projects adhere to applicable exterior and interior noise
standards during construction and operation.
Urban Design Element
Policy 1.1: New development and redevelopment Consistent: The Harbor Corridor Plan calls for strong architectural and landscape
projects must have the highest quality design, development standards and design guidelines for development proposed along the
materials, finishes, and construction. corridor (e.g., residential, commercial, mixed use), which would ensure that individual
development projects provide the highest quality design, materials, finishes, and
construction. Implementation of the standards and guidelines would be ensured dudng
the City's development review process as individual development projects are
submitted to the City for review and approval.
Policy 1.5: Enhanced architectural forms, textures, Consistent: See response to Urban Design Element Policy 1.1, above.
colors materials are expected in the design of
all projects.
Policy 1.11: Visual and physical links between Consistent: Projectimplementation callsforthe development ofvisual and physical links
districts, nodes, significant sites, landmarks, and along the various areas of the condor and its surroundings. Visual links would be provided in
other points of interest, are to be provided in all the form ofenhanced landscaping and architectural improvements. Forexample, the Harbor
public and private projects. Condor Plan outlines improvements (e.g., provisions for enhanced parkways and
streetscapes) thatwould help enhance the visual and physical linkages and quality along the
corridor and to surrounding areas. The plan also callsfor strong architectural and landscape
development standards and design guidelines for development proposed along the corridor
e.g., residential, commercial, mixed use), which would help enhance the visual character of
not only the condor, but the adjacent and surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy 2.1: Projects must acknowledge and Consistent: See responses to Urban Design Element Policies 1.1 and 1.11, above.
improve upon their surroundings with the use of
creative architectural design, streetscape
treatments, and landscaping.
Policy 2.2: New development must be consistent Consistent: The mix of residential, commercial, and mixed usesthat would be permitted
with the scale, bulk, and pattern of existing underthe Harbor Corridor Plan would be consistent and compatible with the existing uses
development. along thecondor and its surroundings. The plan alsocalls forstrong architectural and
landscape development standards and design guidelines fordevelopment proposed along
the corridor (e.g., residential, commercial, mixed use), which would regulate the scale, bulk,
design, and layout ofindividual development projects.
Policy 3.1: Landscaping will be promoted on Consistent: The Harbor Corridor Plan includes streetscape development standards
freeway slopes, roadway medians, and parkways. and design guidelines geared toward the visual improvement of Harbor Boulevard and
its cross - streets: FifSthth Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster
Boulevard. More specifically, the plan calls for standards and guidelines that would
enhance the attractiveness of the corridor, such as parkway - separated sidewalks and
enhanced landscaping treatments. The plan also calls for strong architectural and
landscape development standards and design guidelines for development proposed
along the corridor (e.g., residential, commercial, mixed use), which would ensure an
enhanced and attractive corridor.
Policy 3.2: Street improvements and adjacent Consistent: See responses to Urban Design Element Policies 1.11 and 3.1, above.
development, should be consistently designed to
eliminate a haphazard look and visual clutter along
corridors.
Page 5.% -10 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 5.8 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Santa Ana
General Plan Policies Proect Compliance with Policy
Policy 3.3: Enhanced streetscapes, architectural Consistent: See responses to Urban Design Element Policies 1.11 and 3. 1, above.
themes, and landscaping are to be provided to
visually strengthen the path and enhance adjacent
development.
Policy 3.4: Stroetscape improvements are to be Consistent: See responses to Urban Design Element Policies 1.11 and 3. 1, above.
redesigned to provide a pleasant and safe Additionally, the proposed project would lead to the development ofan improved
environment and to improve pedestrian circulation. pedestrian circulation system along Harbor Boulevard and its cross - streets: 5th Street,
1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Boulevard. Proposed improvements
include the enlargement of sidewalk and parkway areas to facilitate safe pedestrian
travel along Harbor Boulevard and the surrounding pedestrian network.
Policy 3.6: Stroetscape design should be used to Consistent: See response to Urban Design Element Policy 1.1, above.
link major destination points, landmarks, and local
activity nodes.
Policy 3.10: Safe and pleasant bicycle and Consistent: See responses to Circulation Element Policy 1.11 and Urban Design
pedestrian routes are to be provided and they Element Policy 1.1, above.
should link activity nodes and places of interest.
Policy 3.11: Maximize the use of street trees and Consistent: See response to Urban Design Element Policy 3.1, above.
parkway landscaping to create a pleasant travel
experience and positive City image.
Soumz: SantaAna General Plan.
Zoning Code Consistency
Existing zoning for the project area is covered under the NHSP, which was adopted by the City in 1992.
Under the NHSP, land within the project area falls under seven specific plan zoning districts: General
Commercial, Recreational Vehicle /Automotive, Entertainment, Industrial, Open Space, Single Family
Residential, and Townhomes. Land use changes under the Harbor Corridor Plan (252 acres of parcelled lots
and 50 acres of nonparcelled right-of-way within the NHSP) would involve replacing the NHSP's zoning
districts for the area covered under the Harbor corridor plan with four zones: Transit Node, Corridor,
Neighborhood Transitional, and Open Space (described in detail in Chapter 3, Project Descrip ion). Each zone
would include its own development standards, preferred building and frontage types, landscape palette, and
strategies promoting integration between new development and the existing neighborhood. The remaining
120 acres within the existing NHSP is proposed to be extracted from the NHSP and converted to
conventional zoning. W&owick Golf Course, Cesar Chavez /Campesmo Park, and the properties in between
would be zoned Open Space Area (0), and residential properties along Jackson Street would be zoned Two
Family Residential (R2).
Local jurisdictions may adopt specific plans by resolution or ordinance. The Harbor Corridor Plan (which
would replace the existing NHSP) would be adopted by ordinance and would serve as the zoning for the
project area. The provisions in the Harbor Corridor Plan would control the use and development of property
in the plan area to the same extent as if set forth in in the City's Zoning Code. The plan would be the
regulatory document that the City of Santa Ana would use to guide development within the project area,
systematically implement the City's general plan, and help maintain consistency with and carry out the goals,
October 2014 Page 5.8-11
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
objectives, and policies of the general plan. The plan would provide flexibility; innovative use of land
resources and development; a variety of housing and other development types; and an equitable method of
vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access for development of the project area. Additionally, the plan would
establish the necessary plans, development standards (cg., parking requirements, setbacks, building heights,
etc), regulations, infrastructure requirements, design guidelines (e.g., architectural styles, landscaping, etc),
financing methods, and implementation programs for subsequent, project related development activities. The
plan would combine these necessary components into a single document that would be tailored to meet the
needs of the project area. It is intended that local public works projects, design review plans, detailed site
plans, grading and building permits, or any other action requiring ministerial or discretionary approval
applicable to the project site be consistent with the Harbor Corridor Plan.
The remaining 120 acres within the existing NHSP that would be converted to conventional zoning would be
regulated by the provisions of the Open Space Area (0) and Two Family Residential (R2) zoning designations
of the City's zoning code, as well as applicable provisions outlined in other sections of the zoning code.
SCAG 2012 -2035 RTP /SCS Consistency
Table 5.8 -2 provides an assessment of the proposed project's relationship to pertinent 2012 -2035 SCAG
RTP /SCS goals. The analysis in Table 5.8 -2 concludes that the proposed project would be consistent with the
applicable RTP /SCS goals. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant
land use impacts related to relevant RTP /SCS goals.
Table 5.8 -2 Consistency with SCAG's 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable
Communities Strategy Goals
RTPISCS Gl: Align the plan investments and Nat Applicable: This is not a project- specific goal and is therefore not applicable.
policies with improving regional economic
development and competitiveness.
RTPISCS G2: Maximize mobility and accessibility
for all people and goads in the region.
RTPISCS G3: Ensure travel safety and reliability for
all people and goods in the region.
RTPISCS G4: Preserve and ensure a sustainable
regional transportation system.
RTPISCS G5: Maximize the productivity ofour
transportation system.
Consistent. Project implementation would maximize mobility accessibility, travel safety,
and reliability for people and goads. The vehicular and pedestrian circulation
improvements called for in the Harbor Corridor Plan would be designed, developed, and
maintained to meet the needs of local and regional transportation and to ensure efficient
mobility and accessibility. A numberof regional and local plans and programs (e.g.,
Orange County Congestion Management Program, Caltrans Traffic Impact Studies
Guidelines, and City of Santa Ana Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines) would be used to
guide development and maintenance of traffic and circulation improvements along the
corridor and its surrounding roadway network.
All modes of public and commercial transit throughout the corridor would be required to
follow safety standards set by corresponding state, regional, and local regulatory
documents. For example, pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes must follow safety
precautions and standards established by local (e.g., City of Santa Ana, County of
Orange) and regional (e.g., SCAG, Caltrans) agencies. Roadways for motorists must
follow safety standards established for the local and regional plans noted above.
All new roadway developments and improvements to the existing transportation
networks along the corridor must be assessed with some level of traffic analysis (e.g.,
traffic assessments, traffic impact studies) to determine how individual development
oroiects accommodated by the or000sed oroiect would imoact existing traffic caoacities
Page 5.8 -12 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 5.8 -2 Consistency with SCAG's 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable
Communities Strategy Goals
RTP /SCS Goal Proem compliance with Goal
regional plans mentioned above would be applicable to the design and development of
any proposed roadway improvements.
The proposed project would also help ensure a sustainable transportation system and
help maximize the productivity ofthe transportation system. For example, project
implementation would lead to the development of an improved bicycle and pedestrian
circulation system along Harbor Boulevard and its cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street,
McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Boulevard. Proposed improvements include the
enlargement of sidewalk and parkway areas to facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian
travel along Harbor Boulevard and efficient connections to the local and regional bicycle
network. The project area is also served by OCTA's Bravo! Route 543 and other local
bus lines.
RTPISCS G6: Protect the environment and health Consistent. The CEOA process ensures that plans at all levels ofgovernment consider
of our residents by improving air quality and all environmental impacts. Various sections of this EIR appropriately address the
encouraging active transportation (non{notorized potential environmental impacts related to development of the proposed project. For
transportation, such as bicycling and walking). example, Sections 5.2, Air Quality, and 5.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, address air
quality, energy, and global climate impacts that would occur as a result of
implementation of the proposed project, and apply mitigation measures and regulatory
requirements to reduce any impacts, as applicable and feasible.
The reduction of energy use, improvement of air quality, and promotion of more
environmentally sustainable development would be encouraged through the
development of alternative transportation methods, green design techniques for
buildings, and otherenergy-reducing techniques. For example, individual development
projects accommodated by the proposed project would be required to comply with the
provisions of the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and the 2010 Green
Building Standards Cade (CALGreen). Compliance with these provisions would be
ensured through the City's development review and building plan check process.
Project implementation would also strive to maximize the protection ofthe environment
and improvement of air quality by encouraging and improving the use of the region's
public transportation system (.e., bus and bicycle) for residents and workers that would
be generated by the proposed project. As noted above under RTP Goals G2 through
G5, the proposed project calls for the enhancement ofthe existing pedestrian and
bicycle circulation system. The project area is also served by OCTA's Bravo! Route 543
and other local bus lines.
Further, the close proximity of existing and future housing units along the corridor and
its surroundings to existing employment and commercial uses and also future
commercial and mixed uses envisioned by the Harbor Corridor Plan would reduce
vehicle miles traveled by offering alternative modes of traveling (e.g., walking, bicycling)
throughout the corridor and surrounding area, thereby reducing air quality and traffic
impacts and greenhouse gas emissions.
RTPISCS G7: Actively encourage and create Not Applicable: This is not a project- specific goal and is therefore not applicable.
incentives for energy efficiency, where possible.
RTPISCS G8: Encourage land use and growth Consistent. See response to RTP /SCS Goals G2 through G5.
patterns that facilitate transit and non - motorized
transportation.
RTPISCS G9: Maximize the security ofour NotApplicable: This is not a project- specific goal and is therefore not applicable.
transportation system through improved system
monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and
coordination with other security agencies.
Soumz: 2012 -2305 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy.
October 2014 Page 5.8-13
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
SCAG Compass Blueprint Consistency Analysis
Table 5.8 -3 provides an assessment of the proposed project's relationship to advisory SCAG Compass
Blueprint principles. The analysis in Table 5.8 -3 concludes that the proposed project would be consistent with
the advisory SCAG Compass Blueprint principles. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would
not result in significant land use impacts related to the advisory SCAG principals.
Table 5.8 -3 SCAG Compass Growth Vision
for All Residents
GV P1.1: Encourage transportation investments
and land use decisions that are mutually
supportive.
GV P1.2: Locate new housing near existing jobs
and new jobs near existing housing.
with
Consistent: See responses to RTP /SCS Goals G2 through G5 in Table 5.8 -2, above,
and Compass Blueprint Principle GV P1.3, below.
Land uses and any public transportation investments, including traffic and circulation
improvements, that would be accommodated by the proposed project would
complement each other and would follow overarching goals of local and regional
transportation plans. For example, future project residents and workers would have
access to adequate multimodal forms of transportation, including OCTA's Bravo!
Route 543 and other local bus lines, thereby providing residents and employees with a
convenient and altemative way to commute to jobs and locations throughout the
corridor and beyond. Residents and employees would also have access to a
pedestrian and bicycle circulation system. The proposed project would lead to the
development of an improved bicycle and pedestrian circulation system along Harbor
Boulevard and its cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and
Westminster Boulevard. Proposed improvements include the enlargement of sidewalk
and parkway areas to facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian travel along Harbor
Boulevard and efficient connections to the local and regional bicycle network.
The City will also continue to work with OCTA to develop and enhance the transit
corridors along Harbor Boulevard (as needed) to maintain an acceptable level of
service, support the growth and diversity of land uses, and reduce the need for
additional vehicle trips.
Consistent: The proposed project would provide a mix of land uses with the capability
for people to live close to work, shopping, entertainment, and other support services
and uses. As outlined in the Harbor Corridor Plan, the housing types would include a
wide range of rental and for -sale housing. For example, the proposed Transit Node
zone would allow for the development of mixed -use flex blacks, liners, stacked flats,
courtyard housing, and live -work units. The zone also accommodates retail,
restaurant, entertainment, and other pedestrian -oriented uses at street level.
Additionally, the proposed Corridor zone is applied to properties along Harbor
Boulevard between bus rapid transit stations and is intended to provide housing
options and neighborhood serving uses within walking distance of a transit node. The
zone also identifies areas set aside exclusively for moderate- and high -density
residential projects.
The proposed project would provide new jobs near existing housing as well as new
housing near existing and future jobs. For example, because of the mixed -use nature
of the proposed project and the proposed array of retail, restaurant, entertainment,
and other pedestrian -oriented uses, the proposed housing units and existing housing
in the area would be adjacent to or near these jobs, providing residents with
convenient and easy access tojobs. Furthermore, future residents of the proposed
project would have access to OCTA's Bravo! Route 543 and other local bus lines,
providing residents and employees ofthe proposed project with a convenient and
alternative way to commute to jobs and locations throughout the project and
Page 5.8 -14 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 5.8 -3 SCAG Compass Growth Vision Consistency Analysis
Foster Livability in All Communities
GV P2.1: Promote infill development and
Revised Plan of development
Compass Blueprint Principles Compliance with Principle
surrounding areas.
GV P2.2: Promote developments, which provide a
The proposed project's impacts on housing and employment are discussed in detail in
mix of uses
Section 5.10, Population and Housing.
GV P1.3: Encourage transit -oriented development. Consistent: Project implementation encourages the use of public transportation that
communities.
supports transit -oriented development. See responses to Compass Growth Principles
GV P2.4: Support the preservation of stable,
GV P1.1 and 1.2, above.
GV P1.4: Promote a variety of travel choices. Consistent: See responses to Compass Growth Principles GV P1.1 and 1.2, above.
Foster Livability in All Communities
GV P2.1: Promote infill development and Consistent: Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would be consistent with this
redevelopment to revitalize existing communities. policy, since all development activity that would be accommodated by the Harbor plan
would involve infill development.
GV P2.2: Promote developments, which provide a Consistent: See response to Compass Blueprint Principle GV P1.2, above.
mix of uses
GV P2.3: Promote "people scaled," walkable Consistent: See responses to Compass Growth Principles GV P1.1 and 1.2, above.
communities.
GV P2.4: Support the preservation of stable, Consistent: The majority ofthe project area is surrounded by single - family
single - family neighborhoods. neighborhoods. Additionally, a portion of the project area has single - family residences
along Jackson Street. Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would help preserve
the existing surrounding single - family neighborhoods by facilitating and encouraging
balanced growth and minimizing adverse environmental impacts on these
neighborhoods through the use of buffers and transition zones to prevent the
placement of incompatible uses. Additionally, no development is proposed for the area
that comprises the single - family residences along Jackson Street. This area would be
zoned Two Family Residential (R2) and would therefore remain.
Enable Prosperity for All
GV P3.1: Provide, in each community, a variety of
housing types to meet the housing needs of all
income levels.
GV P3.2: Support educational opportunities that
promote balanced growth.
Consistent: Project implementation would permit the development of a mix of rental
and for -sale higher -density housing opportunities along the corridor. For example, the
proposed Transit Node zone is characterized by a wide range of building intensity,
including mixed -use flex blocks, liners, stacked flats, courtyard housing, and live -work
units. Additionally, the proposed Corridor zone identifies areas set aside exclusively
for moderate- and high -density residential projects to facilitate a range of affordable
housing options. The proposed housing types would accommodate a broad range of
income levels and lifestyles and respond to local and regional housing needs.
Additionally, the development standards and design guidelines outlined in the Harbor
Corridor Plan (e.g., permitted residential uses, densities, setbacks, and building
heights) would ensure that a diversity of housing types are developed, consistent with
the City's vision of creating an exemplary community environment forthe corridor.
Section 5.10, Population and Housing, contains further information about the proposed
project's population and housing needs and impacts.
Not Applicable: This is not a project- specific principle and is therefore not applicable
GV P3.3: Ensure environmental justice regardless Consistent: The proposed project strives to mitigate environmental impacts and in
of race, ethnicity or income class. doing so upholds environmental justice regardless of race, ethnicity, or income class.
For example, the Harbor Corridor Plan accommodates the development of a variety of
housing types, styles, tenure, and densities that are accessible to and meet
preferences for different residential types (e.g., stacked flats, courtyard housing, live -
work, rowhouses, mixed -use), lifestyles, physical abilities, and income levels, thereby
responding to a wide range local and regional housing needs.
October 2014 Page 58-15
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 5.8 -3 SCAG Compass Growth Vision Consistency Analysis
Promote Sustainability for Future Generations
GV P4.1: Preserve rural, agricultural, recreational,
Revised Plan of Development
Compass Blueprint Principles Compliance with Principle
Additionally, a variety of transportation modes currently exist and would be made
available to future residents and workers that would be generated by the proposed
project, including bicycle and bus routes, thereby offering access to the proposed land
GV P4.2: Focus development in urban centers
uses to a broad range of income levels.
and existing cities.
Furthermore, implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would to not only improve
GV P4.3: Develop strategies to accommodate
the prosperity of the existing uses along the corridor, but would also improve the
growth that uses resources efficiently, eliminate
prosperity and quality of life of the existing surrounding residential communities by
pollution and significantly reduce waste.
facilitating and encouraging balanced growth and minimizing adverse environmental
impacts through the use of buffers and transition zones to prevent the placement of
incompatible uses.
GV P3.4: Support local and state fiscal policies Consistent: The Harbor Corridor Plan facilitates and encourages balanced growth
that encourage balanced growth. throughout the corridor through the development of a unique mix of uses that would
provide for residential, retail, entertainment, restaurant, and other support uses. The
Harbor Corridor Plan would also follow applicable local and state policies thatguide
GV P4.4: Utilize "green" development techniques
the responsible growth ofthe corridor.
GV P3.5: Encourage civic engagement Consistent: As part of the project process, residents and business owners are
actively encouraged to participate through notices, meetings, and workshops.
Additionally, the CEOA process and the City's development review process, by their
very nature, foster civic involvement and public participation. Furthermore, the
proposed project promotes social and civic engagement through inclusion of a mix of
uses (e.g., retail, restaurant, entertainment, and other pedestrian -oriented uses at
street level), which would foster community interaction.
Promote Sustainability for Future Generations
GV P4.1: Preserve rural, agricultural, recreational, Consistent: There are no rural, agricultural, or environmentally sensitive areas within
and environmentally sensitive areas. the project area. However, the project area contains the Willowick Golf Course (an
operating 18 -hole public golf course), Cesar Chavez /Campesino Park, and Santa
Anita Park. Under the proposed project, the golf course and packs would be zoned as
Open Space and would therefore remain.
GV P4.2: Focus development in urban centers Consistent: Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would accommodate the
and existing cities. development of a mix of land uses in a highly urbanized area ofthe City.
GV P4.3: Develop strategies to accommodate Consistent: The CEOA process ensures that plans at all levels ofgovernment
growth that uses resources efficiently, eliminate consider all environmental impacts. Sections 5.2, Air Quality, 5.5, Greenhouse Gas
pollution and significantly reduce waste. Emissions, and 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, appropriately address and
mitigate (where necessary) the potential environmental impacts related to resource
efficiency, pollution, and solid waste. Additionally, as outlined in these EIR sections,
implementation ofthe proposed project would adhere to local, state, and federal
environmental and climate change policies to comply with strategies to eliminate
pollution and reduce waste. See also response to RTP /SCS Goal G6 in Table 5.8-2,
above.
GV P4.4: Utilize "green" development techniques Consistent: See response to RTP /SCS Goal G6 in Table 5.8 -2, above. Refer also to
Section 5.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which includes a detailed energy analysis.
Soumz: SCAG Compass Bluepnnt
5.8.4 Cumulative Impacts
Development of the proposed project, in conjunction with other cumulative development in accordance with
the City's general plan (see Section 4.4, AssvV ions Regarding Cumuaatvm Impacts, in Chapter 4), could cause
citywide land use and planning impacts. However, upon adoption of the Harbor Corridor Plan, the proposed
Page 5.8-16 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
project would be consistent with applicable plans, goals, policies, and regulations of the City's general plan
and zoning code and SCAG's RTP /SCS and CGV, as shown in detail above. In accordance with the City's
objectives, the project area would be developed pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan, which would allow for
a wide range of residential, commercial, and mixed uses in four zones: Transit Node, Corridor,
Neighborhood Transitional, and Open Space. Each zone would include its own development standards,
design guidelines, preferred building and frontage types, landscape palette, and strategies promoting
integration between new development and the existing neighborhood. In addition, a host of jobs, restaurants,
retail, entertainment, and other support services and uses would be within walking distance of many of the
existing and future residential uses. Therefore, development of the proposed project would create a cohesive
community of residential and other support uses, thereby contributing to the development of a sustainable
urban area of the City.
As with the proposed project, cumulative projects would be subject to compliance with the regional and local
plans reviewed in this section, and would also be subject to the City's Development Impact Fees. Therefore,
implementation of cumulative development in accordance with the City's General Plan would not combine
with the Harbor Corridor Plan to result in cumulatively considerable land use impacts.
5.8.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
City of Santa Ana Municipal Code and Zoning Code
5.8.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts
would be less than significant:
Impact 5.8 -1
5.8.7 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
5.8.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to land use and planning would result on a project
specific or cumulative basis.
5.8.9 Reference
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2013. Compass 2% Strategy Opportunity Areas.
http: //w ..compassblueprint.org /toolbox /opportunityareas.
2012, April. 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy.
http://rtpscs.smg.m.gov/Pages/default.aspx.
October 2014 Page 5.8 -17
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Tbisliage intentional# left blank.
Page 5.8-78 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
5.9 NOISE
This section discusses the fundamentals of sound; examines federal, state, and local noise guidelines, policies,
and standards; reviews noise levels at existing receptor locations; and evaluates potential noise impacts
associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan project. This analysis is based on
noise calculations in Appendix G, Noise Monitoring andModeling Data
5.9.1 Terminology and Noise and Vibration Descriptors
Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of
noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the
relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as "noisiness" or "loudness."
The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this chapter:
Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which, when transmitted by pressure waves through
a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a
microphone.
Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.
Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale.
A- Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency weighted sound level in decibels that approximates
the frequency response of the human ear.
Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (1,J. The mean of the noise level averaged over the
measurement period, regarded as an average level.
Day -Night Level (Lm). The energy average of the A- weighted sound levels occurring during a 24hour
period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A- weighted sound levels
occurring during a 24 -hour period with 5 dB added to the levels occurring during the period from 7:00
PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00
AM.
L and CNEL values rarely differ by more than 1 dB. As a matter of practice, L and CNEL values are
considered equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment.
Characteristics of Sound
When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy as acoustical pressure in the form of a sound wave.
Sound can be described in terms of amplitude (loudness, frequency (pitch), or duration (time). The human
October 2014 Page 5.9 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
hearing system is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies. Therefore, to approximate the human,
frequency dependent response, the A- weighted filter system is used to adjust measured sound levels. The
normal range of human hearing extends from approximately 0 dBA to 140 dBA.
Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, represented by
points on a sharply rising curve. Because of the physical characteristics of noise transmission and perception,
the relative loudness of sound does not closely match the actual amounts of sound energy. Table 5.9 -1,
Change in Sound Pressure Level dB, shows the subjective effect of changes in sound pressure levels.
Table 5.9 -1 Change in Sound Pressure Level, dB
Chanqe in Apparent Loudness
3dB Threshold of human perceptibility
5 dB Clearly noticeable change in noise level
10d13 Halfor twice as loud
20 dB Much quieteror louder
Soumz: Bies and Hansen 1988.
Sound is generated from a source, and the decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases.
Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. This phenomenon is known as spreading
loss.
When sound is measured for distinct time intervals, the statistical distribution of the overall sound level
during that period can be obtained. The energy- equivalent sound level (Ley is the most common parameter
associated with such measurements. The Ley metric is a single- number noise descriptor of average sound level
over a given period of time. For example, L50 is the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time: half
the time the noise exceeds this level and half the time it is less than this level. This is also the level that is
exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the 42, Los, and L25 values are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the
time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the L. and
L. These values are the minimum and maximum root mean square noise levels obtained over the
measurement period.
Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night,
state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in
the CNEL /Lao.
Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA.
Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA
increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system.
Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage. The ambient or
background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying,
less developed areas. Elevated ambient noise levels can result in noise interference (e.g., speech
Page 5.9 -2 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
interruption /masking, sleep disturbance, disturbance of concentration) and cause annoyance. Table 5 -9 -2
shows TypicalNoise LemLrfrom Noise Sources.
Table 5.9 -2 Tvoical Noise Levels from Noise Sources
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise Level
dBA) Common Indoor Activities
110 Rack Band
Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet
100
Gas Lawn Mower at three feet
90
Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet
80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet
Commercial Area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60
Large Business Office
Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background)
Quiet Suburban Nighttime
30 Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background)
20
Broadcast/Recording Studio
10
Lowest Threshold of Human Heading 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Heading
Soumz: California Department of Transpodation. Technical Noise Supplement 2009.
Vibration Fundamentals
Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion's amplitude can be described
in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration is normally associated with activities such as
railroads or vibration intensive stationary sources, but can also be associated with construction equipment
such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers. Vibration displacement is the distance that a point
on a surface moves away from its original static position. The instantaneous speed that a point on a surface
moves is the velocity, and the rate of change of the speed is the acceleration. Each of these descriptors can
be used to correlate vibration to human response, building damage, and acceptable equipment vibration
levels. During project construction, the operation of construction equipment can cause groundborne
vibration. During the operational phase of a project, receptors may be subject to levels of vibration that can
October 2014 Page 5.9 -3
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
cause annoyance due to noise generated from vibration of a structure or items within a structure. This type
of vibration is best measured in velocity and acceleration.
The three main wave types of concern in the propagation of groundborne vibrations are surface or Rayleigh
waves, compression or P- waves, and shear or S- waves.
Surface or Rayleigh waves travel along the ground surface. They carry most of their energy along an
expanding cylindrical wave front, similar to the ripples produced by throwing a rock into a lake. The
particle motion is more or less perpendicular to the direction of propagation (known as retrograde
elliptical).
Compression or P -waves are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front.
The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal, in a push -pull motion. P -waves are analogous to
airborne sound waves.
Shear or S -waves are also body waves, carrying their energy along an expanding spherical wave front.
Unlike P- waves, however, the particle motion is transverse, or perpendicular to the direction of
propagation.
The peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity is usually used to describe vibration
amplitudes. PPV is the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal, and RMS is the square root of
the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. PPV is more appropriate for evaluating potential building
damage, whereas RMS is typically more suitable for evaluating human response.
The units for PPV and RMS velocity are normally inches per second (in /sec). Often, vibration is presented
and discussed in dB units in order to compress the range of numbers required to describe the vibration. In
this study, all PPV and RMS velocity levels are in m /sec, and all vibration levels are in dB relative to one
microinch per second (abbreviated as VdB). The threshold of perception is approximately 65 VdB. Typically,
ground borne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the
vibration. Even the more persistent Rayleigh waves decrease relatively quickly as they move away from the
source of the vibration. Therefore, manmade vibration problems are usually confined to short distances (500
feet or less) from the source.
Construction operations generally include a wide range of activities that can generate ground borne vibration.
In general, blasting and demolition of structures generate the highest vibrations. Vibratory compactors or
rollers, pile drivers, and pavement breakers can generate perceptible amounts of vibration at up to 200 feet.
Heavy trucks can also generate ground borne vibrations, which vary depending on vehicle type, weight, and
pavement conditions. Potholes, pavement joints, discontinuities, differential settlement of pavement, etc., all
increase the vibration levels from vehicles passing over a road surface. Construction vibration is normally of
greater concern than vibration of normal traffic on streets and freeways with smooth pavement conditions.
Trains generate substantial quantities of vibration due to their engines, steel wheels, and heavy loads.
Page 5.94 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
5.9.2 Regulatory Framework
To limit population exposure to physically and /or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels,
the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the
state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. The City of Santa Ana regulates noise
through the City of Santa Ana Noise Element and the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Article Vl, Noise
Control. Potential noise impacts were evaluated based on the noise element, and municipal code. Because the
City does not have standards to control vibration, vibration impacts are evaluated according to Federal Transit
Administration IFTA criteria to determine whether a significant adverse vibration impact would result from
the construction and operation of the proposed project.
City of Santa Ana Noise Element
The City of Santa Ana, through its general plan, has adopted noise standards for sensitive uses, shown in
Table 5.9 -3.
Table 5.9 -3 City of Santa Ana Noise Element Standards
Category Land Use Category
Noise Level (dBA CNEL)
Interior' Exteriors
Residential Single-family, duplex, multi - family 453 65
Institutional Hospital, school classroom /playgrounds 45 65
Church, library 45 65
Open Space Parks 65
Source. City ofSantaAna General Plan Noise Element.
1 Interior areas include but arenotlimited to: bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, living rooms, dining rooms, closets, mmdors/hallmys, private offices, and conference
rooms.
s Exterior areas are private yards of single- family homes, park picnic areas, school playgrounds, common areas, and private openspacesuch as atriums a balconies.
3 Interior noise level requirements are based on a'tlosed window" condition. Mechanical ventilation system orother meansof natural ventilation shall be provided per
Chapter 12, Section 1305, ofthe Uniform Building Code.
City ofSanta Ana Stationary Noise Standard: Noise Nuisance
Pursuant to the municipal code, the City restricts noise levels generated at a property from exceeding certain
noise levels for extended periods of time. The City applies the noise control ordinance standards
summarized in Table 5.9 -4) to nontransportation fans, blowers, pumps, turbines, saws, engines, and other like
machinery.
Table 5.9 -4 City of Santa Ana Exterior Noise Standards
Receptor /Land Use Time of Day
Maximum Permissible Noise Levels (dBA)r•s
Lm Las Le La 1 L..
1010 PM to 7 AM 50 55 60 65 70
Residential Properties AM to 10 PM 55 1 60 65 70 1 75
Source: SantaAna Municipal Cade, Article VI, Section 18-312.
1 In theeventrhe allegedoffensive noise consists entirelyofimpact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, noise levels shall be reduced by 5dBA.
October 2014 Page 5.95
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
The City of Santa Ana exempts noise associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any zeal
property from the noise limitations of the municipal code, provided that construction activities do not take
place between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, including Saturdays, or any time on Sundays
or federal holidays.
FTA Vibration Criteria
Vibration Annoyance
Ground borne noise is the vibration of floors and walls that may cause rattling of items such as windows or
dishes on shelves, or a rumbling noise. The rumbling is created by the motion of the room surfaces, which
act like a giant loudspeaker. The FTA provides criteria for acceptable levels of ground borne vibration based
on the relative perception of a vibration event for vibration - sensitive land uses (see Table 5.9 -5).
Table 5.9 -5 Ground -bome Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria: Human Annovance
Land Use Caterlory Max 6 dB Description
Workshop 90 Distinctly felt vibration. Appropriate to workshops and nonsensitive areas
Office 84 Felt vibration. Appropriate to offices and nonsensitive areas.
Residential - Daytime 78 Barely felt vibration. Adequate for computer equipment.
Residential - Nighttime 72 Vibration not felt, but groundborne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms.
SouRR. IF I A Nlxi
1 As measured in V3adave bands of frequency oeerthe frequency rangesof8 to 80 Hz
Vibration- Related StructuralDamage
The level at which ground borne vibration is strong enough to cause structural damage has not been
determined conclusively. The most conservative estimates are reflected in the FTA standards, shown in Table
5.9 -6.
Table 5.9 -6 Ground -Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria: Structural Damaqe
Building Category PPV (in/sec) VdB
I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102
II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98
III. Nonengineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90
SouRR. IF I A ZM.
Note. RIMS eelocity calculated from vibration leeel (VdB) using the reference of one micreinc[Vs ond.
Vibration related problems generally occur due to resonances in the structural components of a building. The
maximum vibration amplitudes of the floors and walls of a building will often be at the resonance
frequencies of various components of the building. In other words, structures amplify ground borne
vibration. Resonant response is frequency dependent, and 1 /3- octave band charts are best for describing
vibration behavior. Wood frame buildings, such as typical residential structures, are more easily excited by
Page 5.96 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
ground vibration than heavier buildings. According to Caltrans's Transportation Related Eartbborne Vibration
2002), extreme care must be taken when sustained pile driving occurs within 25 feet of any building; the
threshold at which there is a risk of architectural damage to normal houses with plastered walls and ceilings is
0.2 in /sec.
5.9.3 Existing Noise Environment
The major source of noise in the study area is traffic on study area roads. Harbor Boulevard is a six lane
divided roadway with posted speed limits of 45 miles per hour. Other major roads in the study area are the
east west streets such as Westminster Avenue, Hazard Avenue, 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and
Gloxinia Avenue.
Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. These uses include residential, school, and
open space /recreation areas where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment, public health, and safety.
Commercial and industrial uses are not considered noise- and vibration - sensitive uses. The project area
currently contains roughly two million square feet of commercial uses distributed fairly evenly along the
corridor. Existing commercial uses occur at both midblock locations and intersections and are dominated by
auto service and sales, but also include grocery stores, service businesses, and restaurants. The project area
contains 739 residential units, motels, a church, and a park. The residential areas are multifamily units west of
Harbor between Westminster Avenue and Hazard Avenue, mobile homes west of Harbor Boulevard between
1st Street and McFadden Avenue, and single - family residential areas along Jackson Street and north of 5th
Street.
In addition to transportation related noise, nontransportation sources generate noise within the project area.
Residential uses would generate noise from landscaping, maintenance activities, and air conditioning systems.
Commercial uses would generate noise from heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) systems; auto sales
and repair; car wash equipment; drive thin speakerphones; and other sources. Noise from stationary sources
is regulated through the City's noise ordinance.
5.9.4 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on he
environment if the project would result in:
N -1 Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
N -2 Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive gioundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels.
N -3 A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project.
October 2014 Page 5.9 -7
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
N -4 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project.
N -5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels.
N -6 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working the project
area to excessive noise levels.
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds
would be less than significant:
Threshold N -5
Threshold N -6
These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis.
5.9.5 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the initial study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.9 -1: Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would not cause a substantial increase in noise
related to additional vehicular traffic. [Thresholds N -1 and N -31
impact Analysis: The proposed project would have the potential to generate project related traffic noise
impacts to noise - sensitive uses along roadways evaluated in the traffic impact analysis prepared for the
proposed project (IBI Group 2013). The following analysis describes the anticipated noise levels from traffic
generated by buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan. Traffic noise modeling was compiled for the following
scenarios, according to the traffic study prepared for this project:
Existing: Existing conditions (2013 traffic county without the proposed project.
Existing With Project: Existing volumes plus the new traffic generated by buildout of the Harbor
Corridor Plan.
Buildout -Year 2035 Without Project: Future 2035 volumes without implementation of the Harbor
Corridor Plan, obtained from the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model.
Buildout -Year 2035 With Project: Future 2035 volumes with implementation of the Harbor Corridor
Plan.
Page 5.9-% PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
The traffic noise levels for this project were estimated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (RD -77 -108). The FHWA model predicts noise levels through a
series of adjustments to a reference sound level. These adjustments account for distances from the roadway,
traffic flows, vehicle speeds, car /truck mix, length of exposed roadway, and road width. The distances to the
70, 65, and 60 CNEL contours for selected roadway segments in the vicinity of proposed project site are in
Appendix G. Tables 5.9 -7 and 5.9 -8 compare the noise levels at 100 feet from the centerline of each roadway
segment without and with the project for existing and 2035 conditions.
As discussed previously (see Table 5.9 -1), changes of 3 dBA are barely perceptible to the average human ear,
and changes of 5 dBA are readily perceptible. A noise impact may occur if three conditions are met: (1) there
is a noise increase of 5 dB or more from existing conditions, (2) project related traffic noise is greater than 1
dBA, and (3) the CNEL is 65 dBA or greater in the vicinity of noise - sensitive land uses.
Existing Conditions
Table 5.9 -7 shows the projects noise increases over existing conditions without and with implementation of
the project. Traffic noise increases due to the project range from -1.6 to 0.8 dBA. The reduction in noise is
caused by a reduction in traffic volumes on some of the segments due to changes in land uses and the
corresponding trip generation at some areas of the Harbor Corridor Plan. The greatest noise increase of 0.8
dBA would occur on Edinger Avenue from Fairview Street to Harbor Boulevard. The calculated noise
increases of up to 0.8 dBA at study area roadways due to the project would not result in a perceivable noise
increase at receptors along roadways.
Table 5.9 -7 Project - Related Traffic Noise, Existinq Conditions
Roadway Segment
CNELat 100 feet (dBA) Increase above
Existing
dBA) No Project With Project
Harbor Blvd. Trask Ave. to Westminster Ave. 71.4 71.1 0.3
Harbor Blvd. Westminster Ave. to Hazard Ave. 71.1 70.7 0.4
Harbor Blvd. Hazard Ave. to First St. 71.2 70.9 0.3
Harbor Blvd. First St. to McFadden Ave. 71.1 71.1 0.0
Harbor Blvd. McFadden Ave. to Edinger Ave. 71.0 71.3 0.3
Harbor Blvd. Edinger Ave. to Warner Ave. 70.5 70.6 0.1
Harbor Blvd. Segerstrom Ave. to MacArthur Blvd. 70.5 70.4 0.1
Westminster Ave. Newhope St. to Harbor Blvd. 68.4 68.5 0.1
Westminster Ave. Fairview St. to Harbor Blvd. 67.8 67.7 0.1
1st Street Newhope St. to Harbor Blvd. 67.2 67.5 0.3
1st Street Fairview St. to Harbor Blvd. 69.3 69.5 0.2
McFadden Ave. Newhope St. to Harbor Blvd. 65.8 66.1 0.3
McFadden Ave. Fairview St. to Harbor Blvd. 67.0 66.4 0.6
Edinger Ave. Newhope Ave. to Harbor Blvd. 66.0 66.1 0.1
Edinger Ave. Fairview St. to Harbor Blvd. 1 67.5 1 68.3 1 0.8
Source. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model based ontrafficvolumes provided by IBI Group 2013.
October 2014 Page 5.9 -9
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
2035 Conditions
Table 5.9 -8 shows the project's noise increases over 2035 conditions, without and with implementation of the
project. With the project, the overall increase over existing conditions would range from —1.5 to 1.3 dBA
CNEL. Traffic noise increases due to the project at 2035 conditions range from —0.8 to 0.7 dBA. The
reduction in noise is caused by a reduction in traffic volumes due to changes in land uses and the
corresponding trip generation at some areas of the Harbor Corridor Plan, and due to a new roadway that
would run northwest to southeast that would alleviate traffic on some of the existing study area roads. The
overall noise increase of up to 1.3 dBA would occur on Edinger Avenue from Fairview Street to Harbor
Boulevard. At all other segments, the increase would 1.0 dBA or less. The calculated noise increases at study
area roadways due to the project would occur over more than 20 years and would be less than 3 dBA, and
therefore would not result in a substantial noise increase at receptors along roadways.
Page 5.9 -10 PlaceWorkr
wQ
wz0<
0o
a wl
000
It
00
rn wN
5, Oz6C
Q
ca
CN
E
CO
CW
m
NNN
L
U
dN
OZ
U
L
d
OJ
W
i
Na
H
i0m y 0 0x0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
dw
c
N N N0 V0 0 m0 o0 m0 N0 o0 V0 m0 m0 m0 0 r0
CO
L_
o a` r r r r r r r m m m m m m m m
Qma
0z
JWZU
o` r r r r r r r m m m m m m m m
0z
a
C N 0]
E o t o o 0 2rooom o
0 o 0 a
LL N O j O Z O Z O Z Z
O O O d O0OmyyyQmEoyyyy
c o ma 3 ma 3 ma 3 ma 3EayamOmOmOmOm
EV 2E W f7 Z LL Z LL Z LL Z LL
3
ao ai ai
E E y y m maaaaaaaffLLLLCC
h
0
Y.
N
N
0
X ¢ Q
QOFZ
0 (nK00
K}
Q ~ u
Ln
cna
Q
cc
E
0
j
W
W N
z
a
O
C
w
y
Il
n
h
O
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Summary of Traffic Noise Impacts
As shown on the table above, the highest noise level increase would be at the segment of Edinger Avenue
from Fairview Street to Harbor Boulevard noise increase of 1.3 over existing conditions and a project
contribution of 0.7 dBA. These increases would be below the thresholds discussed above; as a result, traffic-
related project noise impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 5.9 -2 Noise levels at proposed residential areas would be above the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise
standards. [Thresholds N -1 and N -31
Impact Analysis: The Harbor Corridor Plan proposes to gradually convert existing commercial and
RV /auto - related land uses to allow for approximately 4,600 residential units and 2 million square feet of
commercial space in the plan area. Land use changes under the Harbor Corridor Plan would involve replacing
the North Harbor Specific Plan's (NHSP) zoning districts with four Harbor Corridor Plan zones, as described
in Section 3, Project Description. Mixed use opportunities (commercial /residential would be introduced along
the corridor. The transit node and corridor areas would include high- density and medium density housing
primarily on areas along Harbor Boulevard. Neighborhood transitional zoning along 1st Street and 5th Street
would allow for low- to medium - density residential development.
As shown on Tables 5.9 -7 and 5.9 -8 above, these areas would be exposed to exterior noise levels at the edge
of the right- of-way on Harbor Boulevard ranging from 65.5 to 71.3 dBA CNEL. The City's adopted noise
standards (shown in Table 5.9 -3) for residential areas, parks, and outdoor living areas such as private yards,
balconies, and park picnic areas shall not exceed 65 dBA CNEL. Without mitigation, outdoor living areas at
residential uses and parks would have the potential to be exposed to noise levels above the 65 dBA CNEL
exterior noise standard. This would be a significant impact.
For noise - sensitive residential uses, habitable rooms including bedrooms, living rooms, and dining rooms shall
not exceed the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Since standard construction materials and methods
provide an exterior -to- interior noise reduction of approximately 25 dBA for new residential structures, the
expected interior noise level at rooms facing the major roads within the Harbor Corridor Plan would be
approximately 47 dBA CNEL (72 dBA CNEL exterior minus 25 dB for insulation reduction. With standard
construction, the interior noise levels at habitable homes could exceed the 45 dBA CNEL noise standard.
This would be a significant impact.
Impact 5.9 -3: Noise from the operation of commercial uses could cause the noise level at the property
line of any adjacent residential property to exceed the City of Santa Ana noise standards.
Thresholds N -1 and N -3]
Impact Analysis: Adoption of the Harbor Corridor Plan would allow for approximately 2 million square
feet of commercial space in the plan area. Retail uses would accommodate retail, restaurant, entertainment,
and other pedestrian- oriented uses at street level, with offices and flats above in the mixed use building types.
The City of Santa Ana's Municipal Code includes noise standards for residential properties, summarized in
Table 5.9 -4.
October 2014 Page 5.9 -13
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
The operation of proposed commercial, office, and retail uses next to residential uses would have the
potential to introduce new stationary sources of noise, such as HVAC units, and noise from entertainment
establishments such as live music, patrons voices, and speakerphones. These sources could have the potential
to cause sporadic exceedances of the noise standards in the municipal code or to generate noise levels that
would be readily perceptible (greater than 5 dBA over the ambient noise) at residential properties immediately
adjacent to future commercial, office, and retail uses. It should be noted that the existing uses in the project
area are predominantly commercial and RV /auto - related uses. The Harbor Corridor Plan would not
necessarily introduce new sources of stationary noise, but would increase the residential density in the area,
which would have the potential to expose persons to stationary noise above the City's noise ordinance criteria
see Table 5.9 -4). No site - specific development is proposed at this time. Therefore, the specifications, design
features, and /or location of these potential noise sources and the resulting effect of future development on
nearby sensitive receptors cannot be quantified at this time. Noise from the operation of commercial, office,
and retail uses on nearby sensitive receptors would be potentially significant.
Impact 5.9 -4: Construction activities would generate high levels of ground -bome vibration. [Threshold
Impact Analysis: There would be no long -term operational sources of vibration with the project, but
project construction may expose people to ground borne vibration and noise. Buildout of the Harbor
Corridor Plan would occur over a period of several years and would consist of several projects with their
own construction time frames and equipment. It should be noted that although the total length of
construction activities for the buildout of the entire Harbor Corridor Plan is estimated at approximately 20
years, individual construction activities for each project would have their own schedule and would only affect
areas near the construction site The closest vibration - sensitive structures are the existing and future
residential uses in the project area. In addition, residential areas immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the
project area are also considered vibration sensitive and would have the potential to be affected by
construction activities during implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan. No properties within the project
site were identified as potential historic resources, which have lower thresholds for vibration.
Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction
procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration - sensitive uses. Operation of
construction equipment generates vibrations that spread though the ground and diminish in amplitude with
distance from the source. Vibration is typically noticed nearby when objects in a building generate noise from
rattling windows or picture frames. It is typically not perceptible outdoors, and therefore impacts are based on
the distance from the vibration source to the nearest building. The effect on buildings further varies
depending on soil type, ground strata, and building construction. The generation of vibration can range from
no perceptible vibrations at the lowest levels to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground vibrations from
construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures, but can reach the audible and perceptible
ranges in buildings closest to a construction site.
Page 5.9 -14 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Vibration - Induced Architectural Damage
Building damage is not a factor for normal projects, with the occasional exception of blasting and pile driving
during construction (FTA 2006). According to Caltrans, extreme care must be taken when sustained pile
driving occurs within 25 feet of any building. The thresholds at which there is a risk of architectural damage
is 0.5 m /sec PPV for reinforced concrete, steel, or timber buildings, and 0.2in /sec PPV for wood framed
structures, including historic structures. Vibration levels from typical construction equipment are shown in
Table 5.9 -9.
Table 5.9 -9 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Equipment
Approximate RMS' Velocity
Level at 25 Feet
VdB)
Approximate PPV
Velocity at 25 Feet
in /sec)
Pile Dover (impact) Upper Range 112 1.518
Pile Dover (impact) Lower Range 104 0.644
Pile Dover sonic Upper Range 105 0.734
Pile Dover sonic Lower Range 93 0.170
Vibratory Roller 94 0.210
Large Bulldozer 87 0.089
Caisson Drilling 87 0.089
Jackhammer 79 0.035
Small Bulldozer 58 0.003
Loaded Trucks 86 0.076
FTA Criteria: Human Annoyance Da time 78
FTA Criteria: Architectural Damage 0.200 Wood - Framed
0.500 Reinforced Masonry
Soumz: FfA M.
1 RIMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of 1 micrctndi /second and arrest factor of4.
This is a program level analysis, and no site - specific development is being proposed at this time. Therefore,
the precise locations of demolition and construction activities and type of construction equipment is
unknown, but would be determined for each individual project within the Harbor Corridor Plan. Depending
on distance and the equipment used, vibration levels could potentially exceed the 0.5 in /sec vibration induced
architectural damage threshold for reinforced masonry buildings and the 0.2 m /sec criteria for wood - framed
buildings. If future, individual projects under the Harbor Corridor Plan exceeded these thresholds, vibration -
induced architectural damage impacts would be significant.
Vibration Annoyance
As discussed above, the nearest sensitive receptor structures subject to annoyance from the construction of
individual projects are existing and future residential uses in and adjacent to the project area. Levels of
vibration produced by construction equipment are based on the FTAs significance threshold for vibration
annoyance of 78 VdB for barely perceptible levels of vibration during the daytime (note that construction
would be limited to daytime hours to comply with the City's municipal code). Table 5.9 -9 shows the potential
vibration levels (VdB) that can be generated by heavy construction equipment at receptors 25 feet away. As
October 2014 Page 5.9 -15
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
shown in this table, the operation of pile driving equipment and vibratory rollers would cause vibration levels
that would exceed the thresholds for annoyance to residential uses.
Since vibration levels dissipate rapidly with distance, pile driving at 350 feet or a vibratory roller at 100 feet
from a sensitive receptor would not exceed the 78 VdB threshold for vibration annoyance. For equipment
that produced lower vibrational energy, the vibration annoyance threshold distance would be considerably
closer to the sources (e.g., for a large bulldozer, the annoyance threshold distance would be less than 50 feet
between the source and the receiver).
Construction that involves typical heavy construction equipmentvibratory rollers, bulldozers, loaders,
excavators, and jack hammers would result in vibration impacts when operated less than 100 feet from a
given receptor. Several residences would be within 100 feet of parcels that may be redeveloped or within 100
feet of the street right- of-way and would be temporarily affected by the use of heavy construction equipment
during the daytime. A review of aerial photographs shows that several residential buildings are at least 50 feet
from the project boundaries. Because equipment would move around each construction site and vibration
levels dissipate rapidly, vibration impacts at a given receptor would be sporadic and short -term; therefore,
these impacts would be less than significant. However, the operation of pile driving equipment, which is a
stationary equipment item, could potentially cause vibration levels that would be above thresholds at
receptors up to 350 feet away. This would be a significant impact.
Impact 5.9 -5: Construction activities would result in temporary noise increases in the vicinity of the
proposed project. [Threshold NA]
ImpactAnalysis: A project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in
a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project. Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would occur over a period of several years and
would consist of several smaller projects with their own construction time frame and equipment. Although
the length of construction activities for buildout of the entire Harbor Corridor Plan is estimated at
approximately 20 years, individual construction activities in each project would have their own schedule, and
each project would only affect the area near it. Therefore, exposure of any one sensitive receptor to elevated
construction noise levels would be from a few to several months in duration.
Two types of short -term noise impacts could occur during construction: (1) mobile- source noise from
transport of workers, material deliveries, and debris and soil haul and (2) stationary source noise from use of
construction equipment. The closest noise - sensitive structures are the existing and future residential uses in
the project area, churches, and the Santa Anita Park. Residential areas immediately adjacent to the boundaries
of the project area are also considered vibration sensitive and would have the potential to be affected by
construction activities during implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan. Several residences would be
temporarily affected by the use of heavy construction equipment during the daytime. Commercial and retail
uses within the project area are not considered noise - sensitive uses.
Page 5.9 -16 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Mobile- Source Noise
The transport of workers and equipment to the construction site and truck haul associated with demolition
debris and soil haul would incrementally increase noise levels along roadways in the vicinity of the project
site. Construction of projects could generate substantial truck trips for removal of debris and soil export or
import for the construction of underground parking structures. It is not known at this point the amount of
haul truck trips that would be required, when it would occur, or for how long. There would be a relatively
high single -event noise exposure potential with passing trucks. Construction related traffic would likely use
the major roads that provide regional access —such as Harbor Boulevard, Westminster Avenue, 5th Street, 1st
Street, McFadden Avenue, and Gloxma Avenue which currently carry over 14,000 average daily traffic
volumes. Typically, a doubling of vehicle trips would increase noise levels by 3 dB, which could be perceived
adjacent to truck haul routes. Because of the relatively small size of the parcels, construction not would result
in a doubling of traffic volumes. Though construction related truck traffic could cause substantial noise
increases at sensitive uses along residential streets and collector roads, noise impacts from construction-
related truck traffic would be limited to uses along haul routes along local and residential roads. Because
construction related traffic is sporadic and short term, and because construction traffic is typically routed
toward major roads, noise impacts related to construction traffic would be less than significant.
Onsite Construction Equipment Noise
The other type of short -term noise impact is related to demolition, grading, and building construction.
Construction equipment can be considered to operate in two modes: stationary and mobile. Stationary
equipment operates in one location for one or more days; mobile equipment moves around a construction
site with variations in power settings and loads. To determine the energy average Ieq sound level from the
equipments operation under varying power settings, the equipments noise rating at a reference distance,
while operating at full power, is adjusted by considering the duty cycle of the activity. Table 5.9 -10 lists
maximum construction equipment noise levels from 50 feet away and the industry standard duty cycles for
typical development activities.
October 2014 Page 5.9 -17
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Table 5.9 -10 Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Noise Level (dBA) at 50 ft Typical Duty Cycle
Auger Drill Rig 85 20%
Backhoe 80 40%
Blasting 94 1%
Chain Saw 85 20%
Clam Shovel 93 20%
Compactor (ground) 80 20%
Compressor (air) 80 40 %
Concrete Mixer Truck 85 40%
Concrete Pump 82 20%
Concrete Saw 90 20%
Crane (mobile or stationary) 85 20%
Dozer 85 40%
Dump Truck 84 40%
Excavator 85 40%
Front End Loader 80 40%
Generator (25 KVA or less) 70 50%
Generator (more than 25 KVA) 82 50%
Grader 85 40%
Hydra Break Ram 90 10%
In situ Soil Sampling Rig 84 20%
Jackhammer 85 20%
Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 90 20%
Paver 85 50%
Pneumatic Tools 85 50%
Pumps 77 50%
Rack Drill 85 20%
Scraper 85 40 %
Tractor 84 40%
Vacuum Excavator (vac-truck) 85 40%
Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80 20%
Soume: Thalheimer 2000.
KVA = kilovolt amps
Each stage of construction has a different equipment mix, depending on the work to be accomplished during
that stage. The noise produced at each stage is determined by combining the Ley contributions from each
piece of equipment used at a given time. In the construction of residential and mixed use projects,
demolition and grading activities generate the highest noise levels.
Because of the effects of noise attenuation due to distance, the number and type of equipment, and the load
and power requirements to accomplish different tasks during each construction phase, construction activities
Page 5.9 -78 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
would result in different noise levels at a given sensitive receptor. Heavy equipment, such as a dozer or a
loader, can have maximum, short duration noise levels in excess of 80 dBA at 50 feet from the equipment.
The average noise levels at noise - sensitive receptors would be much lower because noise from construction
equipment is intermittent and diminishes at a rate of at least 6 dB per doubling distance, and because mobile
construction equipment would move around the site and be operated with different loads and power
requirements. Although the Harbor Corridor Plan would take several years to build out, it is anticipated that
exposure of individual receptors to elevated construction noise levels would be for much shorter periods
e.g., a few months). Furthermore, construction of new residential and nonresidential land uses would depend
on market conditions, resulting in intermittent construction activities in the project area. Construction noise
impacts would depend on the distance from the receptor to the location of individual construction activities
and on the presence of intervening structures.
The specific locations, duration, and equipment required for individual projects are unknown. Therefore, it
cannot be specifically determined how noise - sensitive uses in the project area and surroundings would be
affected. Construction of individual developments associated with buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan
would temporarily increase the ambient noise environment at nearby existing and future residential areas,
churches, and parks. At each individual receptor, the temporary increase would likely last for a few months.
The City of Santa Ana exempts noise associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real
property from the noise limitations of the municipal code, provided that construction activities do not take
place between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, including Saturdays, or any time on Sundays
or federal holidays. Even with these time- of-day constraints, construction activities associated with any
individual development may occur in dose proximity to noise sensitive receptors, and noise disturbances may
occur for prolonged periods of time. Therefore, construction noise impacts are considered potentially
significant.
5.9.6 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative noise impacts occur when multiple sources of noise, though individually not substantial, combine
to result in excessive, cumulative noise exposure at noise sensitive uses.
Short -Term Construction Noise and Vibration
Cumulative construction noise impacts have the potential to occur when multiple construction projects in the
same general area generate noise within the same time frame and contribute to the increases in the ambient
noise environment. Based on noise levels generated by construction activities associated with the project site,
the duration of construction activities that would occur intermittently within the approximately 20 -year
buildout period, and the proximity of the sensitive receptors, construction noise from the project could
substantially elevate ambient noise levels. This would significantly contribute to the cumulative noise
environment. Cumulative construction noise impacts are considered potentially significant.
October 2014 Page 5.9 -19
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Long -Term Operation
Mobile- Source Noise
A significant cumulative noise impact would occur where cumulative noise increases by 5 dB or more, the
projects cumulative contribution is 1 dB or more, and the ambient noise levels exceed the 65 dBA CNEL
noise compatibility standard in the vicinity of existing noise - sensitive land uses. Cumulative noise impacts due
to traffic sources are a combination of noise levels in the area due to the proposed project along with all
other traffic growth projected during the Harbor Corridor Plan buildout. Cumulative increases in traffic noise
levels were estimated by comparing the 2035 With Project scenario to existing conditions. Table 5.9 -8 show
the projects noise increases from existing conditions for 2035 conditions, without and with implementation
of the project. As discussed previously, no segments would result in a significant noise increase. As a result,
project related traffic noise impacts would be less than significant.
Stationary- Source Noise
Unlike traffic noise, whose effects can extend well beyond the limits of the project site, stationary- source
noise (mechanical equipment, loading /unloading activities, etc.) would typically only impact noise - sensitive
receptors near the project site. Because there are no existing major stationary noise sources in the vicinity of
the project site, and project related stationary noise would be less than significant, cumulative noise impacts
due to stationary noise sources would also be less than significant.
5.9.7 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Article yq, Noise Control.
5.9.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, Impact 5.9 -1 would
be less than significant.
Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant
Impact 5.9 -2 Noise levels at proposed residential areas would be above the 45 dBA CNEL
interior noise standards.
Impact 5.9 -3 Noise from the operation of commercial /retail and office uses could cause the
noise level at the property line of any adjacent residential property to exceed the
City of Santa Ana noise standards or cause noise levels to increase above existing
ambient noise.
Impact 5.9 -4 Construction activities would generate high levels of ground borne vibration.
Page 5.9 -20 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Impact 5.9 -5 Construction activities would result in temporary noise increases in the vicinity of
the proposed project.
5.9.9 Mitigation Measures
Impact 5.9 -2
9 -1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants for new residential development in the
Harbor Corridor Plan shall submit an acoustic report prepared to the satisfaction of the
Building Official or their designee to ensure that noise levels at outdoor living areas such as
private yards, balconies, and park picnic areas shall not exceed 65 dBA CNEL, and all
residential habitable rooms would meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. These
noise studies would need to be submitted after the precise grading and architectural plans are
prepared, but prior to issuance of building permits. The required exterior noise reduction
can be accomplished with sound walls or berms, or by site plan/building layout design. The
required interior noise reduction can be accomplished with enhanced construction design or
materials such as upgraded dual glazed windows and /or upgraded exterior wall assemblies.
These features shall be shown on all building plans and incorporated into construction of
the project. City inspectors shall verify compliance of the building with the acoustic reports
recommendations prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Impact 5.9 -3
9 -2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants for new commercial, office, or retail
developments in the Harbor Corridor Plan shall submit an acoustic report prepared to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and Building Official or their designee to ensure
that the operation of stationary noise sources (i.e., HVAC units, truck deliveries) would not
cause a noise increase of more than 5 dBA over the ambient noise levels at any adjacent
property. These noise studies would need to be submitted after the precise grading and
architectural plans are prepared, but prior to issuance of building permits. This requirement
can be accomplished with selection of quieter equipment, judicious site layouts and
equipment positioning, and /or equipment enclosures, sound screening, or parapet walls.
These features shall be shown on all building plans and incorporated into the construction
of the project. City inspectors shall verify compliance of the building with the acoustic
reports recommendations prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Impact 5.9 -4
9 -3 Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants for projects within the Harbor Corridor
Plan that involve high- vibration construction activities, such as pile driving or vibratory
rolling /compacting, shall be evaluated for potential vibration impacts to nearby sensitive
receptors. The project developer shall submit a vibration report prepared to the satisfaction
of the City of Santa Ana Building Official or their designee to determine if the use of pile
October 2014 Page 5.9 -21
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
driving and /or vibratory rolling /compacting equipment would exceed the Federal Transit
Administration's (FTAs) vibration - annoyance criteria of 78 VdB during the daytime or FTAs
vibration induced architectural damage PPV criteria of 0.2 inches /second for wood - framed
structures or 0.5 inches /second for reinforced masonry buildings. The construction
contractor shall require the use of lower- vibration - producing equipment and techniques.
Examples of lower vibration equipment and techniques would include avoiding the use of
vibratory rollers near sensitive areas and /or the use of drilled piles, sonic pile driving, or
vibratory pile driving (as opposed to impact pile driving).
Impact 5.9 -5
9 -4 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall ensure the following notes
are included on the grading plan cover sheet, and the construction contractor shall comply
with these measures during the duration of all construction activities.
Properly maintain and time all construction equipment to minimize noise.
Fit all equipment with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine
shrouds, no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer, to minimize
noise emissions.
Locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far
from noise sensitive receptors as possible.
Material delivery, soil haul trucks, and equipment servicing shall be restricted to the hours
between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Mondays through Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays or
federal holidays.
9 -5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, each project applicant within the project area shall
prepare a construction management plan that shall be approved by the City of Santa Ana
Public Works. The construction management plan shall:
Establish truck haul routes on the appropriate transportation facilities. Truck routes that
avoid congested streets and sensitive land uses shall be considered.
Provide Traffic Control Plans (for detours and temporary road closures) that meet the
minimum City criteria. Traffic control plans shall determine if dedicated turn lanes for
movement of construction truck and equipment on- and offsite are available.
Minimize offsite road closures during the peak hours.
Keep all construction related traffic onsite at all times.
Page 5.9 -22 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Provide temporary traffic controls, such as a flag person, during all phases of
construction to maintain smooth traffic flow.
5.9.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with noise to a level that
is less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to noise remain.
5.9.11 References
Bies and Hansen. 2003. EngineeringNoire Contmh Theory and Practice. New York: Spon Press.
Bolt, Beranek and Newman. 1971. Noisefrom Construction Equpment and Operations, Building Equpment and Home
Appliances. Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Environmental Analysis. 2002. Transportation
Related Eartbborne Vibration: Callrans Experiences. Technical Advisory, Vibration. TAV- 02- 01- R9601. Prepared
by Rudy Hendricks.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1978, December. Federal Highway Traffic Noire Prediction Model U.S.
Department of Transportation. Report No. FHWA -RD77 -108.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. TransitNoire and Vibration lVactAssessment. United States
Department of Transportation.
October 2014 Page 5.9 -23
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Tbisliage intentional# left blank.
Page 5.9 -24 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
5.10 POPULATION AND HOUSING
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines the potential for socioeconomic impacts
on the City of Santa Ana from the proposed Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan, including
changes in population, employment, and demand for housing, particularly housing cost /rent ranges defined
as "affordable."
5.10.1 Environmental Setting
Population
The population of the City of Santa Ana was 329,915 on January 1, 2013, as estimated by the California
Department of Finance (CDF; CDF 2013). The 2010 US Census counted 324,528 people in the City (USCB
2013a). The Center for Demographic Research (CDR) at California State University, Fullerton, projected
populations for the City of Santa Ana and Orange County from 2010 to 2035, presented below in Table
5.10 -1. By 2035, the population of the City of Santa Ana is forecast to grow by 11,856, or 3.6 percent of the
2010 population. Over the same period, the county's population is estimated to increase by 401,872, or 13.3
percent of its 2010 population. The CDR projections are based on city and county general plan land use
designations, 2010 US Census data, and 2010 California Employment Development Department employment
benchmark data.
Table 5.10 -1 Population Projections, 2010 -2035
Souw. Center for Demographic Research 2012.
Demographic data for part of the City in and surrounding the project site were obtained from six census
tracts, which together are bounded by the Santa Ana River on the east, Westminster Avenue on the north,
Newhope Street on the west, and the City of Fountain Valley on the south (Tracts 891.04, 890.04, 891.05,
992.48, 992.49, and 992.02; tract 992.02 also includes part of Fountain Valley). According to the 2010 Census,
the six census tracts combined had a population of 36,836 (USCB 2013a).
Population Onsite
There are 739 residential units and 3,252 residents in the Harbor Corridor Plan area. The current number of
residents is generally consistent with the average household size in Santa Ana for 2013 of 4.43 persons (CDF
2013), taking housing vacancy into account. The housing vacancy rate in Santa Ana in 2013 is 4.8 percent,
which would result in an estimated 704 occupied housing units onsite. Based on the above rates, the Harbor
Corridor Plan area could house between 3,119 and 3,273 residents.
The Conventional Zoning Area has 92 residential units and 405 residents. The total population within the
project area is 3,657.
October 2014 Page 5.10 -1
2010 1 2015 2020 2025 1 2030 2035
City of Santa Ana 1 324,858 1 333,494 1 337,568 1 337,215 1 340,198 1 336,714
Orange Couniy 1 3,019,356 1 3,154,580 1 3,266,107 1 3,349,157 1 3,410,773 1 3,421,228
Souw. Center for Demographic Research 2012.
Demographic data for part of the City in and surrounding the project site were obtained from six census
tracts, which together are bounded by the Santa Ana River on the east, Westminster Avenue on the north,
Newhope Street on the west, and the City of Fountain Valley on the south (Tracts 891.04, 890.04, 891.05,
992.48, 992.49, and 992.02; tract 992.02 also includes part of Fountain Valley). According to the 2010 Census,
the six census tracts combined had a population of 36,836 (USCB 2013a).
Population Onsite
There are 739 residential units and 3,252 residents in the Harbor Corridor Plan area. The current number of
residents is generally consistent with the average household size in Santa Ana for 2013 of 4.43 persons (CDF
2013), taking housing vacancy into account. The housing vacancy rate in Santa Ana in 2013 is 4.8 percent,
which would result in an estimated 704 occupied housing units onsite. Based on the above rates, the Harbor
Corridor Plan area could house between 3,119 and 3,273 residents.
The Conventional Zoning Area has 92 residential units and 405 residents. The total population within the
project area is 3,657.
October 2014 Page 5.10 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Housing
Housing units and households in Santa Ana and Orange County in January 2013, as estimated by the CDF,
are shown in Table 5.10 -2. In 2010, 47.5 percent of occupied housing units in the City were owner occupied
and 52.5 percent renter occupied (USCB 2013a).
Table 5.10 -2 Housing Units and Households, Santa Ana and Orange County, 2013, CDF Estimate
Source CDF 2013.
Numbers of housing units in Santa Ana and Orange County over the 2010 -2035 period, as forecast by the
CDR, are shown in Table 5.10 -3. The number of housing units in the City is forecast to grow by 1,405 units,
or 1.8 percent, between 2010 and 2035, and the number of units in the county by 130,599 units, or 12.4
percent.
Table 5.10 -3 Housing Units Projections, 2010 -2035
Single- Single- Multifamily,2 Multifamily,
1 2030 2035
City of Santa Ana 76,918 77,521
Family Family to 4 units per 5+ units per
Orange County 1,050,330 1,076,158
Vacancy
1 1,140,571
Detached Attached structure structure Mobile Homes Total Occupied Rate
Santa Ana 35,481 5,657 7,499 24,283 4,048 76,968 73,242 4.8%
Orange County 536,562 127,833 92,145 266,124 33,531 1,056,195 999,552 5.4%
Source CDF 2013.
Numbers of housing units in Santa Ana and Orange County over the 2010 -2035 period, as forecast by the
CDR, are shown in Table 5.10 -3. The number of housing units in the City is forecast to grow by 1,405 units,
or 1.8 percent, between 2010 and 2035, and the number of units in the county by 130,599 units, or 12.4
percent.
Table 5.10 -3 Housing Units Projections, 2010 -2035
Source Center for Demographic Research 2012.
In the six census tracts containing the part of Santa Ana bounded by the Santa Ana River, Westminster
Avenue, Newhope Street, and the City of Fountain Valley, 8,666 housing units and 8,285 occupied housing
units were counted in the 2010 Census, for a vacancy rate of 4.4 percent. Occupied housing units comprised
47.7 percent owner - occupied units and 52.3 percent renter - occupied units (USCB 2013a).
Housing Onsite
The project area contains 831 residential units, 739 units in the Harbor Corridor Area and 92 units in the
Conventional Zoning Area, including multifamily residential and mobile -home communities accessed from
Harbor Boulevard and single - family residential areas along Jackson Street.
Zoning for residential uses onsite are located within three areas of the Harbor Corridor Plan, shown in
Figure 41, Current Zoning Designations.
Along the west side of Harbor Boulevard between Washington Avenue and 17th Street
Along Jackson Street next to the east side of Willowick Golf Course
Page 5.10 -2 PlaceWorkr
2010 1 2015 2020 2025 1 2030 2035
City of Santa Ana 76,918 77,521 1 77,521 1 77,521 1 77,949 1 78,323
Orange County 1,050,330 1,076,158 1 1,105,238 1 1,140,571 1 1,160,556 1 1,180,929
Source Center for Demographic Research 2012.
In the six census tracts containing the part of Santa Ana bounded by the Santa Ana River, Westminster
Avenue, Newhope Street, and the City of Fountain Valley, 8,666 housing units and 8,285 occupied housing
units were counted in the 2010 Census, for a vacancy rate of 4.4 percent. Occupied housing units comprised
47.7 percent owner - occupied units and 52.3 percent renter - occupied units (USCB 2013a).
Housing Onsite
The project area contains 831 residential units, 739 units in the Harbor Corridor Area and 92 units in the
Conventional Zoning Area, including multifamily residential and mobile -home communities accessed from
Harbor Boulevard and single - family residential areas along Jackson Street.
Zoning for residential uses onsite are located within three areas of the Harbor Corridor Plan, shown in
Figure 41, Current Zoning Designations.
Along the west side of Harbor Boulevard between Washington Avenue and 17th Street
Along Jackson Street next to the east side of Willowick Golf Course
Page 5.10 -2 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
The Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge at 432 South Harbor Boulevard opposite Harbor Boulevard from its
intersection with Camille Street.
Other residential uses in the project site are within commercial and entertainment zoning districts for
instance, the California Palms Apartments at 901 South Harbor Boulevard in a General Commercial district
and the Liberty Mobile Home Court at 329 South Harbor Boulevard in an Entertainment district. Scattered
single - family houses are also within commercial and other nonresidential districts for instance, seven houses
in a motor court (one of the houses is at 223 South Harbor Boulevard). A single - family house at 1221 North
Harbor Boulevard, in an RV /Auto district, is vacant.
Employment
There were 150,523 jobs in Santa Ana in 2011, as estimated by the US Census Bureau. Estimated
employment in Orange County in 2011 was 1,326,589. Santa Ana residents held 99,973 jobs in 2011 (USCB
2013b). The numbers of jobs in the City per industrial sector are shown in Table 5.10 -4.
Table 5.10 -4 Emplovment by Industrial Sector, Santa Ana, 2011
z nraxrizin:>..arrm
Employment projections from the CDR for Santa Ana and Orange County from 2010 through 2035 are
shown in Table 5.10 -5. The unemployment rate in Orange County in July 2013 was estimated at 6.5 percent,
and the unemployment rate in Santa Ana was estimated at 10.4 percent for the same month by the
Employment Development Department (EDD 2013a; EDD 2013b).
October 2014 Page 5.10 -3
Jobs in Santa Ana Jobs of Santa Ana Residents
Percent of
Industrial Sector Jobs Total Jobs Jobs Percent of Total Jobs
Agriculture, Mining, Oil and Gas Extraction 100 0.1% 1,124 1.2%
Manufacturing, Construction, and Utilities 26,341 17.5% 20,943 21.0%
Wholesale Trade, Retail Trade, 21,735 14.4% 18,576 18.6%
Transportation and Warehousing
Information, Finance and Insurance, and 13,388 9.0% 7,917 8.0%
Real Estate
Professional, Scientific, and Technical 10,502 7.0% 5,887 5.9%
Services
Management of Companies, and 19,114 12.7% 11,846 11.9%
Administrafion & Support, Waste
Management and Remediation
Educational Services, Health Care, and 23,437 15.6% 15,077 15.0%
Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreafion; 11,794 7.8% 15,365 15.4%
Accemmodafion and Food Services. and
Other Services
Public Administration 24,112 16.0% 3,238 3.2%
Total 150,523 100% 99,973 100%
z nraxrizin:>..arrm
Employment projections from the CDR for Santa Ana and Orange County from 2010 through 2035 are
shown in Table 5.10 -5. The unemployment rate in Orange County in July 2013 was estimated at 6.5 percent,
and the unemployment rate in Santa Ana was estimated at 10.4 percent for the same month by the
Employment Development Department (EDD 2013a; EDD 2013b).
October 2014 Page 5.10 -3
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Table 5.10 -5 Employment Projections, 2010 -2035
Soumz: Center far Demographic Research 2012.
Employment Onsite
The project area contains 1,389 employees -1,386 employees within the Harbor Corridor Plan area, and 3
employees in the Conventional Zoning Area.
Jobs - Housing Balance
The jobs housing ratio is a general measure of the total number of jobs and housing units in a defined
geographic area, without regard to economic constraints or individual preferences. The balance of jobs and
housing in an area in terms of the total number of jobs and housing units as well as the type of jobs versus
the price of housing has implications for mobility, air quality, and the distribution of tag revenues. The
jobs /housing ratio is one indicator of a project's effect on growth and quality of life in the project area. The
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) applies the jobs - housing ratio at the regional and
subregional levels to analyze the fit between jobs, housing, and infrastructure. A major focus of SCAG's
regional planning efforts has been to improve this balance. SCAG defines the jobs housing balance as
follows:
Jobs and housing are in balance when an area has enough employment opportunities for
most of the people who live there and enough housing opportunities for most of the people
who work there. The region as a whole is, by defirution, balanced.... job rich subregions
have ratios greater than the regional average; housing rich subregions have ratios lower than
the regional average.
Ideally, job - housing balance would... assure not only a numerical match of jobs and housing
but also an economic match in type of jobs and housing. (SCAG 1989, 1997)
jobs housing goals and ratios are advisory only. No ideal jobs housing ratio is adopted in state, regional, or
city policies. However, SCAG considers an area balanced when the jobs - housing ratio is 1.36; communities
with more than 1.36 jobs per dwelling unit are considered jobs rich; those with fewer than 1.36 are housing -
rich (SCAG 2004). A job - housing imbalance can indicate potential air quality and traffic problems associated
with commuting.
As shown in Table 5.10 -6, the jobs housing balance in Santa Ana is forecast to increase slightly between 2010
and 2035, from 1.87 to 1.91; both figures are jobs rich. The jobs - housing balance in Orange County is
estimated to increase slightly from 1.42 to 1.51 during the same period; both figures are slightly jobs rich
compared to SCAG's suggested 1.36 jobs housing balance.
Page 5.104 PlaceWorkr
2010 1 2015 2020 2025 1 2030 2035
City of Santa Ana 1 143,987 1 144,951 1 146,001 1 148,099 1 149,250 1 149,440
Orange County 1 1,490,296 1 1,546,865 1 1,625,805 1 1,684,908 1 1,738,032 1 1,778,845
Soumz: Center far Demographic Research 2012.
Employment Onsite
The project area contains 1,389 employees -1,386 employees within the Harbor Corridor Plan area, and 3
employees in the Conventional Zoning Area.
Jobs - Housing Balance
The jobs housing ratio is a general measure of the total number of jobs and housing units in a defined
geographic area, without regard to economic constraints or individual preferences. The balance of jobs and
housing in an area in terms of the total number of jobs and housing units as well as the type of jobs versus
the price of housing has implications for mobility, air quality, and the distribution of tag revenues. The
jobs /housing ratio is one indicator of a project's effect on growth and quality of life in the project area. The
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) applies the jobs - housing ratio at the regional and
subregional levels to analyze the fit between jobs, housing, and infrastructure. A major focus of SCAG's
regional planning efforts has been to improve this balance. SCAG defines the jobs housing balance as
follows:
Jobs and housing are in balance when an area has enough employment opportunities for
most of the people who live there and enough housing opportunities for most of the people
who work there. The region as a whole is, by defirution, balanced.... job rich subregions
have ratios greater than the regional average; housing rich subregions have ratios lower than
the regional average.
Ideally, job - housing balance would... assure not only a numerical match of jobs and housing
but also an economic match in type of jobs and housing. (SCAG 1989, 1997)
jobs housing goals and ratios are advisory only. No ideal jobs housing ratio is adopted in state, regional, or
city policies. However, SCAG considers an area balanced when the jobs - housing ratio is 1.36; communities
with more than 1.36 jobs per dwelling unit are considered jobs rich; those with fewer than 1.36 are housing -
rich (SCAG 2004). A job - housing imbalance can indicate potential air quality and traffic problems associated
with commuting.
As shown in Table 5.10 -6, the jobs housing balance in Santa Ana is forecast to increase slightly between 2010
and 2035, from 1.87 to 1.91; both figures are jobs rich. The jobs - housing balance in Orange County is
estimated to increase slightly from 1.42 to 1.51 during the same period; both figures are slightly jobs rich
compared to SCAG's suggested 1.36 jobs housing balance.
Page 5.104 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Table 5.10 -6 Jobs - Housing Balance
Soumz: CDR 2012.
Regulatory Setting
State Regulations
California Housing Element Law
California planning and zoning law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan for future growth
California Government Code Section 65300). This plan must include a housing element that identifies
housing needs for all economic segments and provides opportunities for housing development to meet that
need. At the state level, the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) estimates the relative
share of California's projected population growth that would occur in each county based on CDF population
projections and historical growth trends. These figures are compiled by HCD in a Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) for each region of California. Where there is a regional council of governments, the
HCD provides the RHNA to the council. The council then assigns a share of the regional housing need to
each of its cities and counties. The process of assigning shares gives cities and counties the opportunity to
comment on the proposed allocations. The HCD oversees the process to ensure that the council of
governments distributes its share of the state's projected housing need.
State law recognizes the vital role local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing. To that
end, California Government Code requires that the housing element achieve legislative goals to:
Identify adequate sites to facilitate and encourage the development, maintenance, and improvement of
housing for households of all economic levels, including persons with disabilities.
Remove, as legally feasible and appropriate, governmental constraints to the production, maintenance,
and improvement of housing for persons of all incomes, including those with disabilities.
Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income
households.
Conserve and improve the condition of housing and neighborhoods, including existing affordable
housing. Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status,
ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability.
October 2014 Page 5.10 5
Year Em to ment Housing Units Jobs-Housing Rata
Santa Ana
2010 143,987 76,918 1.87
2020 146,001 77,521 1.88
2035 149,440 78,323 1.91
Orange County
2010 1,490,296 1,050,330 1.42
2020 1,625,805 1,105,238 1.47
2035 1,778,845 1,180,292 1.51
Soumz: CDR 2012.
Regulatory Setting
State Regulations
California Housing Element Law
California planning and zoning law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan for future growth
California Government Code Section 65300). This plan must include a housing element that identifies
housing needs for all economic segments and provides opportunities for housing development to meet that
need. At the state level, the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) estimates the relative
share of California's projected population growth that would occur in each county based on CDF population
projections and historical growth trends. These figures are compiled by HCD in a Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) for each region of California. Where there is a regional council of governments, the
HCD provides the RHNA to the council. The council then assigns a share of the regional housing need to
each of its cities and counties. The process of assigning shares gives cities and counties the opportunity to
comment on the proposed allocations. The HCD oversees the process to ensure that the council of
governments distributes its share of the state's projected housing need.
State law recognizes the vital role local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing. To that
end, California Government Code requires that the housing element achieve legislative goals to:
Identify adequate sites to facilitate and encourage the development, maintenance, and improvement of
housing for households of all economic levels, including persons with disabilities.
Remove, as legally feasible and appropriate, governmental constraints to the production, maintenance,
and improvement of housing for persons of all incomes, including those with disabilities.
Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income
households.
Conserve and improve the condition of housing and neighborhoods, including existing affordable
housing. Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status,
ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability.
October 2014 Page 5.10 5
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Preserve for lower income households the publicly assisted multifamily housing developments in each
community.
The State of California Housing Element laws (Section 65580 to 65589 of the California Government Code)
require that each city and county identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs within its
jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, and programs to further the development, improvement, and
preservation of housing for all economic segments of the community, commensurate with local housing
needs.
Regional Planning
Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is a council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,
and Ventura counties. SCAG is the federally recognized metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for this
region, which encompasses over 38,000 square miles.
Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy
On April 4, 2012, SCAG adopted the 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy (RTP /SCS). SCAG has placed a greater emphasis than ever on sustamability and integrated planning,
and the RTP /SCS vision encompasses three principles that collectively work as the key to the region's future:
mobility, economy, and sustamability. The RTP /SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from
transportation sources to comply with Senate Bill 375, improve public health, and meet the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards. It provides a blueprint for improving quality of life for residents by providing more
choices for where they will live, work, and play and how they will move around (SCAG 2012).
5.10.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
P -1 Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure).
P -2 Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.
P -3 Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Page 5.106 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
The initial study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds
would be less than significant:
Threshold P -2
Threshold P -3
These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis.
5.10.3 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the initial study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.10 -1: The proposed project would directly result in population growth in the project area.
Threshold P -11
ImpactAnalysis:
The project would not result in a change in land uses or redevelopment within the Conventional Zoning
Area. The change in zoning designations for this area would be consistent with the existing land uses.
Therefore, no change in the number of residential units, population, building square footage, or employees
are anticipated for this area. Since no change in population would occur in the Conventional Zoning Area, the
analysis below focuses on the impacts related to the proposed growth within the Harbor Corridor Plan area
only.
Population Growth
Harbor Corridor Plan buildout would add an estimated net increase of 15,327 residents to the project site
over a 20 -year period or more. The total forecast increase in population in the City of Santa Ana between
2010 and 2035, based on General Plan land use designations, is 11,856 (CDR 2012). The corresponding
forecast population increase for Orange County is 401,872 (CDR 2012).
Since the project's population increase would exceed the projected increase for the City by 3,471 residents, it
would induce substantial population growth in the area. However, the project's population growth is well
within the projected increase for Orange County. As a result, there would not be a substantial impact on
growth within Orange County through 2035.
Employment- Generating Land Uses
Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would add an estimated 173 net new employees to the project area.
The project related employment increase would be well within the CDR forecast of 5,453 jobs in the City of
Santa Ana over the 2010 -2035 period. As a result, there would not be a substantial impact.
October 2014 Page 5.10 -7
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impact of Employment on Population Growth
Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would add 13,721 square feet of commercial uses to the project area.
The types of businesses and employment that would occupy the commercial uses are currently unknown, but
are expected to support new retail stores, restaurants, office buildings, hotels, and museums. There are
substantial numbers of workers in the region with skills needed for retail., restaurant, hotel, and general office
work, along with many other kinds of work performed in commercial uses.
The unemployment rate in the City of Santa Ana in July 2013 was 10.4 percent, and 6.5 percent in Orange
County (EDD 2013a; EDD 2013b). In addition, the project would add 3,884 new homes within close
proximity of the new employment generating land uses. Therefore, it is expected that employment generated
by the project would be absorbed by the available regional and local labor force and would not attract
substantial numbers of new employees to the region. As a result, the new employment uses are not expected
to adversely affect population growth in the area.
Jobs - Housing Balance
Effects of the Harbor Corridor Plan buildout on jobs - housing balance in the City of Santa Ana are estimated
by adding project generated jobs and housing units to forecasts of employment and housing in the City of
Santa Ana in 2035 (see Table 5.10 -7). As shown in the table, Santa Ana's existing jobs housing ratio is 1.87 or
jobs rich. The jobs - housing ratio is forecast to become slightly more jobs -rich (1.91) by 2035. HCP buildout
would develop up to 4,623 housing units, a net increase of 3,884 units over the existing 739 units onsite; and
would add an estimated net increase of 173 jobs to the site. The jobs - housing balance in Santa Ana with HCP
buildout added to existing forecast would be reduced to 1.82, slightly more housing rich than the existing
forecast, a favorable impact.
Table 5.10 -7 Jobs - Housinq Balance in Santa Ana, 2035, with Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout
Soumz: CDR 2012
Transit - Supportive Development
The Harbor Corridor Plan emphasizes a sustainable multimodal approach consistent with the City's Go Local
Transit Vision, which aims to link downtown, employment centers, educational facilities, and expanded
housing choices. The Plan proposes mixed -use and residential, pedestrian- oriented development at high
densities that would support increased transit use within the three transit nodes surrounding the
intersections of Harbor Boulevard at 17th Street, 1st Street, and McFadden Avenue. A limited stop bus route,
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Route 543, began service on Harbor Boulevard between
Fullerton and Santa Ana, through the project site, in June 2013. Route 543 has stops at each of the three
proposed transit nodes. Development of a light rail transit line on the Pacific Electric right- of-way that passes
Page 5.10 -8 PlaceWorkr
Employment' Housing Units' Jobs-Housing Rata
2010 143,987 76,918 1.87
2035 existing forecast 149,440 78,323 1.91
2035 with HCP Buildout 149,613 82,207 1.82
Soumz: CDR 2012
Transit - Supportive Development
The Harbor Corridor Plan emphasizes a sustainable multimodal approach consistent with the City's Go Local
Transit Vision, which aims to link downtown, employment centers, educational facilities, and expanded
housing choices. The Plan proposes mixed -use and residential, pedestrian- oriented development at high
densities that would support increased transit use within the three transit nodes surrounding the
intersections of Harbor Boulevard at 17th Street, 1st Street, and McFadden Avenue. A limited stop bus route,
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Route 543, began service on Harbor Boulevard between
Fullerton and Santa Ana, through the project site, in June 2013. Route 543 has stops at each of the three
proposed transit nodes. Development of a light rail transit line on the Pacific Electric right- of-way that passes
Page 5.10 -8 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
through the north end of the project site was recommended by an Alternatives Analysis completed by the
Southern California Association of Governments in February 2013 (SCAG 2013). A fixed guideway transit
project on the part of the Pacific Electric right- of-way in Santa Ana and Garden Grove is part of the
Preferred Plan in OCTAs Long Range Transit Plan (OCTA 2011). Completion of a transit line on the
portion of the right- of-way in Los Angeles County is scheduled for 2027 (Metro 2009).
In addition to providing jobs and housing near a major transportation corridor, the Harbor Corridor Plan
continues to recognize the important role Harbor Boulevard plays in circulating vehicular traffic through the
region by maintaining the number of traffic lanes. The Plan also encourages consolidated vehicular access
points along the corridor.
The Harbor Corridor Plan proposes improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities and linkages by creating a
pedestrian- friendly streetscape, encouraging a variety of building frontages and decreased setbacks. New
street designs facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian travel along Harbor Boulevard and efficient connections to
the regional bicycle network, including the Santa Ana River Trail.
Although the Harbor Corridor Plan would result in substantial population growth, it would provide an overall
benefit to the community by encouraging walkability and alternative transportation. The Harbor Corridor
Plan is a sustainable multimodal plan that at buildout encourages the reduction of per - capita vehicle miles
traveled for the region, which is one of the goals of SCAG's Compass Blueprint for High Quality Transit
Areas. By providing additional commercial square footage in the area, commuters would not need to travel
outside the City to other areas of Orange County for employment. As a result, the project would not result in
an adverse impact related to population growth.
5.10.4 Cumulative Impacts
Other projects would develop housing and nonresidential land uses in Santa Ana; projections for net
increases in population, housing, and employment in the City between 2010 and 2035 are discussed above in
Section 5.10.1. Although the project in combination with General Plan buildout would exceed the growth
projections for the City, it would result in a favorable impact on the jobs - housing balance. The City is
predominantly built out; thus, other projects within the City would redevelop land or reuse existing structures
rather than build on large open space lands. Further redevelopment and reuse conforming to existing General
Plan land use designations is forecast to increase the jobs - housing ratio in the City slightly, from 1.87 in 2010
to 1.91 in 2035. As discussed above, the project in combination with development in the General Plan would
reduce the jobs housing balance to 1.82, which is considered a favorable impact. As a result, impacts are less
than significant.
In accordance with state law, the City is in the process of adopting its 2014 -2021 Housing Element. The
housing element must address the RNHA carryover balance of 201 lower income units (111 very low and 90
low income level units) from the last adopted housing element. These units would be accommodated through
land rezoned in the Harbor Corridor Plan area exclusively for residential development.
October 2014 Page 5.10 -9
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
5.10.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
State
California Government Code Section 65300: Housing Element Law
Regional
2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Southern California Association
of Governments
5.10.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts
would be less than significant:
Impact 5.10 -1
5.10.7 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
5.10.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant.
5.10.9 References
California Department of Finance (CDF). 2013, May. E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, January 2011 -2013.
http: //w ..dof.m.gov /research /demographic /reports /estimates /e -5 /2011- 20 /view.php.
Center for Demographic Research (CDR). 2012. Orange County Projections, 2010 Modified. California State
University, Fullerton.
Metropolitan Transportation Authority of Los Angeles County (Metro). 2009. 2009 Long Range Transit Plan.
http://media.metro.net/projects—studies/images/fmal 2009-lRTPpdf.
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA. 2013, June 3. Bravo! Bus Speeds Up Harbor Boulevard
Commute. http: //w ..octa. net /News/ Bus /Bravo!- Bus - Speeds -Up- Harbor - Boulevard - Commute /.
2011, February 15. Destination 2035. http: //w ..octa.net /pdf /fmaUrtp.pdf.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2013, February 7. Pacific Electric ROW /West
Santa Ana Branch Corridor Alternatives Analysis. http : //w ..smg.m.gov/perow/project-
documents.html.
Page 5.10 -10 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
2012, April 4. 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
http: / /rtpscs.s cog. m.gov /Documents / 2012 /fmal /f2012RTPSCS.pdf.
2004, April. Destination 2030, 2004 Regional Transportation Plan.
US Census Bureau (USCB). 2013a, September 3. DP -1: Profile of General Population and Housing
Characteristics: 2010.
http: / /factfmder2.crosus.gov /faces /tableservices /jsf/ pages /productviewghtmhpid— DEC_10_SF1
SF1DP1 TrorHype —table
2013b, September 3. Longitudinal Employment Household Dynamics (LEHD). OnTh0dap.
http://onthemap.ces.cmsus.gov/.
October 2014 Page 5.10 -11
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Tbisliage intentional# left blank.
Page 5.10 -12 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
5.11 PUBLIC SERVICES
This section addresses public services including. Fire Protection and Emergency Services, Police Protection,
School Services, and Library Services. Park Services are addressed in Section 5.12, Recreation. Public and
private utilities and service systems, including water, Nvastewater, and solid waste services and systems; are
addressed in Section 5.14, Utilities and Service Systems.
5.11.1 Fire Protection and Emergency Services
5.11.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Fire protection and emergency medical services in the City of Santa Ana are provided by the Orange County
Fire Authority (OCFA). OCFA provides fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue and fire prevention,
hazardous materials coordination, and wildland management services. OCFA is one of the largest regional
fire service organizations in California and serves 23 cities in Orange County and all unincorporated areas.
OCFA protects over 1,680,000 residents from its 71 fire stations located throughout Orange County. OCFAs
staff includes 1,101 full -time firefighters and 290 reserve firefighters.
The project site is in the lust -in service area of Station No. 78 at 501 North Newhope Street, approximately
0.25 miles to the west. Additional OCFA stations near the Harbor Corridor Plan area are Station No. 73 at
419 South Franklin Street, approximately 1 mile to the east; and Station No. 77 at 2317 South Greenville
Street, approximately 1 mile to the southeast; and Station 71 at 1029 West 17 Street, about 2.5 miles to the
east (OCFA 2013). Fire stations in Santa Ana are owned by the City. Two additional fire stations operated by
the cities of Fountain Valley and Westminster are within one mile of the project area.
Existing equipment and staffing at the three OCFA fire stations listed above are described below in Table
5.11 -1, Fire Stations.
Table 5.11 -1 Fire Stations
Station No. Location E ui ment Daily Staffing
78 501 N Newhope St Paramedic Assessment Engine
Paramedic Van
3
2
73 419 Franklin Paramedic Engine 4
71 1029 W 17th Paramedic Engine
Paramedic Truck
4
4
77 2317 S Greenville Paramedic Assessment Engine
Paramedic Van
3
2
Soumz: Hernandez 2013
OCFA's goals for the provision of fire services are listed below. Response times are from receipt of the call
to on scene of the call:
First in engines should arrive on -scene to medical aids and /or fires within 7 minutes and 20 seconds 80
percent of the time.
October 2014 Page 5.11 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
First in truck companies should arrive on -scene to foes within 12 minutes 80 percent of the time
First in paramedic companies should arrive on -scene at all medical aids within 10 minutes 80 percent of
the time.
The current emergency response time standard is for the first unit from receipt of call to on scene of
incident is within 7 minutes 20 seconds 90 percent of the time. The existing response time to emergency calls
from the project site is less than five minutes drive time. Firefighting units serving the project site and
surrounding communities are approaching their maximum capacity, thus, continuing growth in the area is
expected to require addition of firefighting units, but would not require construction of additional fire
stations (Hernandez 2013).
Regulatory Setting
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC; California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 9) sets forth requirements
including emergency access, emergency egress routes, interior and exterior design and materials, fire safety
features including sprinklers, and hazardous materials. The CFC is issued on a three -year cycle; the 2013 CFC
is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2014. Fire flow requirements are set forth in CFC Appendix B.
Orange County Fire Authority Fire Prevention Guidelines
OCFA issues Fire Prevention Guidelines to help residents and businesses in Orange County understand and
comply with fire and life safety regulations.
5.11.1.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
FP -1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire
protection services.
5.11.1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Page 5.112 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact 5.11 -1: The proposed project would introduce new structures, residents, and workers into the
0CFA's service boundaries, thereby increasing the requirement for fire protection
equipment and personnel. [Threshold FP -1]
Impact Analysis: Harbor Corridor Plan buildout would increase demands for fire protection and
emergency medical services in the project site through development of net increases of 3,884 residential units
and 13,721 square feet of commercial land uses. Thus, the project would result in an increase in demand for
OCFA fire protection and emergency medical services. The project is expected to create the typical range of
fire service calls that other similar uses create, such as structure foes, garbage bin foes, car foes, various
accidents causing injuries or medical emergencies, and electrical foes. The project is not located within a high
fire hazard zone and is not subject to potentially significant impacts associated with wildland foes.
Existing fire protection facilities and staffing are expected to be sufficient to provide fire protection and
emergency medical services to the project, and project development is not anticipated to require the OCFA to
construct new or expanded facilities, although increases in staff would be required (Hernandez 2013).
Individual projects developed pursuant to the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan would be required to comply
with existing regulations and standard conditions, including the California Fire Code, as amended by the
Santa Ana Fire Code (Pasadena Municipal Code, Chapter 14). Therefore, the proposed project would not
have substantial impacts on fire protection services.
As recommended by OCFA, all electrically operated gates in developments built pursuant to the Harbor
Corridor Plan would have emergency operating devices installed conforming with OCFA Fire Prevention
Guideline B -09, Fire Master Plansfar Commercial dam' ResidentialDevelopment Additionally, all traffic signals shall be
equipped with optical preemption devices enabling Fire Authority and police vehicles to preempt signals
Hernandez 2013).
5.11.1.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan, combined with buildout of General Plan land use designations in
surrounding neighborhoods in Santa Ana, would increase demands for fire protection and emergency medical
services. Such increase would require additional firefighting units at fire stations serving the affected parts of
the City. Addition of firefighting units is expected to require expansion of one or more existing fire stations
listed above in Table 5.11 -1; however, no new fire stations are expected to be needed (Hernandez 2013). If
additional firefighting units were not provided, response times in the affected parts of the City would be
increased.
The cumulative impact of new development and intensified land uses in the City will exacerbate the strain on
OCFA resources. However, proposed development in the Harbor Corridor Plan area is not expected to
contribute a substantial impact on City -wide fire protection services. Further, the City is largely built out with
existing urban development and the project area has adequate nearby facilities to serve the project. Therefore,
despite the increased need for fire protection and emergency services in the City, no significant cumulative
impacts related to fire protection and emergency services are anticipated.
October 2014 Page 5.113
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
Fire stations in Santa Ana are City owned, therefore funding of fire station expansion would occur through
the City and not OCFA. Since OCFA does not control the development of fire stations within the City,
OCFA recommends implementation of a fire facility fee payable by project developers to the City.
5.11.1.5 EXISTING REGULATIONS AND STANDARD CONDITIONS
State
California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 9: California Fire Code
Regional
Orange County Fire Authority Fire Prevention Guideline B -09: Fire Master Plans for Commercial &
Residential Development
Local
Santa Ana Fire Code (Municipal Code, Chapter 14)
5.11.1.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts
would be less than significant: 5.11 -1.
5.11.1.7 MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
5.11.1.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Impacts would be less than significant.
5.11.2 Police Protection
5.11.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD) provides police services to the project area. The SAPID
headquarters is at City Hall (60 Civic Center Plaza) and the Westend Substation is at 3750 West McFadden
Avenue. The SAPID has a staff of 566 employees, 109 of whom work in jail operations (McCoy 2013).
The response time standard is seven minutes for Priority 1 calls. The existing average response time for
emergency calls is 6.94 minutes (McCoy 2013).
5.11.2.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
Page 5.114 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
PP -1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new of
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police
protection services.
5.11.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Impact 5.11 -2: The proposed project would introduce new structures, residents, and workers into the
Santa Ana Police Department service boundaries. The Santa Ana Police Department could
provide police protection to the project site at buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan with
existing levels of staff and equipment. [Threshold PP -1]
Impact Analysis: Harbor Corridor Plan buildout would increase demands for police protection in the
project site through development of net increases of 3,884 residential units and 13,721 square feet of
commercial land uses. During the construction and operation of the project, the need for police and
emergency services is expected to grow due to the increase in population and associated potential for
additional crime and accidents. Crime and safety issues during project construction may include: theft of
building materials and construction equipment, malicious mischief, graffiti, and vandalism. After
construction, the proposed project is anticipated to generate a typical range of police service calls as similar
developments, such as vehicle burglaries, residential thefts, disturbance, driving under the influence (DiT1).
The Santa Ana Police Department officials have indicated that the increase in demands on law enforcement
services resulting from Harbor Corridor Plan implementation would not be significant when compared to the
current demand levels based on the nature and character of the proposed development (McCoy 2013).
Therefore, law enforcement personnel will be able to respond in a timely manner to emergency calls in the
affected area; impacts are less than significant.
According to the Santa Ana Police Department, buildout of the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan would not
require the Santa Ana Police Department to build new or expanded facilities, expand staff levels, or add
equipment such as police vehicles (McCoy 2013). During the development review and permitting process for
projects built pursuant to buildout of the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan, the police department would
review and approve any new development plans to ensure that adequate facilities and personnel are provided
to allow the police department to serve the needs of all City residents. Therefore, no significant impacts
related to police services are anticipated (McCoy 2013).
Harbor Corridor Plan Design Guidelines require Crime Prevention through Environmental Design ( CPTED)
design measures to ensure safer environments in all new development unless a legitimate reason or acceptable
design substitute is deemed acceptable through the design review process. Security concerns should be
addressed by creating well lit, well used streets and active residential frontages; physically intimidating security
measures such as window grills or spiked gates should be avoided. Future development would be required to
incorporate CPTED design measures as recommended by the Santa Ana Police Department (McCoy 2013).
October 2014 Page 5.115
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
5.11.2.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Harbor Corridor Plan buildout, combined with buildout of General Plan land use designations in
surrounding neighborhoods in Santa Ana, would increase demands for police protection. Other
developments, as well as developments pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan, would pay City taxes accruing
to the City's General Fund including business taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and utility users' taxes; the
Police Department is funded from the City's General Fund. Additional personnel and associated equipment
would be provided through the continued implementation of the City's Five Year Strategic Plan and the
annual budget review process. Therefore, despite the increased need for police services in the City, no
significant cumulative impacts related to police services are anticipated
5.11.2.5 EXISTING REGULATIONS AND STANDARD CONDITIONS
The following measures are standard conditions that apply to the Harbor Corridor Plan and will help to
reduce and avoid potential impacts related to police services:
The City will assess the need for additional police services as part of its annual budgeting process.
All new developments will be evaluated by the City on a project specific basis to determine whether those
developments present new or increased needs for police services.
All new developments shall incorporate CPTED design measures
5.11.2.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts
would be less than significant: 5.11 -2.
5.11.2.7 MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
5.11.2.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Impacts would be less than significant.
5.11.3 School Services
5.11.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project area is in the Garden Grove Unified School District ( GGUSD). The GGUSD provides
educational services to 47,960 students in grades K-12 in 70 schools. The District is the third largest among
28 public school districts in the Orange County, ranks 11th in size among 1,000 school districts in California,
and is the 96th school district out of 17,900 in the United States. GGUSD provides support to students in 47
elementary, 10 intermediate, 7 high schools, 2 continuation high school, 2 adult education centers, and 2
Page 5.116 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
special education schools. The district serves students from the cities of Anaheim, Cypress, Fountain Valley,
Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Stanton, and Westminster.
The project area is in the attendance areas of ten elementary schools (Carrillo, Clinton - Mendenhall, Hazard,
Marshall, Newhope, Northcutt, Paine, Peters, Russell, and Simmons); three intermediate schools (Doig,
Irvine, and Fitz); and two high schools (Los Amigos and Santiago) (GGUSD 2013). The location,
enrollments and capacities at each of the schools are shown in Table 5.11 -2 below.
Table 5.11 -2 Schools
School Grades Academic Enrollment Capacity'
Year 2012 -2013
Elementary Schools
Carrillo K -6 609
15270 Bushard Ave, Westminster
Clinton - Mendenhall K -6 800
13641 Clinton St, Garden Grove
Hazard K -6 652
4218 W Hazard Ave, Santa Ana
Marshall K -6 583
15791 Bushand, Westminster
Newhope K -6 573
4419 W Regent Dr, Santa Ana
Northcutt K -6 431
11303 Sandstone, Fountain Valley
Paine K -6 539
15792 Ward St, Garden Grove
Peters K -6 1,242
13162 Newhope St, Garden Grove
Russell K -6 738
600 S Jackson, Santa Ana
Simmons K -6 399
11602 Steele Dr, Garden Grove
Middlellntermediate Schools
Doig 7 -8 850
12752 Trask Ave, Garden Grove
Irvine 7-8 846
10552 Hazard Ave, Garden Grove
Fitz 7 -8 786
4600 McFadden, Santa Ana
High Schools
Los Amigos 9 -12 1,907
16566 Newhope St, Fountain Valley
Santiago 9 -12 2,367
12342 Trask Ave, Garden Grove
Souw.EnmllmentinformEdimprmidedbywww.ggusd.us/apps/pagesAride . dsp ?uREC_ID= 2159948type= dBpREC_I0= 477076.
The Garden Grove Unified Sdiool Dishid does not have capacity information at this time. Repeated attempts were made to obtain this information from the
Distrid.
October 2014 Page 5.77 -7
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
Regulatory Setting
State
Califomia State AssemblyEi112926 SchoolFacilities Act of 1986
In 1986, AB 2926 was enacted to authorize the levy of statutory fees on new residential and
commercial /industrial development in order to pay for school facilities. AB 2926 was expanded and revised in
1987 through the passage of AB 1600, which added Sections 66000 et seq. to the Government Code. Under
this statute, payment of statutory fees by developers serves as CEQA mitigation to satisfy the impact of
development on school facilities.
California Senate Eiff 50
The passage of SB 50 in 1998 defined the needs analysis process that is codified in Government Code
Sections 65995.5 through 65998. Under the provisions of SB 50, school districts may collect fees to offset the
costs associated with increasing school capacity as a result of development. Level I fees are assessed based
upon the proposed square footage of residential, commercial /industrial, and /or parking structure uses. Level
II fees require the developer to provide one -half of the costs of accommodating students in new schools,
and the state provides the other half. Level III fees require the developer to pay the frill cost of
accommodating the students in new schools and are implemented at the time the funds available from
Proposition lA (approved by the voters in 1998) are expended. School districts must demonstrate to the state
their long -term facilities needs and costs based on long -term population growth in order to qualify for this
source of funding. However, voter approval of Proposition 55 on March 2, 2004, precludes the imposition of
the Level III fees for the foreseeable future. Therefore, once qualified, districts may impose Level I and Level
II fees.
Local
City of Santa Ana General Flan- Education Element
The Education Element of the General Plan is designed to provide sufficient cultural, recreational, and
educational services and facilities to the residents of the City. It is also to provide a cooperative foundation
within each school district to meet the City's educational needs. The following policies are related to
educational needs for the project area.
Objective 1 Provide social, recreational and educational services that complement those provided by
public and private schools.
Objective 2 Provide adequate measures in the City's planning process to promote adequate and
appropriate school sites for new schools and /or expansion of existing schools.
Objective 3 Create an ongoing partnership with each school district within the City to enhance service
and facility planning.
Objective 4 Evaluate City policies and City's General Plan in light of their effects on school planning,
forecasting, and their ability to provide services.
Page 5.118 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
5.11.3.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on he
environment if the project would:
SS -1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new of
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for school
services.
5.11.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Impact 5.11 -3: The proposed project would generate new students who would impact the school
enrollment capacities of GGUSD schools. [Threshold SS -1]
Impact Analysis: The project would allow for an increase of up to 3,884 new residential units (3,705
multifamily and 179 single - family) in the GGUSD. For planning purposes, student generation by number of
dwelling units in the project area were determined using student generation rates from the Santa Ana Unified
School District. The student generation rate multiplied by the number of new units provides an estimate of
the maximum number of students that would be generated in the project area. The proposed project would
generate approximately 223 additional students (115 elementary school, 40 middle school, and 68 high
school), according to the districtwide student generation rates, as shown in Table 5.11 -3.
Table 5.11 -3 Student Generation by Grade Level
Grade Level Total Units Student Generation Rate New Students
K£ 3,705 Multifamily attached 0.0076 28
179 Single - Family detached 0.4863 87
7-8 3,705 Multifamily attached 0.0017 6
179 Single - Family detached 0.1922 34
9 -12 3,705 Multifamily attached 0.0028 10
179 Single - Family detached 0.3255 58
Total 3,884 0.7022 223
Sourm. City of Santa Anal ransa Loning Code(SL) 84A and SO 8413) tIH (2UHB.
The addition of 223 students to the schools serving the project area has the potential to exceed the available
capacity for some schools. The addition of new students to these schools could contribute to overcrowding.
However, the need for additional services is addressed through compliance with school impact fee
assessment. S13 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) sets forth a state school facilities construction program
that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction's ability to condition a project on mitigation of a projects
impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in Education Code Section 17620. These fees are
collected by school districts at the time of issuance of building permits for commercial, industrial, and
residential projects. The current GGUSD development fees, as of 2014, are $3.36 per square foot for
October 2014 Page 5.119
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
residential development and $0.54 per commercial and senior housing square foot. GGUSD may need to
place relocatable classrooms at each of the schools in this projects assigned attendance area to accommodate
this development.
5.11.3.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The project and other development within the GGUSD service area would generate additional students
resulting in the need to expand or construct new schools. As school district enrollments expand, short -term
and long -term plans must be made to accommodate the additional students. As stated above, the State
Legislature provided authority for school districts to assess impact fees for both residential and nonresidential
development projects. Fees collected in accordance with Education Code Section 17620(a) and Government
Code Section 65995(b) allows GGUSD to plan and construct for future growth. Although the fees are
seldom adequate to accommodate the true costs incurred by affect districts to construct new facilities the
Legislature has declared that the payment of those fees constitutes full mitigation for the impacts generated
by new development, per Government Code Section 65995.
5.11.3.5 EXISTING REGULATIONS AND STANDARD CONDITIONS
Government Code Section 65995 requires individual applicants shall pay developer fees to the appropriate
school districts at the time building permits are issued; payment of the adopted fees would provide full and
complete mitigation of school impacts.
5.11.3.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts
would be less than significant: 5.11 -3.
5.11.3.7 MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
5.11.3.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Impacts would be less than significant.
5.11.4 Library Services
5.11.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Santa Ana is served by the Santa Ana Public Library (SAPL). There are two libraries in the
project area: 1) the Main Library at 26 Civic Center Plaza and 2) the branch library of the Newhope Library
Learning Center at 122 North Newhope Street. The Newhope Library Learning Center is nearest to the
project area, approximately 1.5 miles to the southwest. Both the Main library and the Newhope Library
Learning Center would serve as the primary libraries for use by the residents of the project area.
Page 5.11 -10 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
The Santa Ana Public Library system provides extensive resources to Santa Ana residents. It has more than
240,000 Books; 10,000 audio recordings; 12,000 videos; 300 magazine subscriptions and 8 newspapers,
including microfilm copies of the Orange County Register going back to 1906; over 1300 e- books. (SAPL,
2014). The SAPL also has computers for adults, children and youth and tutoring at the Newhope Library
Learning Center.
The SAPL also includes an online library (17 online databases) with which cardholders can access
information online in eBooks, newspapers, magazines, and reference works. In addition, the City of Santa
Ana has a Santa Ana History Room that provides Santa Ana residents with information about the history of
the city, county, and state in which they live. The Santa Ana Public Library includes a Bookmobile at
Friendship Park which is located east of the project area between Fairview Street and Raitt Street. The
Bookmobile provides books, CDs, book and tape sets, videos, and DVDs to the residents in Santa Ana.
The Main Library has 39,790 sf of floor area, and the branch library has 8,987 sf. The combined resources of
these libraries and bookmobiles include over 720,000 books and other resources, plus some 150,000 resources
for in -house use, which serves the City population of 329,915.
Regulatory Setting
The Public Facilities Element of the General Plan is designed to provide sufficient public, cultural,
recreational, educational, social service and related facilities to meet the community's needs. It is also to
promote active and sustained involvement by the public in the pursuit of excellence in the City's public
facilities and programs. The following policies are directly applicable to the public facilities resources for the
Harbor Corridor Plan:
Objective 1.1 Provide adequate public facilities which are economical, convenience, and which reinforce
community identity.
Objective 1.2 Create an on going public- private partnership in cultural, educational, recreational and social
service facilities and programs.
5.11.4.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
LS -1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for library
services.
October 2014 Page 5.11 -11
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
5.11.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Impact 5.11 -4: The proposed project would generate additional population increasing the service needs for
the local libraries. [Threshold LS -1]
ImpactAnalysis: Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan has the potential to generate 15,327 new residents.
SAPL does not have an adopted service ratio for book volumes and library square footage. Based on the
Orange County Public Libraries service ratio of 1.5 book volumes and 0.2 sf of library space per capita, the
project would result in the need for approximately 22,991 book volumes and 3,065 sf of library space. The
City's library system is funded through the general fund and does not have a fee collection system in place to
obtain fees from a developer. The tax base afforded by the additional development within the Harbor
Corridor Plan area would contribute to the City's general fund, which is distributed to various City services,
including libraries. Therefore, any necessary improvements or modifications to the existing SAPL would be
implemented using the general fund and determined on an as- needed annual basis by the City. As such, any
increase in the need for library resources would be implemented by the City irrespective of the project.
Impacts would be less than significant.
5.11.4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Development of the project in combination with build out of the City's General Plan would increase the
demand for library services, particularly for residential development. However, the City is largely built out and
a relatively minor increase in residential development throughout the City would have an incremental effect
on library services. As stated previously, future development would increase the tax based contributing to the
City's general fund, which is distributed to various City services, including libraries. Any necessary
improvements or modifications to the existing SAPL would be implemented using the general fund and
determined on an as needed annual basis by the City. No significant cumulative impacts on library services
are anticipated.
5.11.4.5 EXISTING REGULATIONS AND STANDARD CONDITIONS
There are no existing regulations or standard conditions relating to library services the apply to the proposed
project.
5.11.4.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts
would be less than significant: 5.11 -4.
5.11.4.7 MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
5.11.4.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Impacts would be less than significant.
Page 5.11 -12 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
5.11.4.9 REFERENCES
Brown, Margaret (Director of Facilities). 2014, March. Telephone conversation. Garden Grove Unified
School District.
Hernandez, Michele (Management Analyst, Strategic Services). 2013, August 26. Questionnaire response.
Orange County Fire Authority.
McCoy, Mike (Police Community Services Specialist). 2013, November 5. Questionnaire response. Santa Ana
Police Department.
Santa Ana Public Library (SAPL). 2014. http: //w ..ci.smta- ana.ca.us /library (accessed March 1, 2014).
October 2014 Page 5.11 -13
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
Tbispage is intentionally le, ft blank.
Page 5.77 -14 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
5.12 RECREATION
This section of the FIR analyzes the proposed project's environmental impacts concerning recreational
services and facilities.
5.12.1 Environmental Setting
5.12.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
City of Santa Ana Park Dedication Requirements
The City of Santa Ana has a park dedication standard of two acres of public park and /or recreational space
per 1,000 residents. As outlined in the City's Municipal Code (Part II, Chapter 34, Article VIII, Regulations
for Dedication of Land for Park or Recreational Purposes), the City may require this standard as a condition
of approval for subdivision projects involving 50 parcels or more of residential land use. The City Engineer
determines the need for park dedication based on a project's development characteristics. The City is allowed
to enforce this requirement per the provisions of the Quimby Act.
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act of 1975 is state legislation that requires the dedication of land and /or fees for public park
and recreational purposes as a condition of approval of a tentative map or parcel map. The Quimby Act
establishes procedures that can be used by local jurisdictions to provide neighborhood and community parks
and recreational facilities and services for new residential subdivisions. It allows cities and counties to require
up to five acres of park per every 1,000 residents.
5.12.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Based on the recreation element of the City's general plan, the City has approximately 400 acres of public
park and recreational space. The 2010 US Census shows that the City has 324,528 people, which means there
are 1.23 acres of public park and /or recreational space per every 1,000 residents. This is relatively low
compared to other cities in Orange County.
Parks
There are 35 city parks, 4 joint use (public school public park facilities, and 19 recreational facilities in the
City of Santa Ana. Two of the City parks, Santa Anita Park and Cesar Chavez Campesino Park (Campesino
Park, are within the proposed project site boundaries. Santa Anita Park is just south of First Street and east
of Harbor Boulevard at South Figueroa Street. This approximately 4.7 -acre park has a basketball court,
soccer fields, picnic areas, a handball court, a playground, and onsite parking and restrooms. The onsite Santa
Anita Center also has an outdoor swimming pool and provides a variety of recreational classes. The park is
walking distance (one mile) from the Santa Ana River Trail. Santa Anita Park is currently zoned
Entertainment under the current National harbor Specific Plan (NHSP).
October 2014 Page 5.12 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
RECREATION
Campesmo Park is an approximately six -acre pack that borders the Willowick Golf Course on the south. It is
east of Harbor Boulevard and north of Fifth Street at the intersection of North Susan Street and Fifth Street.
This park has a basketball court, a bandball court, a playground, and open grass areas for multipurpose use.
Other parks and recreational facilities in the area include Rosita Park, the Salgado Recreation Center, and
Heritage Park. Rosita Park and the Salgado Recreation Center occupy the same space and cover
approximately nine acres at 706 North Newhope Street, 0.43 mile west of the project boundary. Rosita Park
has a baseball diamond, onsite parking and restrooms, and picnic areas; Salgado Recreation Center has a pool
and a variety of recreational classes.
Heritage Park is 0.47 mile west of the project site boundary. It covers approximately seven acres adjacent to
the Heritage Elementary School at 426 South Anders Place. Amenities include a small baseball diamond,
covered picnic areas, onsite bathrooms and parking, and a playground.
5.12.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project:
R -1 Would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
R -2 Includes recreational facilities or requires the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, determined that the proposed project would have potentially
significant impacts related to both of these thresholds. Additional analysis is included below.
5.12.3 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.12 -1: The proposed project would generate additional residents, which would increase the use of
existing park and recreational facilities and result in the need for new or expanded
recreational facilities. (Thresholds R -1 and R -2]
ImpactAnalysis: The proposed project would allow for the development of up to 4,623 dwelling units and
1,967,982 square feet of building space. Compared to existing conditions, this would be an increase of 3,884
dwelling units and 13,721 square feet of building space. The additional residential units would increase the
number of people living in the area by approximately 15,327, resulting in increased use of existing park and
recreational facilities.
The City of Santa Ana currently has a citywide deficit of park and recreational space: 1.23 acres of public
park and /or recreational space for every 1,000 residents. This is less than the City's standard of 2 acres per
Page 5.12 -2 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
RECREATION
1,000 residents. Additional use of onsite recreational facilities, Santa Anita Park and Campestno Park, and
nearby parks may cause deterioration over time. However, increased use of existing and surrounding parks
would be offset by the provision of new and expanded recreational facilities required by new residential
development.
The Harbor Corridor Plan requires park dedication or in lieu fee equivalent of 3 acres per 1,000 residents,
which is greater than the City's park dedication standard of 2 acres per 1,000 residents. Based on the City's
park standard, the project would be required to dedicate approximately 30.7 acres of new park and /or
recreation space or pay of in -lieu fees. Based on the corridor plan, new residential development is required to
contribute an in -lieu fee equivalent to 2 acres of open space per 1,000 residents, or approximately 50 acres.
In lieu fees must be applied to create new park space within a half mile of the corridor plan boundaries.
The Harbor Corridor Plan encourages new development to provide open spaces through improvement of
public park space and public rights- of-way. Areas contemplated for additional park space include land
adjacent to Santa Anita and Campesmo Parks or the conversion of land within the Santa Ana River Channel
to passive open space. Conversion of park space around the channel would be an ideal location because it is
publicly owned, designated open space, contains bicycle facilities, and is directly accessible by foot and bicycle
to homes and businesses around Harbor Boulevard. In addition, it would be consistent with the regional
Mountains to the Sea" effort. The corridor plan establishes substantial improvements for the rights- of-way
so that they are more attractive, safer, and functional for all to use and see. Open space in the public right -of-
way may consist of pedestrian and bicycle space, outdoor dining, landscaping, benches, and public art. The
concepts and standards in this plan require high quality design, materials, and landscaping. Rights- of-way
would be treated as an extension of public park space.
The Harbor Corridor Plan also encourages new development to provide private, onsite open space by
allowing an offset of up to one acre of public park requirement through the provision of a green roof on top
of a building or parking area. In addition to open space and recreation opportunities, green roofs are readily
accessible to residents, reduce the heat island effect, provide filtration of pollutants, and reduce stormwater
runoff.
The required in lieu park fee will provide greater park opportunities than the City's existing park standard and
meet future residents' park needs. Parkland dedication and the payment of in lieu fees requiring development
of public parks within a half mile of the project area would ensure impacts to existing park facilities are less
than significant.
New facilities on the project site would be constructed at the same time as proposed housing projects, and
the environmental impacts of their construction have been analyzed throughout this EIR. The specific
locations of new offsite parks that would be constructed from in lieu fees are unknown at this time.
However, new public parks and /or recreational facilities constructed outside the NHSP boundaries would be
required to comply with environmental review per CEQA.
October 2014 Page 5.12 -3
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
RECREATION
Conventional Zoning Area
The Willowick Golf Course and Canrpesino Park would be removed from the North Harbor Specific Plan
would be converted to conventional zoning consistent with its existing use. Therefore, these areas would
remain unchanged and would be zoned Open Space. The project would not change land uses for these areas
and the existing uses would remain.
5.12.4 Cumulative Impacts
The project would result in a population increase of approximately 15,327 people and a need for
approximately 30 acres of parks based on the City's park dedication standards. To determine the cumulative
public park and recreational impacts, citywide growth forecasts are considered. Based on the adopted 2012
Regional Transportation Plan, the City would have up to 74,800 housing units in 2035, an increase of 1,700
over existing conditions (SCAG 2012). During this time, the City's population would increase from the
existing 324,528 to approximately 336,700 (SCAG 2012). This increase, approximately 12,172 people, would
create a cumulative need for up to 24 acres of public park and recreation space in addition to the project
generated need. Recreational needs of future residents of the Harbor Corridor Plan area, in conjunction with
cumulative development in accordance with the adopted general plan, would add to citywide and regional
demand for parks and recreational facilities. Per the City's park dedication requirements, the City may enforce
the construction of new park and recreational space or in hen fees on projects involving 50 parcels or more.
Overall, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
5.12.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
Quimby Act of 1975
City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter 34, Article VIII, Regulations for Dedication of Iand for Park
or Recreational Purposes
5.12.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, Impact 5.12 -1 would
be less than significant.
5.12.7 Mitigation Measures
No potentially significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required.
5.12.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No mitigation measures have been identified and impacts are less than significant.
Page 5.124 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
5.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the
Harbor Boulevard Specific Plan to result in transportation and traffic impacts in the City of Santa Ana. The
analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical report:
Harbor Corridor Speeafic Plan Traffic Impact Study, IBI Group, July 2013.
A complete copy of this study is included in the Technical Appendix to this MR (Appendix H].
5.13.1 Methodology
The traffic analysis was prepared in accordance with the City of Santa Ana requirements and the Orange
County Congestion Management Program (CMP) guidelines. The intersection analysis methodology and
performance criteria conform to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines for a traffic
impact analysis.
The traffic analysis includes an assessment of traffic conditions for 29 existing intersections and 15 roadway
segments for the following analysis time frames:
Existing Condition No Project: Year 2013
Existing Condition With Project (HCP): Year 2013
Future Year No Project: Year 2035
Future Year With Project (HCP): Year 2035
The efficiency of traffic operations is measured in terms of level of service (LOS). The LOS refers to the
quality of traffic flow along roadways and at intersections. Evaluation of roadways and intersections involves
the assignment of grades from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions, and LOS F
representing extremely congested and restricted operations. Descriptions of operation and the range of
volume -to- capacity ratios for each LOS grade are presented in Table 5.13 -1.
October 2014 Page 5.13 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 5.13 -1 Level of Service Descriptions
Level of Range of Vic
Service Ratios Definition
Free Flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream.
A 0.00 -0.60 Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely high. The
general level of comfort and convenience provided to the motorist, passenger, or pedestrian is
excellent.
Stable flow. The presence ofother users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to
select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slightdecline in the freedom to maneuver
B 0.61 -0.70 within the traffic stream with LOS A. The general level of comfort and convenience provided is
somewhat less than that ofLOS A, because the presence of others in the traffic stream begins to
affect individual behavior.
Stable flow. This LOS marks the beginning ofthe range of flow in which the operation of individual
users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. The selection of
C 0.71 -0.80 speed is affected by the presence of others, and maneuvering within the traffic stream requires
substantial vigilance on the part ofthe user. The general level of comfort and convenience declines
noticeably at this level.
High density, but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the drive
D 0.81 -0.90 or pedestrian experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. Small increases in
traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at this level.
Operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a slow but relatively
uniform value. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely difficult, and generally
E 0.91 -1.00 accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to "give way" to accommodate such maneuvers.
Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor, and drivers or pedestrian frustration is generally
high. Operations at this level are usually unstable because small increases in flow or minor variations
within the stream will cause a breakdown.
Forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point
F 1.00 exceeds the amount which can traverse that point. Queues form up behind such locations as arrival
flow exceeds discharge flow.
boulCe: Itll[ut J.
Roadway Level of Service
Arterial roadway segment performance is based on the capacity of the facility (as determined by the
functional classification, roadway geometries, and number of through lanes) and the average daily traffic
ADT) volumes. The City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element evaluates roadway segment
performance in terms of LOS, where the thresholds for each LOS grade are based on daily volume -to-
capacity (V /C) ratios. The maximum average daily volumes for arterial roadways by street classification and
lane configuration and the corresponding level of service are summarized in Table 5.13 -2. The minimum
acceptable level of service for roadway segments established by the circulation element is LOS D.
Page 5.13 -2 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 5.13 -2 Maximum Averaqe Dailv Traffic and LOS for Arterial Roads
Soumz: IBI 2013.
Intersection Level of Service
Traffic conditions at signalized intersections are evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICq
methodology consistent with the City of Santa Ana traffic analysis procedures. The ICU methodology is
based on intersection V/C ratios. The V/C value for each movement is the observed or forecast volume
divided by the saturation flow volume. The intersection ICU value is the sum of the V/C values for the
critical movement on each leg, where critical movements are the pairs of conflicting movements with the
highest combined V/C values. ICU is usually expressed as a decimal value (e.g., 0.74), and 1.00 represents the
saturated condition where the volume of traffic flow is equal to the capacity. The V/C ratios for each LOS
grade are presented above in Table 5.13 -1. Consistent with City of Santa Ana guidelines, this study uses
maximum saturation volumes of 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane (VPHPL) for turn lanes and 1,700 VPHPL
for through lanes for the study intersection analysis.
All freeway ramp termini intersections are evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000)
operations methodology consistent with Caltrans guidelines. The operations methodology for signalized
intersections evaluates LOS based on delay per vehicle. Consistent with HCM 2000 methodology, the
maximum saturation flow rate for intersections analyzed using HCM 2000 is 1,900 VPHPL. The relationship
between controlled delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections is summarized in Table 5.13 -3.
October 2014 Page 5.13 -3
Lane
Street Classification Configuration A B C D E F
Principal Arterial 8 Lanes 85,000 52,500 60,000 67,500 75,000 75,000Divided
Major Arterial 6 Lanes 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 56,300Divided
Primary Arterial 4 Lanes 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 37,500Divided
Secondary Arterial 4 Lanes 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 25,000Undivided
Divided Collector 2lanes 9,000 12,000 15,000 20,000 22,000 22,000ArterialDivided
Commuter Street 2Lanes 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 12,500Undivided
Soumz: IBI 2013.
Intersection Level of Service
Traffic conditions at signalized intersections are evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICq
methodology consistent with the City of Santa Ana traffic analysis procedures. The ICU methodology is
based on intersection V/C ratios. The V/C value for each movement is the observed or forecast volume
divided by the saturation flow volume. The intersection ICU value is the sum of the V/C values for the
critical movement on each leg, where critical movements are the pairs of conflicting movements with the
highest combined V/C values. ICU is usually expressed as a decimal value (e.g., 0.74), and 1.00 represents the
saturated condition where the volume of traffic flow is equal to the capacity. The V/C ratios for each LOS
grade are presented above in Table 5.13 -1. Consistent with City of Santa Ana guidelines, this study uses
maximum saturation volumes of 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane (VPHPL) for turn lanes and 1,700 VPHPL
for through lanes for the study intersection analysis.
All freeway ramp termini intersections are evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000)
operations methodology consistent with Caltrans guidelines. The operations methodology for signalized
intersections evaluates LOS based on delay per vehicle. Consistent with HCM 2000 methodology, the
maximum saturation flow rate for intersections analyzed using HCM 2000 is 1,900 VPHPL. The relationship
between controlled delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections is summarized in Table 5.13 -3.
October 2014 Page 5.13 -3
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 5.13 -1 HCM 2000 Level of Service Descriptions
Level of Service Description of Traffic Conditions Controlled Delay (seclveh)
A Insignificant delays: no approach phase is fully utilized and no vehicle waits longer 10thanoneredindication.
B Minimal delays: an occasional approach phase is fully utilized. Drivers begin to feel 10-20
restricted.
C Acceptable delays: major approach phase may become fully utilized. Most drivers 20-35feelsomewhatrestricted.
D Tolerable delays: drivers may wait through more than one red indication. Queues 35-55
may develop but dissipate rapidly, without excessive delays.
E Significant delays: volumes approaching capacity. Vehicles may wait through 55-80
several cycles and long vehicle queues form upstream.
F Excessive delays: represents conditions at capacity, with extremely long delays. 80Queuesmayblackupstreamintersections.
Soumz:1B12013.
The minimum acceptable level of service established by the cuculation element is LOS D for major
intersections in the City, except in major development areas, where LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS.
Intersections are considered significantly impacted if an unacceptable peak hour level of service is created by
the project or if the project increases the V/C at the study intersection by 1 percent of capacity (0.010 when
the intersection already operates at an unacceptable level.
Congestion Management Plan Facilities
The Orange County Congestion Management Program requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted
for any project generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly
access the CMP highway system. Per the CMP guidelines, this number is based on the desire to analyze any
impacts that add 3 percent or more of the existing CMP highway system facilities' capacity. The CMP
highway system includes designated CMP intersection and CMP arterial monitoring locations.
The CMP monitors the level of service at all designated CMP intersections in the county. The Congestion
Management Plan establishes LOS E as the minimum level of operation for CMP roadways (freeways and
Smart Streets). A significant impact is caused by a 1 percent increase in V/C (0.010 if the CMP intersection
already operates at LOS E
Harbor Boulevard, 1st Street, and Warner Avenue west of Harbor Boulevard are designated CMP arterials.
Designated CMP intersections include:
Page 5.134 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
10) SR 22 WB Ramps and Harbor Boulevard
16) Harbor Boulevard and 1st Street
19) Harbor Boulevard and Warner Avenue
24) Harbor Boulevard and I -405 Northbound Off Ramp
25) Harbor Boulevard and I -405 Southbound Off Ramp
Traffic Counts and Travel Demand Forecasting
To determine the existing traffic conditions in the study area, intersection turning movement counts were
taken during the morning peak period (6:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and the afternoon peak period (4:00 PM to 7:00
PM). In addition, ADT counts were taken on study area roadway segments. All traffic counts were taken
between February 2011 and February 2013. A 1 percent annual growth rate was applied to counts collected
prior to 2013 to bring volume levels consistent with 2013.
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is responsible for regional transportation modeling in
Orange County. OCTAs role as the regional modeling agency is to evaluate multimodal transportation
alternatives to support regional planning activities. The Orange County Transportation Authority Model
OCTAM) is a regional model that is based on traditional four step sequential modeling methodology with
feedback loops" procedures to ensure internal modeling consistency. The model incorporates multimodal
analytical capabilities to analyze local and express bus transit, urban rail, commuter rail, toll roads, carpools,
truck traffic, and nonmotorized transportation such as pedestrian and bicycle. The model responds to
changes in land use types, household characteristics, transportation infrastructure, and travel costs such as
transit fares, parking costs, tolls, and auto operating costs. The horizon year 2035 volumes were derived based
on existing peak hour count data and forecast link volumes obtained from OCTAM. Growth factors for each
intersection approach and departure were interpolated from OCTAM link plots for 2010 and 2035. These
growth factors were then applied to existing counts to forecast future turning movement volumes.
5.13.2 Environmental Setting
5.13.2.1 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK
Selected arterials in the vicinity of the project corridor are described in this section. Items of note include
existing geometry, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and adjacent land uses.
Harbor Boulevard is classified as a Major Arterial that travels north and south through the study area.
Within the study area, there are three travel lanes in each direction with a raised, landscaped median. The
posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour. On -street parking is not permitted, and bike facilities are not
provided. OCTA provides bus service along this corridor via Route 43 at approximately 20- minute
headways and Route 534, operating at 10- minute headways.
Euclid Street is classified as a Major Arterial that travels north and south through the study area. Within
the study area, there are three travel lanes in each direction with a striped center median functioning as a
two -way left turn lane. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour. On street parking is not permitted
October 2014 Page 5.135
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
and no bike facilities are provided. OCTA provides bus service along this corridor via Route 37 at
approximately 30 minute headways.
Newhope Street is classified as a Secondary Arterial that travels north and south on the west end of
Santa Ana. Within the study area, there are two travel lanes in each direction with a striped center median
functioning as a two -way left turn lane. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. On -street parking is
not permitted. Class II bike lanes were recently implemented between Westminster Avenue and
McFadden Avenue. There are currently no bus routes that serve this corridor.
Fairview Avenue is classified as a Major Arterial that travels north and south through the study area.
Within the study area, there are three lanes in each direction with a raised, landscaped median. The
posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour. On -street parking is not permitted and bike facilities are not
provided. OCTA provides bus service along this corridor via Route 47 at approximately 15- minute
headways.
17th Street / Westminster Avenue is classified as a Major Arterial traveling east and west through the
northern region in Santa Ana. There are three lanes in each direction divided by a center median. The
posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. On street parking is not permitted and there are currently no bike
facilities provided along the corridor. Several OCTA bus routes serve this corridor, including Routes 51
and 60 with approximately 15- to 20- minute headways.
Hazard Avenue is classified as a Secondary Arterial that travels east and west through the study area.
Within the study area, Hazard Avenue is a four lane undivided roadway. Limited on -street parking is
permitted adjacent to Rosita Park. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour and 25 miles per hour near
the school zone. No bus routes or bike facilities are provided along this corridor.
5th Street is a four lane undivided roadway east of Harbor Boulevard and a two -lane undivided roadway
west of Harbor Boulevard. On -street parking is not permitted immediately east and west of Harbor
Boulevard, but is allowed further down the street. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour. 5th Street
is classified as a local collector west of Harbor Boulevard. East of Harbor Boulevard, 5th Street is
classified as a Secondary Arterial. There are pedestrian sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. West of
Harbor Boulevard, the sidewalk consists of landscaped buffers adjacent to the curb. East of Harbor
Boulevard, there is minimal landscaping.
1st Street is classified as a Major Arterial that travels east and west through the study area. Within the
study area, there are three lanes in each direction with a raised, landscaped median. The posted speed
limit is 40 miles per hour. On -street parking is not permitted along this corridor. There are currently no
bike lanes or bike routes provided. OCTA provides bus service along this corridor via Route 64 at
approximately 15 minute headways.
McFadden Avenue is classified as a Secondary Arterial (between Euclid Street and Grand Avenue) and a
Primary Arterial (east of Grand Avenue) that travels east and west through the study area. Within the
Page 5.136 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
study area, there are two travel lanes in each direction with a raised, landscaped median. The posted speed
limit is 40 to 45 miles per hour. On street parking is not permitted along most of the corridor. No bike
facilities are provided. OCTA provides bus service along this corridor via Route 66 and Route 145 at
approximately 15- to 45 minute headways.
Edinger Avenue is classified as a Major Arterial that travels east and west through the study area. The
roadway is a four -lane divided roadway between Euclid Street and Main. The posted speed limit is 40
miles per hour. On -street parking is not permitted along the corridor within the study area. There are
currently no bike facilities provided along the corridor. OCTA provides bus service along Edinger
Avenue via Route 70 at approximately 30- minute headways.
Warner Avenue is classified as a Major Arterial that travels east and west through the study area. Within
the study area, Warner Avenue is a four lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit is 40 to 45 miles
per hour. On -street parking is not permitted and there are currently no bike lanes provided along the
corridor. There are two OCTA bus routes that serve Warner Avenue in the study area. Routes 72 and 463
operate with headways at approximately 20- to 30- minutes.
Segerstrom Avenue is classified as a Major Arterial that travels east and west through the study area.
Segerstrom Avenue is a six -lane divided roadway between Susan Street and Harbor Boulevard and a four
lane divided roadway along the rest of the corridor. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. On-
street parking is not permitted and there are currently no bike facilities provided along this corridor.
There are currently no transit services that operate along Segerstrom Avenue within the study area.
MacArthur Boulevard is classified as a Major Arterial that travels east and west through the study area.
Within the study area, there are three travel lanes in each direction with a raised, landscaped median. The
posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. On -street parking is not permitted throughout the corridor and
there are currently no bike facilities provided. OCTA operates four bus routes along this corridor
Routes 53, 55, 76, and 173. Headways are 10 minutes for Route 53, 30 minutes for Route 55, 60 minutes
for Route 76, and 45 minutes for Route 173.
Sunflower Avenue is classified as a Primary Arterial with two lanes in each direction traveling east and
west. Posted speed limit is 40 mph. On street parking is not permitted within the study area. Class II bike
lanes are provided within the study area. OCTA operates four bus routes along this corridor Routes
172, 216, 464 and 794.
South Coast Drive is classified as a Primary Arterial with two lanes in each direction traveling east and
west. Posted speed limit is 40 mph. On street parking is not permitted within the study area. Class II bike
lanes are provided within the study area. No bus routes operate along this roadway.
5.13.2.2 EXISTING ROADWAY TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
Table 5.13 -4 includes the existing traffic volumes and corresponding roadway segment LOS. As shown, all
study roadway segments currently operate at an acceptable level of service.
October 2014 Page 5.13 -7
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 5.13 -4 Existing Roadway Segment LOS
Street Name Limits Lanes' Type
LOS E
Capacity ADT2 LOS
1 Harbor Blvd Trask Ave to Westminster Ave 6D Major 56,300 49,123 D
2 Harbor Blvd Westminster Ave to Hazard Ave 6D Major 56,300 46,044 D
3 Harbor Blvd Hazard Ave to First St 6D Major 56,300 47,651 D
4 Harbor Blvd First St to McFadden Ave 6D Major 56,300 47,014 D
5 Harbor Blvd McFadden Ave to Edinger Ave 6D Major 56,300 45,385 D
6 Harbor Blvd Edinger Ave to Warner Ave 6D Major 56,300 40,832 C
7 Harbor Blvd Segerstrom Ave to MacArthur Blvd 6D Major 56,300 40,403 C
8 Westminster Ave Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 56,300 25,111 A
9 Westminster Ave Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 56,300 29,244 A
10 1st Street Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 56,300 25,568 A
11 1st Street Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 56,300 30,221 A
12 McFadden Ave Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 4D Secondary 25,000 14,539 A
13 McFadden Ave Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 4D Secondary 25,000 19,044 C
14 Edinger Ave Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 56,300 20,407 A
15 Edinger Ave Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 1 56,300 1 28,992 A
Souw.IB12013.
Notes: Bold indica&s an unacceptable level of service.
1 D= Divided U= Undivided. Example: 00=6 lanes, divided roadmy.
3 ADT= average dailytraffw volumes
5.13.2.3 EXISTING INTERSECTION TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
Twenty -nine existing intersections were selected in consultation with the City of Santa Ana for analysis based
on traffic impact and vehicle volumes. The study area intersections and turn lane geometries are shown in
Figure 5.13 -1. A summary of the AM and PM peak -hour LOS analysis for the year 2013 existing condition is
in Table 5.13 -5. All 29 study intersections currently operate at an acceptable level of service during both
peak -hour periods, with the exception ofi
12) Harbor Boulevard and Trask Avenue: LOS F (PM)
Peak -hour turning movement volumes during the AM and PM peak hour are shown in Exhibits 4.2 and 4.3,
respectively, of the traffic study in Appendix H. The LOS calculations worksheets are in Appendix D of the
traffic study.
Page 5.13 -8 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 5.13 -5 Existing Intersection LOS
Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C or Delay
sec)32 LOS3
V/C or Delay
sec)32 LOSS
1 Euclid St and Westminster Ave 0.798 C 0.810 D
2 Euclid St and McFadden Ave 0.737 C 0.796 C
3 Euclid St and Edinger Ave 0.768 C 0.765 C
4 Newhope St and Westminster Ave 0.696 B 0.851 D
5 Newhope St and Hazard Ave 0.481 A 0.586 A
6 Newhope St andlst St 0.698 B 0.831 D
7 Newhope St and McFadden Ave 0.689 B 0.774 C
8 Newhope Stand Edinger Ave 0.708 C 0.796 C
9 Harbor Blvd and Garden Grove Ave 0.530 A 0.670 B
10 Harbor Blvd and Westhound SR -22 Off-Ramp 25.8s C 24.6s C
11 Trask Ave and Eastbound SR -22 On -Ramp 9.9s A 10.7s B
12 Harbor Blvd and Trask Ave 0.888 D 1.058 F
13 Harbor Blvd and Westminster Ave 0.692 B 0.744 C
14 Harbor Blvd and Hazard Ave 0.635 B 0.539 A
15 Harbor Blvd and 5th St 0.672 B 0.648 B
16 Harbor Blvd and 1st St 0.713 C 0.804 D
17 Harbor Blvd and McFadden Ave 0.729 C 0.717 C
18 Harbor Blvd and Edinger Ave 0.672 B 0.683 B
19 Harbor Blvd and Warner Ave 0.668 B 0.729 C
20 Harbor Blvd and Segerstrom Ave/Slater Ave 0.750 C 0.804 D
21 Harbor Blvd and MacArthur Ave 0.741 C 0.767 C
22 Harbor Blvd and Sunflower Ave 0.588 A 0.785 C
23 Harbor Blvd and South Coast Dr 0.459 A 0.587 A
24 Harbor Blvd and Northbound 1 -405 Off-Ramp 17.6s B 20.0 s B
25 Harbor Blvd and Southbound 1 -405 Off -Ramp 18.7s B 28.0 s C
26 Fairview Stand 17th St 0.754 C 0.824 D
27 Fairview St and lstSt 0.794 C 0.806 D
28 Fairview St and McFadden Ave 0.705 C 0.694 B
29 Fairview St and Edinger Ave 0.733 C 0.649 B
Souw.IB12013.
1 All intersections are evaluated in termsofV/C, except freeway ramps, which are evaluated bydelay in seconds.
Y V /C= vdumetocapwity
3 Bold indica &san unaccepta61elevelofservice.
5.13.2.4 PUBLIC TRANSIT
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA Route 543, a limited -stop bus route, began service through
the project site on Harbor Boulevard between Fullerton and Santa Ana in June 2013. Development of a
light rail transit line on the Pacific Electric right- of-way that passes through the north end of the project site
was recommended by an Alternatives Analysis completed by the Southern California Association of
Governments in February 2013 (SCAG 2013). A fixed guideway transit project on the Pacific Electric right
October 2014 Page 5.13 -9
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
of way in Santa Ana and Garden Grove is part of the preferred plan in OCTAs Long Range Transit Plan
OCTA 2011). Completion of a transit line on the portion of the right- of-way in Los Angeles County is
scheduled for 2027 (Metro 2009).
5.13.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project could:
T-1 Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including
but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit.
T-2 Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of
service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
T-3 Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks.
T-4 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
T-5 Result in inadequate emergency access.
T-6 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds
would be less than significant:
Threshold T-3
Threshold T-4
Threshold T-5
These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis.
Page 5.13 -10 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Figure 5.13 -1 Study Area Intersections and Existing Turn Lane Geometries
5. Environmental Analysis
1 •t , 1 Eucld St &Edinger Ave
1t4
101
0_ 11i r
MEN 12 3
1 4 1ar Ave 26
1 I
l= 1, +
1 t
Wtl
15
r JI
6 1 st 27
Newhope 5t &1st 5t
Ave
7 111 clEa, 2
Mt 28
r
18 EtliIn Aves.~29
4
i
il
6
V
mer
4
A,
a — 19• V
Q 2fl S®gerstrom ve =
21
Newhope St &McFadden Ave
t
ac vrthur Slv
f v . 22 Sunflower Av
4L, _ 23 South Coast r:
Blvd
24
25
r
wroo,evmwwcvr<uo. r. Qa sv arlmaxcmi ,1 1 11rRaawrwnr1e
ht
Euclid St &Westminster Ave Euclid St &McFadden Ave Eucld St &Edinger Ave
1t4 X114 r d1t44 r
3
r)tt Fit z Wtl
Newhope St &Westminster Newhope St &Hazard Ave Newhope 5t &1st 5t
Ave
r
4
il
6
4 htf hff
Newhope St &McFadden Ave Newhope St &Edinger Ave Harbor Blvd &Garden Grove
Blvd
dl4 r 114 r AIN r
7
ht
8
htt 71t
Harbor Blvd&Wesibound Trask Ave &Eastbound Harbor Blvd& Trask Ave
SR -22O1f-Ramp SR -22 M -Ramp
tl r r
10
E
12
httt z htti
Harbor BIW &WCSlminfMr AVe Herbnr Blvd&Hdtard Ave Harbor Rlvd &5th5t
Itl4 i114 r X114
r
13 14 15
httt It*
Harbor Mixed Use Conventional ZoningTransitCorridorPlan
0
Basemap Source: 1131 Group 2013, UpdatedAugust 2014
Scale (Miles)
PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Tbisliage intentional# left blank.
Page 5.13 -12 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
5.13.4 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the initial study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.13 -1: Project - related trip generation would impact levels of service for the existing area roadway
system. [Threshold T -1]
Impact Analysis: Two scenarios are used in evaluating project traffic impacts. Direct impacts are evaluated
using existing conditions as a baseline, in accord with a 2010 Appellate Court decision (Sunnyvale West
NeigbborboodAssociation P. City of Sunnyvale City Council 190 Cal.App.4 1351). Cumulative impacts are assessed
using forecast traffic conditions in the project future year (2035).
Existing (2013) With Project
Roadway Segments
A summary of the forecast roadway segment volumes and corresponding level of service results for the
Existing Year 2013 With Project condition is shown in Table 5.13 -6. All study roadway segments are forecast
to operate at an acceptable level of service. The project is not forecast to create a deficient level of service for
any studied roadway segment.
October 2014 Page 5.13 -13
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 5.13 -6 Existing Year 2013 With Project, Roadway Segment LOS
k Street Name Limits Lanes' Type
LOS E
Capacity
2013
No Proect
2013
With Proect
OS ADT2 LOS
1 Harbor Blvd Trask Ave to Westminster Ave 6D Major 50,600 49123 D 46698 D
2 Harbor Blvd Westminster Ave to Hazard Ave 6D Major 50,600 46044 D 42341 C
3 Harbor Blvd Hazard Ave to First St 6D Major 50,600 47651 D 44033 C
4 Harbor Blvd First St to McFadden Ave 6D Major 50,600 47014 D 46807 D
5 Harbor Blvd McFadden Ave to Edinger Ave 6D Major 50,600 45385 D 48517 D
6 Harbor Blvd Edinger Ave to Warner Ave 6D Major 50,600 40832 C 41367 C
7 Harbor Blvd Segerstrom Ave to MacArthur Blvd 6D Major 50,600 40403 C 39935 C
8 Westminster Ave Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 25111 A 25626 A
9 Westminster Ave Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 29244 A 28656 A
10 1st Street Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 25568 A 26940 A
11 1st Street Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 30221 A 31760 A
12 McFadden Ave Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 4D Secondary 22,500 14539 A 15327 B
13 McFadden Ave Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 4D Secondary 1 22,500 1 19044 C 16612 B
14 Edinger Ave Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 20407 A 20871 A
15 Edinger Ave Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 28992 1 A 34886 B
Souw.IB12013.
Notes: Bold indica&s an unacceptable eeel ofservice.
D= Divided U= Undivided. Example: 60= 13 anes, divided roadway.
3 ADT= average daily traffw volumes
Intersection Levels of Service
Existing year with project traffic conditions were estimated by adding project generated trips assigned to the
study area roadways to the existing traffic conditions. Adoption of the Harbor Corridor Plan would allow for
approximately 4,600 residential units and 2 million square feet of commercial space in the plan area. Table
5.13 -7 summarizes the land uses proposed in the Harbor Corridor Plan by traffic analysis zone (TAZ) in the
OCTAM model.
Page 5.13 -14 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 5.13 -7 Harbor Corridor Plan Land Uses
TAZ Retail SF Service F Other SF Residential DU
622 125,000 375,000 1,229
718 102,000 161,000 708
724 88,827 628
732 208,271 272
747 83,000 34,000 749
748 115,000 544
765 185,600 268
766 490,284 224
Total 1,397,982 375,000 195,000 4,622
Souw.IB12013.
Summaries of the AM and PM peak hour LOS analyses with and without the project are shown in Tables
5.13 -8 and Table 5.13 -9, respectively. As previously stated, intersections are considered significantly impacted
if an unacceptable peak hour level of service is created by the project or if the project increases the V/C
ratio at the study intersection by 1 percent of capacity (0.010 or greater if the intersection already operates at
an unacceptable level. All intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service if the project
were implemented today.
It should be noted that implementation of the projects proposed land uses would generate a net reduction in
traffic volumes at some study area intersections, causing an improvement in LOS. Traffic volume reductions
at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard at Trask Avenue would allow the intersection to operate at acceptable
LOS B during the PM peak hour under existing plus project conditions, as compared to LOS F for existing
conditions.
Peak hour Owning movement volumes during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively, are shown in Exhibits
4.4 and 4.5 of the traffic study in Appendix H. The LOS calculations worksheets are in Appendix D of the
traffic study.
October 2014 Page 5.13 -15
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 5.13 -8 Existing With Project Intersection LOS: AM Peak Hour
Intersection
No Project With Proect Change
in VIC ImpactVICLOSv/C LOS
1 Euclid St and Westminster Ave 0.798 C 0.786 C 0.012 No
2 Euclid St and McFadden Ave 0.737 C 0.819 D 0.082 Yes
3 Euclid St and Edinger Ave 0.768 C 0.806 D 0.038 No
4 Newhope St and Westminster Ave 0.696 B 0.728 C 0.032 No
5 Newhope St and Hazard Ave 0.481 A 0.500 A 0.019 No
6 Newhope St andist St 0.698 B 0.711 C 0.013 No
7 Newhope St and McFadden Ave 0.689 B 0.687 B 0.002 No
8 Newhope Stand Edinger Ave 0.708 C 0.751 C 0.043 No
9 Harbor Blvd and Garden Grove Ave 0.530 A 0.529 A 0.001 No
10 Harbor Blvd and Westbound SR -22 Off -Ramp 25.8s C 25.8s C 0.0 s No
11 Trask Ave and Eastbound SR -22 On -Ramp 9.9s A 9.9s A 0.0 s No
12 Harbor Blvd and Trask Ave 0.888 D 0.859 D 0.029 No
13 Harbor Blvd and Westminster Ave 0.692 B 0.682 B 0.010 No
14 Harbor Blvd and Hazard Ave 0.635 B 0.631 B 0.004 No
15 Harbor Blvd and 5th St 0.672 B 0.669 B 0.003 No
16 Harbor Blvd and lst St 0.713 C 0.735 C 0.022 No
17 Harbor Blvd and McFadden Ave 0.729 C 0.735 C 0.006 No
18 Harbor Blvd and Edinger Ave 0.672 B 0.674 B 0.002 No
19 Harbor Blvd and Warner Ave 0.668 B 0.674 B 0.006 No
20 Harbor Blvd and Segerstrom Ave/Slater Ave 0.750 C 0.758 C 0.008 No
21 Harbor Blvd and MacArthur Ave 0.741 C 0.736 C 0.005 No
22 Harbor Blvd and Sunflower Ave 0.588 A 0.586 A 0.002 No
23 Harbor Blvd and South Coast Dr 0.459 A 0.466 A 0.007 No
24 Harbor Blvd and Northbound 1 -005 Off -Ramp 17.6s B 17.4s B 0.2s No
25 Harbor Blvd and Southbound 1 -005 Off -Ramp 18.7s B 18.5s B 0.2s No
26 Fairview Stand 17th St 0.754 C 0.767 C 0.013 No
27 Fairview St and lstSt 0.794 C 0.829 D 0.035 No
28 Fairview St and McFadden Ave 0.705 C 0.030 A 0 .675 No
29 Fairview St and Edinger Ave 0.733 C 0.740 C 0.007 No
Souw.IB12013.
Notes: All inberseclions are evaluated in bermsofV /C, except freeway romps, which are evaluabed in tens ofdelay in seconds.
Bold indicabes an unacceptable level ofservice
Page 5.73 -76 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 5.13 -9 Existing With Project Intersection LOS, PM Peak Hour
Intersection
No Proect With Proect Change
in VIC ImpactVICLOSV/C LOS
1 Euclid St and Westminster Ave 0.810 D 0.830 D 0.020 No
2 Euclid St and McFadden Ave 0.796 C 0.790 C 0.006 No
3 Euclid St and Edinger Ave 0.765 C 0.755 C 0.010 No
4 Newhope St and Westminster Ave 0.851 D 0.853 D 0.002 No
5 Newhope St and Hazard Ave 0.586 A 0.573 A 0.013 No
6 Newhope St andlst St 0.831 D 0.828 D 0.003 No
7 Newhope St and McFadden Ave 0.774 C 0.807 D 0.033 No
8 Newhope Stand Edinger Ave 0.796 C 0.783 C 0.013 No
9 Harbor Blvd and Garden Grove Ave 0.670 B 0.689 B 0.019 No
10 Harbor Blvd and Westbound SR -22 Off -Ramp 24.6s C 23.0 s C 1.6s No
11 Trask Ave and Eastbound SR -22 On -Ramp 10.7s B 2.1 s A 8.6s No
12 Harbor Blvd and Trask Ave 1.058 F 0.687 B 0.371 No
13 Harbor Blvd and Westminster Ave 0.744 C 0.775 C 0.031 No
14 Harbor Blvd and Hazard Ave 0.539 A 0.559 A 0.020 No
15 Harbor Blvd and 5th St 0.648 B 0.671 B 0.023 No
16 Harbor Blvd and 1st St 0.804 D 0.803 D 0.001 No
17 Harbor Blvd and McFadden Ave 0.717 C 0.738 C 0.021 No
18 Harbor Blvd and Edinger Ave 0.683 B 0.708 C 0.025 No
19 Harbor Blvd and Warner Ave 0.729 C 0.735 C 0.006 No
20 Harbor Blvd and Segetstrom Ave/Slater Ave 0.804 D 0.806 D 0.002 No
21 Harbor Blvd and MacArthur Ave 0.767 C 0.788 C 0.021 No
22 Harbor Blvd and Sunflower Ave 0.785 C 0.794 C 0.009 No
23 Harbor Blvd and South Coast Dr 0.587 A 0.594 A 0.007 No
24 Harbor Blvd and Northbound 1 -005 Off -Ramp 20.0 s B 20.3s C 0.3s No
25 Harbor Blvd and Southbound 1 -005 Off-Ramp 28.0 s C 28.0 s C 0.0 s No
26 Fairview Stand 17th St 0.824 D 0.866 D 0.042 No
27 Fairview St and lstSt 0.806 D 0.847 D 0.041 No
28 Fairview St and McFadden Ave 0.694 B 0.711 C 0.017 No
29 Fairview Stand Edinger Ave 0.649 B 0.661 B 0.012 No
Souw.IB12013.
Notes: All inberseclions are evaluated in bermsofV /C, except freeway ramps, which are evaluabed in tens of delay in seconds.
Bold indicabes an unacceptable level ofservice
2035 Without Project
The Future Year 2035 Without Project condition is based on existing land uses in the project study area plus
cumulative projects and ambient area wide traffic growth. The cumulative projects and ambient area -wide
traffic growth is based on Orange County Projects data that is updated every four years and accounted for in
OCTAM. This scenario will be a base for comparison and establish impacts for the With Project condition.
The Future Year 2035 Without Project intersection geometry and control is consistent with the Existing Year
2013 intersection geometry and control. The OCTAM Year 2035 traffic forecasts assume implementation of
projects consistent with the Year 2035 Preferred Plan from the OCTA 2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
October 2014 Page 5.13 -17
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
and the completion of the new four lane arterial roadway along the Pacific Electric fight- of-way between SR-
22 and Santa Ana Boulevard. The Future Year 2035 Without Project volumes for the AM and PM peak hours
are shown in Exhibits 6.1 and 6.2, respectively, of the traffic study in Appendix H.
The project study area is made up of eight TAZs in the OCTA model. The total daily trips within the project
area are:
Existing = 88,063
Existing + Cumulative (2035 Without Project) = 91,133
2035 Harbor Corridor Plan (2035 With Project) = 121,267
Roadway Network Assumptions
The Future Year 2035 roadway network assumptions are based on buildout of roadways consistent with the
City of Santa Ana's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and OCTAs Master Plan of Arterial Highways. In
the study area, most of these roadway assumptions are consistent with existing roadway configurations, with
the exception of the extension of Santa Ana Boulevard as a four lane (two lanes in each direction) arterial
along the Pacific Electric right- of-way from Fairview Street to SR -22. The extension of Santa Ana Boulevard
would pass through the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue as a grade- separated
overpass. Existing intersection geometry at Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue is expected to remain
the same.
The Future Year 2035 network also consists of freeway and transit improvements considered in the Preferred
Alternative of OCTAs 2010 Long Range Transportation Plan, including the Santa Ana Fixed Guideway
project and bus rapid transit
Santa Ana Fixed Guideway. The Santa Ana Fixed Guideway is a proposed streetcar service that would
travel between the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center and downtown Garden Grove. The
streetcar is proposed to travel along an exclusive path on rails that are embedded in the pavement. There
are currently two alignment options being evaluated, but the streetcar is proposed to travel primarily
along Santa Ana Boulevard and the Pacific Electric right-of-way.
Bus Rapid Transit. These improvements include the BRT projects along Harbor Boulevard, Bristol
Street, and Westminster Avenue /17th Street. BRT is a bus service whose design features, stops and
schedule provide faster, more efficient transit service than local bus routes.
2035 With Project
The Future Year 2035 With Project condition is based on the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan described
previously in Existing With Project conditions.
Page 5.13 -18 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Roadway Segments
A summary of the forecast roadway segment volumes and corresponding level of service results for the
Future Year 2035 With Project condition is shown in Table 5.13 -10. All study roadway segments are forecast
to operate at an acceptable level of service. The project is not forecast to create a deficient level of service on
any studied roadway segment.
Table 5.13 -20 Future Year 2035 With Project Roadwav Segment LOS
k Street Name Limits Lanes' Type
LOS E
Capacity
2035
No Proect
2035
With Project
ADT2 LOS ADT2 LOS
1 Harbor Blvd Trask Ave to Westminster Ave 6D Major 50,600 44,687 C 42,262 C
2 Harbor Blvd Westminster Ave to Hazard Ave 6D Major 50,600 40,641 C 36,938 B
3 Harbor Blvd Hazard Ave to First St 6D Major 50,600 42,749 C 39,131 B
4 Harbor Blvd First St to McFadden Ave 6D Major 50,600 44,443 C 44,236 C
5 Harbor Blvd McFadden Ave to Edinger Ave 6D Major 50,600 45,349 D 48,481 D
6 Harbor Blvd Edinger Ave to Warner Ave 6D Major 50,600 39,552 B 40,087 C
7 Harbor Blvd Segerstrom Ave to MacArthur Blvd 6D Major 50,600 35,941 B 35,473 B
8 Westminster Ave Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 26,594 A 27,109 A
9 Westminster Ave Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 26,526 A 25,938 A
10 1st Street Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 24,887 A 26,259 A
11 1st Street Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 30,343 A 31,882 A
12 McFadden Ave Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 4D Secondary 22,500 14,194 A 14,982 A
13 McFadden Ave Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 4D Secondary 22,500 16,345 B 13,913 A
14 Edinger Ave Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 20,720 A 21,184 A
15 Edinger Ave Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 33,761 A 39,655 B
SouW. 1131 2113.
Notes: Bald indicates an unacceptable level ofservice.
D= Divided U= Undivided. Example. 33 =13 anes, divided roadway.
3 ADT= average daily traffic volumes
Intersection Level of Service
Summaries of the AM and PM peak hours intersection LOS for the Future Year 2035 Without and With
Project condition are in Tables 5.13 -11 and 5.13 -12. Two intersections are forecast to operate at an
unacceptable level of service and result in a significant impact:
26) Fairview St and 17th St - LOS E/F (AM and PM Peak Hours)
27) Fairview St and 1st St - LOS F (PM Peak Hour)
October 2014 Page 5.13 -19
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 5.13 -11 Future Year 2035 Intersection LOS Without and With Project: AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Without Project With Proect
Change
in VIC
Project
Impact
VIC or
Bela (sec) LOSS
VIC or
Delay
sec) LOS
1 Euclid St and Westminster Ave 0.864 D 0.844 D 0.020 No
2 Euclid St and McFadden Ave 1.258 F 1.249 F 0.009 No
3 Euclid St and Edinger Ave 1.086 F 1.093 F 0.007 No
4 Newhope St and Westminster Ave 0.699 B 0.732 C 0.033 No
5 Newhope St and Hazard Ave 0.537 A 0.536 A 0.001 No
6 Newhope St andist St 0.630 B 0.644 B 0.014 No
7 Newhope St and McFadden Ave 0.607 B 0.612 B 0.005 No
8 Newhope Stand Edinger Ave 0.660 B 0.741 C 0.081 No
9 Harbor Blvd and Garden Grove Ave 0.518 A 0.517 A 0.001 No
10 Harbor Blvd and Westbound SR -22 Off -Ramp 25.4s C 25.7 C 0.300 No
11 Trask Ave and Eastbound SR -22 On -Ramp 9.0 s A 9.0 A 0.000 No
12 Harbor Blvd and Trask Ave 0.969 E 0.939 E 0.030 No
13 Harbor Blvd and Westminster Ave 0.630 B 0.660 B 0.030 No
14 Harbor Blvd and Hazard Ave 0.908 E 0.904 E 0.004 No
15 Harbor Blvd and 5th St 0.690 B 0.703 C 0.013 No
16 Harbor Blvd and lst St 0.728 C 0.741 C 0.013 No
17 Harbor Blvd and McFadden Ave 0.748 C 0.747 C 0.001 No
18 Harbor Blvd and Edinger Ave 0.672 B 0.674 B 0.002 No
19 Harbor Blvd and Warner Ave 0.707 C 0.692 B 0.015 No
20 Harbor Blvd and Segetstrom Ave/Slater Ave 0.721 C 0.729 C 0.008 No
21 Harbor Blvd and MacArthur Ave 0.871 D 0.865 D 0.006 No
22 Harbor Blvd and Sunflower Ave 0.552 A 0.541 A 0.011 No
23 Harbor Blvd and South Coast Dr 0.480 A 0.487 A 0.007 No
24 Harbor Blvd and Northbound 1 -405 Off -Ramp 18.1s B 17.9 B 0.200 No
25 Harbor Blvd and Southbound 1 -405 Off-Ramp 18.7s B 18.5 B 0.200 No
26 Fairview Stand 17th St 0.893 D 0.906 E 0.013 Yes
27 Fairview St and lstSt 0.797 C 0.817 D 0.020 No
28 Fairview St and McFadden Ave 0.722 C 0.720 C 0.002 No
29 Fairview St and Edinger Ave 0.789 C 0.797 C 0.008 No
Souw.IB12013.
Notes: All intersections are evaluabed in termsofV/C, except freeway ramps, which are evaluated in berms ofdelay in seconds.
Bold indicabes an unacceptable level ofservice
Page 5.13 -20 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 5.13 -12 Future Year 2035 Intersection LOS Without and With Project: PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Without Project With Proect
Change
in VIC
Project
Impact
r
ec LOSS
VIC or
Delay sec LOS
1 Euclid St and Westminster Ave D 0.827 D 0.020 No
2 Euclid St and McFadden Ave C 0.733 C 0.018 No
3 Euclid St and Edinger Ave 1 E 0.891 D 0.010 No
4 Newhope Stand Westminster Ave D 0.877 D 0.047 No
5 Newhope St and Hazard Ave
24.7
C 0.734 C 0.003 No
6 Newhope St andist St D 0.813 D 0.003 No
7 Newhope St and McFadden Ave C 0.747 C 0.033 No
8 Newhope Stand Edinger Ave 1 C 0.754 C 0.037 No
9 Harbor Blvd and Garden Grove Ave D 0.867 D 0.001 No
10 Harbor Blvd and Westbound SR -22 Off -Ramp s C 23.3 s C 1.4 s No
11 Tmsk Ave and Eastbound SR -22 On -Ramp s B 8.8s A 4.1s No
12 Harbor Blvd and Trask Ave 1.431 F 0.895 D 0.536 No
13 Harbor Blvd and Westminster Ave 0.712 C 0.726 C 0.014 No
14 Harbor Blvd and Hazard Ave 0.717 C 0.773 C 0.056 No
15 Harbor Blvd and 5th St 0.737 C 0.769 C 0.032 No
16 Harbor Blvd and lst St 0.863 D 0.859 D 0.004 No
17 Harbor Blvd and McFadden Ave 0.680 B 0.694 B 0.014 No
18 Harbor Blvd and Edinger Ave 0.694 B 0.720 C 0.026 No
19 Harbor Blvd and Warner Ave 0.720 C 0.726 C 0.006 No
20 Harbor Blvd and Segerstrom Ave/Slater Ave 0.853 D 0.851 D 0.002 No
21 Harbor Blvd and MacArthur Ave 0.841 D 0.860 D 0.019 No
22 Harbor Blvd and Sunflower Ave 0.815 D 0.823 D 0.008 No
23 Harbor Blvd and South Coast Dr 0.611 B 0.608 B 0.003 No
24 Harbor Blvd and Northbound 1 -405 Off -Ramp 18.5s B 18.8s B 0.3s No
25 Harbor Blvd and Southbound 1 -405 Off-Ramp 24.9s C 25.0 s C 0.1s No
26 Fairview Stand 17th St 1.064 F 1.112 F 0.048 Yes
27 Fairview St and lstSt 1.032 F 1.080 F 0.048 Yes
28 Fairview St and McFadden Ave 0.683 B 0.700 B 0.017 No
29 Fairview St and Edinger Ave 0.783 C 0.794 C 0.011 No
Souw.IB12013.
Notes: All intersections are evaluabed in termsofV/C, except freeway ramps, which are evaluated in berms ofdelay in seconds.
Bold indicabes an unacceptable level ofservice
October 2014 Page 5.73 -27
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Impact 5.13 -2: Project - related trip generation in combination with existing and proposed cumulative
development would not result in designated road and intersections exceeding County
Congestion Management Agency service standards. [Threshold T -2]
Impact Analysis: The Orange County CMP monitors the level of service at all designated CMP
intersections in the county. The CMP requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any project
generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the CMP
highway system. Per the CMP guidelines, this number is based on the desire to analyze any impacts that will
add 3 percent or more of the existing CMP highway system facilities' capacity. The CMP highway system
includes designated CMP intersection and arterial monitoring locations.
Harbor Boulevard, 1st Street, and Warner Avenue west of Harbor Boulevard are designated CMP arterials.
Study intersections that are designated CMP intersections are:
10) SR 22 WB Ramps and Harbor Boulevard
16) Harbor Boulevard and 1st Street
19) Harbor Boulevard and Warner Avenue
24) Harbor Boulevard and I -405 Northbound Offf -Ramp
25) Harbor Boulevard and I -405 Southbound Offf-Ramp
Table 5.13 -13 summarizes the LOS at the nine study area CMP roadway segments for the Year 2035 Without
Project and Year 2035 With Project conditions. CMP roadway segments in the study area are forecast to
operate at an acceptable level of service in the With Project condition.
Table 5.1 -33 CMP Arterial LOS
Street Name Limits Lanes'
CMP
Guideline
2035 W/O P 2035 WP
ADT2 LOS ADT2 LOS
1 Harbor Blvd Trask Ave to Westminster Ave 6D 50,600 44,687 C 42,262 C
2 Harbor Blvd Westminster Ave to Hazard Ave 6D 50,600 40,641 C 36,938 B
3 Harbor Blvd Hazard Ave to First St 6D 50,600 42,749 C 39,131 B
4 Harbor Blvd First St to McFadden Ave 6D 50,600 44,443 C 44,236 C
5 Harbor Blvd McFadden Ave to Edinger Ave 6D 1 50,600 45,349 D 48,481 D
6 Harbor Blvd Edinger Ave to Warner Ave 6D 50,600 39,552 B 40,087 C
7 Harbor Blvd Segerstrom Ave to MacArthur Blvd 6D 50,600 35,941 B 35,473 B
10 1st Street Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 6D 50,600 24,887 A 26,259 A
11 1st Street Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 6D 50,600 30,343 A 31,882 A
Souw.IB12013.
Notes: Bold indica&s an unacceptable level of service.
D= Divided U= Undivided. Example: 60= 61anes, divided roadway.
3 ADT= average daily traffic volumes
Page 5.13 -22 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Tables 5.13 -14 and 5.13 -15 summarize the LOS at the CMP intersections for the Year 2035 Without Project
and Year 2035 With Project conditions. The Congestion Management Plan establishes LOS E as the
minimum level of operation for CMP roadways (freeways and Smart Streets). A significant impact is caused
by a 1 percent increase in V/C (0.010) if the CMP intersection already operates at LOS E All CMP
intersections within the study area are forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service.
Table 5.13 -14 CMP Intersection Year 2035 LOS: AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Without Project With Proect
Change
in VIC
Project
Impact
VIC or
Delay
sec)1,2 LOS3
VIC or
Delay
sec)1,2 LOSS
10 Harbor Blvd and Westbound SR -22 Off -Ramp 25.4s C 25.7s C 0.3s No
16 Harbor Blvd and 1st St 0.728 C 0.741 C 0.013 No
19 Harbor Blvd and Warner Ave 0.707 C 0.692 B 0.015 No
24 Harbor Blvd and Norlhbound 1 -005 Off -Ramp 18.1s B 17.9s B 0.2s No
25 Harbor Blvd and Southbound 1 -005 Off-Ramp 18.7s B 18.5s B 0.2s No
SouRR. 1131 2113.
All intersections are evaluated in tens of VIC, except freeway Ramps, which are evaluated in tens ofdelay in seconds.
Y VIC = Volume to Capacity
3 Bold indicates an unacceptable level of service
Table 5.13 -15 CMP Intersection Year 2035 LOS: PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Without Project With Proect
Change
in VIC
Project
Impact
VIC or
Delay
sec)1,2 LOS3
VIC or
Delay
sec)3•2 LOS3
10 Harbor Blvd and Westbound SR -22 Off -Ramp 24.7 s C 23.3s C 1.4s No
16 Harbor Blvd and 1st St 0.863 D 0.859 D 0.004 No
19 Harbor Blvd and Warner Ave 0.720 C 0.726 C 0.006 No
24 Harbor Blvd and Norlhbound 1 -005 O Ramp 18.5 s B 188s B 0.3 s No
25 Harbor Blvd and Southbound 1 -005 Off Ramp 24.9 s C 25.0 s C 0.1 s No
SouRR. 1131 2113.
1 All intersections are evaluated in tens of VIC, except freeway Ramps, which are evaluated in tens ofdelay in seconds.
Y VIC -Volume to Capacity
3 Bold indicates an unacceptable level of service
In summary, the proposed project would not result in designated roads and intersections exceeding CMP
service standards. There would be no impact.
Impact 5.13 -3: The proposed project complies with adopted policies, plans, and programs for alternative
ImpactAnalysist One of the primary goals of the project is to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities and
linkages within the project area to create a robust, multimodal corridor. Implementation of the Harbor
Corridor Plan would modify land uses and add improvements to Harbor Boulevard and its cross - streets: 5th
Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Boulevard. These improvements are designed to create
October 2014 Page 5.13 -23
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a robust multimodal corridor that accommodates the movement of vehicular traffic through the City and
region as well as other modes of travel. New street designs enlarge the sidewalk /parkway areas to facilitate
safe bicycle and pedestrian travel along Harbor Boulevard and efficient connections to the regional bicycle
network, including the Santa Ana River Trail. The Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan also recognizes
how building form impacts the pedestrian and bicycle network and encourages a variety of frontages and
setbacks to create a comfortable environment for walking and biking. The improvements would maintain the
same rights- of-way and number of travel lanes on the affected roadways.
OCTA is planning to introduce six routes of BRT service over the next decade three of which will directly
serve Santa Ana. Known as the `Bravo!" service, OCTA plans to introduce the first line along Harbor
Boulevard, followed by a line on Westminster /17th Street, and then a line running from Brea to Irvine. The
BRT service on Harbor Boulevard would operate along a 22 -mile route, linking the study area to Fullerton,
Anaheim, Garden Grove, Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, and Newport Beach. The service would provide
regional connections to Metrolink and Amtrak rail services as well as other OCTA bus services at the
Fullerton Transportation Center. Proposed bus stop locations within the study area include the intersections
of Harbor Boulevard at Westminster Avenue, 1st Street, and McFadden Avenue.
Implementation of the proposed project would promote the use of alternative transportation modes. The
project would be implemented to incorporate and facilitate the use of public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle
modes of travel. No conflict with policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation would occur
from the project. There would be no impact.
5.13.5 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative traffic impacts are addressed above under Impacts 5.13 -1 and 5.13 -2. Cumulative impacts are
assessed using forecast traffic conditions in the project future year (2035) because the OCTAM Year 2035
traffic forecasts assume implementation of projects consistent with the Year 2035 Preferred Plan from the
OCTA 2010 Long Range Transportation Plan. As discussed in Impacts 5.13 -1 and 5.13 -2, the project
combined with reasonable and foreseeable projects would not result in substantial impacts.
5.13.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
City of Santa Ana
City of Santa Ana Circulation Element
Municipal Code, Chapter 36, Traffic Control Devices and Marking
5.13.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts
would be less than significant: 5.13 -2 and 5.13 -3.
Without mitigation, the following impact would be potentially significant:
Page 5.13 -24 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Impact 5.13 -1 Project related trip generation would impact levels of service at three intersections
in the study area.
5.13.8 Mitigation Measures
Impact 5.13 -1
13 -1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall evaluate the potential for
any neighborhood cut through traffic. Neighborhood cut through traffic shall be minimized
through implementation of traffic calming measures as approved by the Public Works
Agency.
13 -2 The City of Santa Ana shall implement a program for traffic improvements in the Harbor
Corridor Plan. The program shall prescribe the method of participation in the mitigation
program in the mitigation program by individual projects and guide the timely
implementation of mitigation measures. The program shall include the following elements:
A funding and improvement program should be established to identify financial
resources adequate to construct all identified mitigation measures in a timely basis.
All properties that redevelop within the Harbor Corridor Plan should participate in the
program on a fair share per new development trip basis. The fair share shall be based
upon the total cost of all identified mitigation measures (see Mitigation Measure 13 -3),
divided by the peak our trip generation increase forecast. This rate per peak hour trip
should be imposed upon the incremental traffic growth for any new development within
the Harbor Corridor Plan.
The project shall raise fund from full development of the Harbor Corridor Plan to fund
all identified mitigation measures.
The project shall monitor phasing development of the Harbor Corridor Plan and defer
or eliminate improvements if the densities permitted in the Harbor Corridor Plan are
not occurring.
Program phasing shall be monitored through preparation of specific project traffic
studies for any project that is expected to include more than 100 dwelling units or
100,000 sf of non - residential development. Traffic impact studies should use traffic
generation rates that are deemed to be most appropriate for the actual development
proposed.
eeeaaesA r r `c s.n rr sar sAe
October 2014 Page 5.1325
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
The City may elect to implement appropriate mitigation measures as a condition of
approval of the proposed developments, where appropriate. All or part of the costs of
these improvements may be considered to be a negotiated credit toward the program,
however the program must be administered in a manner that assures that it can fund
necessary improvements to maintain adequate level of service at all intersections within
the study. If funding of priority improvements cannot be assured, credit for
construction of lower priority improvements may not be assured or may be postponed
until more program funds are available.
13 -3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall participate in the
program for traffic improvements in the Harbor Corridor Plan Per MM 13 -2 ie
these The traffic improvement program includes the following
improvements:
Intersection #26: Fairview Street and 17th Street (Year 2035)
Improvements are to add a northbound through lane.
Intersection #27: Fairview Street and 1st Street (Year 2035)
Improvements are to add a southbound right turn lane.
5.13.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with transportation and
traffic to a level that is less than significant. The proposed mitigation measures would not require right- of-way
acquisitions and are consistent with proposed buildout of the intersection per the City's Circulation Element
Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Therefore, no significant impacts would remain.
Page 5.13 -26 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
5.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This section of the Draft EIR analyzes the proposed project's potential impacts to utilities and service
systems, including water providers and infrastructure, wastewater infrastructure and treatment systems, and
solid waste landfills. The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the following technical reports:
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Abater Study, IBI Group, July 12, 2013
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Sewer Study, IBI Group, March 25, 2014
Abater SuppAAssessment Harbor BoulevardMviced Use Transit Corridorfar City of Santa Ana, April 2014
A complete copy of these reports is included in Appendix J of this EIR.
5.14.1 Environmental Setting
5.14.1.1 WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
Water Supplies
The City of Santa Ana Water Resources Division (WRD) supplies water to the City including the project area.
The WRD has two main sources of water: groundwater from the Main Orange County Groundwater Basin;
and surface water from northern California and the Colorado River imported by the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California (MWD). Groundwater comprises about 62 percent of total City water
supplies; imported water about 38 percent; and recycled water about 0.4 percent; those proportions are
expected to remain about the same through 2035.
Groundwater
Most of northern and central Orange County, including Santa Ana, overlie the Main Orange County
Groundwater Basin (`Basin". Groundwater in the Basin is managed by the Orange County Water District
OCWD). The City produces groundwater through 20 wells; groundwater production in 2009, the latest year
for which data are available, was 28,894 acre -feet' The fraction of each groundwater producer's total water
supply that the producer is allowed to obtain through groundwater from the Basin, the Basin Production
Percentage, is set by the OCWD. The Basin Production Percentage was 62 percent in the 2010 -2011 water
year; and is assumed to be 62 percent throughout the 2010 -2035 planning period of the City's 2010 Urban
Water Management Plan. Water quality in the Basin is not expected to constrain groundwater supplies
available to the City.
Groundwa ter Rechasge
The OCWD owns and operates a network of recharge facilities covering 1,067 acres. Water is recharged into
the Basin to control seawater intrusion into the Basin as well as to provide part of municipal water supplies in
OCWD's service area. The Groundwater Replenishment System, with capacity to treat 72 million gallons per
day (mgd) of wastewater for groundwater recharge, is the largest facility of its kind.
r 1 acre -foot is about 325,851 gallons.
October 2014 Page 5.7¢7
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
MWD sells surplus water — when available — to member agencies, who reduce groundwater production in
exchange for the surplus water. Thus, groundwater is left in local storage for future use.
Imported Water
The City of Santa Ana is a member agency of MWD. Imported water provided to Santa Ana is treated at
MWD's Robert Diemer Filtration Plant north of Yorba Linda. The City participates in MWD's Conjunctive
Use Program, which uses allows for the storage of surplus imported MWD water in the Basin to maintain
reliability during dry, drought, and emergency conditions.
Imported WaterRedrabiht7
MWD's State Water Project (SWP) supplies have been impacted in recent years by restrictions on SWP
operations pursuant to biological opinions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fishery
Service in 2008 and 2009, respectively. In dry, below normal conditions, MWD has increased the supplies
received from the California Aqueduct by developing flexible Central Valley /SWP storage and transfer
programs. The goal of the storage /transfer programs is to develop additional dry year supplies that can be
conveyed through the available Banks pumping capacity to maximize deliveries through the California
Aqueduct during dry hydrologic conditions and regulatory restrictions.
In June 2007, MWD's Board approved a Delta Action Plan that provides a framework for staff to pursue
actions with other agencies and stakeholders to build a sustainable Delta and reduce conflicts between water
supply conveyance and the environment. The Delta action plan aims to prioritize immediate short -term
actions to stabilize the Delta while an ultimate solution is selected, and mid -term steps to maintain the Bay
Delta while the long -term solution is implemented. The City projects that imported water available to the City
will increase slightly from 18,050 acre -feet per year (afy) in 2015 to 19,038 afy in 2035.
Projected City Water Demand
Existing and forecast water demands available to the City are shown below in Table 5.14 -1. In Santa Ana,
water demand equals supply, due to the fact that unaccounted -for system losses are aggregated with
distribution deliveries and because of the presence of a large groundwater basin, it is not necessary for the
City to maintain any large aboveground storage reserves for consumptive uses. As shown in Table 5.141, the
current demand is estimated to be 46,800 ACY for the year 2010, increasing to a demand of 50,400 ACY in
the year 2035. The City's demand is currently met through a combination of 62 percent local groundwater, 38
percent imported water, and less than 1 percent recycled water. This assumes a 7.7 percent growth rate within
the next 25 years, which equates to an annual growth of 0.30 percent per year.
Table 5.14 -1 Existinq and Forecast Water Supplies
Soumz: Malcolm Pirnle 2011
Page 5.14 -2 PlaceWorkr
2010 1 2015 1 2020 1 2025 1 2030 1 2035
Groundwater 28,894 29,450 29,822 30,256 30,628 31,062
Imported Water 17,710 18,050 18,278 18,544 18,772 19,038
Recycled Water 196 300 300 300 300 300
Total Demands 46,800 47,800 48,400 49,100 49,700 50,400
Soumz: Malcolm Pirnle 2011
Page 5.14 -2 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
Projected City Water Supply
Table 5.142 shows the City of Santa Ana's supply and demand for normal conditions for the years 2015
through 2035. Additional water supplies are projected to be available but are not included in this table
because projected supplies meet projected demands.
Table 5.14 -2 Projected Normal Year Water Supply and Demand for the City of Santa Ana (ACY)
ACY = Acre4eet/year
Soumz: City d Santa Ana, 2011.2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
The City has determined that it is 100 percent reliable for single dry year demands from 2015 to 2035 with a
demand increase of 7.2 percent, using FY 2003 -2004 as the single dry year. The available imported supply is
greater than shown on Table 5.143, but is not included because all demands are met.
Table 5.14 -3 Projected Sinqle Dry Year Water Supply and Demand for the City of Santa Ana (ACY)
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Total Demand 47,800 48,400 49,100 49,700 50,400
Groundwater 29,450 29,822 30,256 30,628 31,062
Imported Water 18,050 18,278 18,544 18,772 19,038
Recycled Water 300 300 300 300 300
Total Supply 47,800 48,400 49,100 49,700 50,400
ACY = Acre4eet/year
Soumz: City d Santa Ana, 2011.2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
The City has determined that it is 100 percent reliable for single dry year demands from 2015 to 2035 with a
demand increase of 7.2 percent, using FY 2003 -2004 as the single dry year. The available imported supply is
greater than shown on Table 5.143, but is not included because all demands are met.
Table 5.14 -3 Projected Sinqle Dry Year Water Supply and Demand for the City of Santa Ana (ACY)
ACY = Acre4eet/year
Soumz: City d Santa Ana, 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
The City is also capable of providing their customers with the water demand with significant reserves in
multiple dry years from 2015 to 2035, with a demand increase of 7.2 percent using FY 2003 -2004 as the
multiple dry years. This is true even if the demand projections were to increase by a large margin. The
projected multiple dry year period supply and demand numbers for the first, second and thud year supply are
the same as those provided in Table 7 for a single dry year (2010UWAV).
Water Storage and Distribution
Santa Ana has approximately 444 miles of transmission and distribution mains, 8 storage reservoirs totaling
49.3 million gallons capacity, including its one million gallon elevated storage tank, and 20 city owned
groundwater wells. There are seven MWD connections in the city that can supply a combined total of 56,250
gallons per minute (gpm) into the city's main distribution system. Water system pipe sizes within the project
area are shown on Figure 5.14 -1, Existing lhater System Poe Sides.
October 2014 Page 5.14 -3
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Total Demand 51,242 51,885 52,635 53,278 54,029
Groundwater 31,770 32,169 32,634 33,033 33,498
Imported Water 300 300 300 300 300
Recycled Water 19,172 19,416 19,701 19,946 20,231
Total Demands 51,242 51,885 52,635 53,278 54,029
ACY = Acre4eet/year
Soumz: City d Santa Ana, 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
The City is also capable of providing their customers with the water demand with significant reserves in
multiple dry years from 2015 to 2035, with a demand increase of 7.2 percent using FY 2003 -2004 as the
multiple dry years. This is true even if the demand projections were to increase by a large margin. The
projected multiple dry year period supply and demand numbers for the first, second and thud year supply are
the same as those provided in Table 7 for a single dry year (2010UWAV).
Water Storage and Distribution
Santa Ana has approximately 444 miles of transmission and distribution mains, 8 storage reservoirs totaling
49.3 million gallons capacity, including its one million gallon elevated storage tank, and 20 city owned
groundwater wells. There are seven MWD connections in the city that can supply a combined total of 56,250
gallons per minute (gpm) into the city's main distribution system. Water system pipe sizes within the project
area are shown on Figure 5.14 -1, Existing lhater System Poe Sides.
October 2014 Page 5.14 -3
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Pipes that distribute water to the project area are cast iron pipe, clay pipe, ductile iron pipe, cement mortar
lined and coated steel pipe or asbestos - cement and range in size from 6- inches to 16- inches. Existing water
pressures vacv between 70 to 85 psi.
Regulatory Setting
State
Un5an Water Management Planning Act
The Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983, California Water Code Sections 10610 et seq., requires
preparation of a plan that:
Plans for water supply and assesses reliability of each source of water, over a 20 year period, in five -year
increments.
Identifies and quantifies adequate water supplies, including recycled water, for existing and future demands, in
normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry years.
Implements conservation and the efficient use of urban water supplies. Significant new requirements for
quantified demand reductions have been added by the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill 7 of
Special Extended Session 7 (SBX7 -7)), which amends the act and adds new water conservation
provisions to the Water Code.
20x2020 WaterConsermizon Plan
The 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan, issued by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 2010
pursuant to the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBX7 -7), established a water conservation target of 20
percent reduction in water use by 2020 compared to 2005 baseline use.
Senate Bills 610 and 221
To assist water suppliers, cities, and counties in integrated water and land use planning, the state passed Senate
Bill (SB) 610 (Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001) and SB 221 (Chapter 642, Statutes of 2001), effective January 1,
2002. SB 610 and SB 221 improve the link between information of water supply availability and certain land
use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 and SB 221 are companion measures that promote more
collaborative planning between local water suppliers and cities and counties. Both statutes require detailed
information regarding water availability to be provided to city and county decision makers prior to approval
of specified large development projects. This detailed information must be included in the administrative
record as the evidentiary basis for an approval action by the city or county on such projects. The statutes
recognize local control and decision making regarding the availability of water for projects and the approval
of projects. Under SB 610, water supply assessments (WSA) must be furnished to local governments for
inclusion in any environmental documentation for certain projects subject to CEQA, as defined in Water
Code Section 10912[a]. Under SB 221, approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions requires
an affirmative verification of sufficient water supply. SB 221 is intended as a fail -safe mechanism to ensure
that collaboration on finding the needed water supplies to serve a new large subdivision occurs before
construction begins.
Page 5.144 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Figure 5.14 -1 Existing Water System Pipe Sizes
5. Environmental Analysis
D wD
Source: IBI Group 2013
Scale (Feet)
PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Tbisliage intentionally left blank.
Page 5.146 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
The Urban Water Management Planning Act states that every urban water supplier that provides water to
3,000 or more customers or provides over 3,000 acre -feet (af) of water annually, should make every effort to
ensure the appropriate level of reliability in its water service to meet the needs of its various categories of
customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Both SB 610 and SB 221 identify the urban water
management plan (UWMP) as a planning document that can be used by a water supplier to meet the
standards in both statutes. Thorough and complete UWMPs are foundations for water suppliers to fulfill the
specific requirements of these two statutes, and they are important source documents for cities and counties
as they update their General Plans. Conversely, General Plans are source documents as water suppliers update
the UWMPs. These planning documents are linked, and their accuracy and usefulness are interdependent.
CDWR 2003)
City ofSanta Ana
Required permanent water conservation measures, and temporary water conservation measures in the event
of a water shortage, are set forth in Sections 39 -105 et seq. of the City's Municipal Code. Landscape water
use standards are set forth in Section 41 -1503 of the Municipal Code.
Water Efficiency Standards
There are many water efficiency strategies that have been implemented in the City of Santa Ana that would
also reduce potable water demands for the Harbor Corridor Plan. A Water Conservation Ordinance was
adopted by the City Council in 2009. The City also participates in MWDOC's Water Use Efficiency Program
and is a signatory in the California Urban Water Conservation Council. The City has implemented the
following demand management measures (DMMs):
Water survey programs for single -family residential and multi -family residential customers
Residential plumbing retrofit (low flow showerheads and ultra low flow toilet rebate program)
System water audits, leak detection and repair
Metering with commodity rates
Large landscape conservation program and incentives
High- efficiency washing machine rebate programs
Public information programs
School education programs
Conservation programs for commercial, industrial, and institutional accounts
Conservation pricing for water bills
Appointment of a water conservation coordinator
Water waste prohibition (in accordance with the Water Conservation Ordinance)
October 2014 Page 5.14 -7
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
5.14.1.2 WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND COLLECTION
Wastewater Treatment
The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) provides wastewater treatment for the project site
Reclamation Plant No. 2 is adjacent to the Santa Ana River and approximately 1,500 feet from the Pacific
Ocean in Huntington Beach. This plant provides a mix of advanced primary and secondary treatment. The
plant receives raw wastewater through five major sewers. Approximately 33 percent of the influent receives
secondary treatment through an activated sludge system, and all of the effluent is discharged into the ocean
disposal system. OCSD's treated wastewater is discharged through a 120 inch outfall at 200 feet below sea
level and nearly five miles offshore. Current capacity for Reclamation Plant No. 2 is 168 mgd of primary
treated wastewater and 90 mgd of secondary treated wastewater. The current average flow is 151 mgd; thus,
remaining capacity at this plant is approximately 17 mgd. Expansion plans by OCSD are ongoing and
designed to address the incremental increase in sewage generation as a result of a new development. The
secondary treatment capacity at this plant is currently being increased by 60 mgd for a future total capacity of
150 mgd.
Wastewater Collection
City sewers discharge into Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) trunk sewers. One OCSD trunk sewer
passes along the Santa Ana River next to parts of the east site boundary; the next nearest OCSD trunk sewer
to the site is in Newhope Street west of the site. The majority of sanitary sewer pipes in the city are vitrified
clay pipe and range in size from 8- inches to 15- inches in diameter. Existing pipes within the project area are
mapped on Figures 2.3A and 2.3B of the Sewer Study included as Appendix J of this EIR. The project area is
within Sewer Basin 1 where the majority of the pipe was previously modeled (IBI 2014).
Several existing city sewer segments in the project site are undersized based on Orange County Sanitation
District (OCSD) sizing requirements, particularly in 5u' Street, Washington Avenue, Green Drive, and
McFadden Avenue. It should be noted that this is a design consideration and does not reflect the actual flow
in the pipes as compared to pipe capacity.
5.14.1.3 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
The majority of the project area is developed with only a few vacant lots remaining. The project area consists
of predominantly impervious areas with a few back lots that are unpaved where cars are stored. The existing
runoff coefficient for the project area was calculated to be approximately 70 percent (1131 2013).
Lots in the project area surface drain to Harbor Boulevard and other side streets and the runoff is captured
and conveyed in the storm drain systems. Run -off is managed by a combination of closed and open drainage
channels. A 90 inch reinforced concrete pipe crosses Harbor Boulevard at Washington Street. A second large
closed drainage system is located midway between 1st and 5th Streets. All drainage ultimately discharges into
the Orange County Flood Control Channel (see Appendix F).
Boyle Engineering prepared a Drainage Engineering Report in 1993 for the entire City of Santa Ana. The
results of the report for the existing drainage system in the project area are provided in Table 5.144. The
Page 5.14 -8 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
existing drainage system in the project area is shown in the detailed drainage maps contained in the drainage
study prepared by IBI (see Appendix F). As shown in the table, many of the drainage pipes in the project area
are currently deficient. A storm drain project was completed along Harbor Boulevard in 1996. Many of the
deficiencies shown in the 1993 Boyle Report and summarized in Table 5.144 were remedied with the 1996
storm drain project (IBI 2013).
Table 5.14 -4 Existing Storm Drain Pipe Deficiency
Existinq Pie Existing Capacity
Pipe ID Ex Diam. Roadway Pipe Total
Location Node to Node (inches) Runoff (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Deficiency (cfs)
17th Street to 5th Street
Northeast from south end of Harper St 0302 -0303 13.3 13.3
0407 -0408
0325 -0326 26.4 2.3 39.6 41.9
Harbor Boulevard from 17th St To 0326 -0327 26.4 29.2 39.6 68.8WashingtonAve
0327 -0328 26.4 29.2 39.6 68.8
12.5
17th St From Seaboard Cirto East 0330 -0377 17.5 6.6 6.6 10.9GardenGrove - Wintersburg Channel
Harbor Blvd south of 1st St 0581 -0582 15.6 12.5
5th Street to McFadden Avenue
Near intersection of Harbor Blvd /1st St
0406 -0407 15.2 12.5 12.5 2.7
0407 -0408 36 15.2 12.5 21.3 33.8
0426 -0427 20.7 12.5 12.5 8.2
0427 -0428 20.7 12.5 12.5 8.2
0428 -0408 28.2 12.5 12.5 15.7
0408 -0409 48 54.0 12.5 87.6 100.1
Harbor Blvd south of 1st St 0581 -0582 15.6 12.5 12.5 3.1
West ofHarbor Blvd just north of Camile
St 0582 -0586 56 309.2 1128.3 1128.3
Harbor Blvd north of McFadden Ave
0571 -0572 18.3 12.5 12.5 5.8
0572 -0573 18.3 12.5 12.5 5.8
Clinton St and 5th St 0717 -0718 38.7 3.1 3.1 35.6
5th St east from Jackson St 0718 -0715 68.7 3.1 3.1 65.6
5th St, Jackson St to Figueroa St
0715 -0723 60 86.0 3.1 73.8 76.9 9.1
0723 -0724 66 120.7 3.1 95.2 98.3 22.4
0724 -0705 1 66 121.8 3.1 95.2 1 98.3 23.5
Harbor Blvd, 11th Stto 5th St
0702 -0703 29.2 12.5 20.6 33.1
0703 -0704 39.6 12.5 33.4 45.9
5th St east from Harbor Blvd 0704 -0705 36 50.7 75.6 75.6
Figueroa St south from 5th St
0705 -0734 72 177.1 25.3 120.0 145.3 31.8
0734 -0736 72 180.8 25.3 120.0 145.3 35.5
0736 -0737 72 180.8 120.0 120.0 60.8
0737 -0735 1 72 180.8 12.5 120.0 132.5 48.3
1st St from Harper St to Figueroa St
0743 -0744 48 28.5 12.5 91.1 103.6
0744 -0745 54 36.7 12.5 88.2 100.7
0745 -0746 54 45.3 12.5 162.5 175.0
October 2014 Page 5.14 -9
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
McFadden Avenue to South HCP Boundary
Dennis St near Kent St
0746 - 0747 54 54.3 12.5 124.7 137.2
Harbor Blvd between 1st Stand Camile
St
0747 - 0748 54 62 124.7 124.7
0748- 0735 54 62 12.5 124.7 137.2
McFadden Ave, Jackson St to Harbor
Blvd
0804 -0805 28.7 4.6 4.6 24.1
0805 -0806 45.3 4.6 4.6 40.7
McFadden Ave west ofHarbor Blvd
0573 -0574 18.3 1.6 1.6 16.7
0574 -0575 36 19.6 1.6 29.9 31.5
McFadden Avenue to South HCP Boundary
Dennis St near Kent St 0651 -0652 21.2 25.3 25.3
Kent St near Elliot PI 0652 -0653 21.2 25.3 25.3
Dennis St and Lenhardt Ave
0661 -0662 13.1 25.3 25.3
0662 -0663 13.1 25.3 25.3
Harbor Blvd, McFadden Ave to south
project area boundary
0806- 0807 48 58.2 29.2 64.4 93.6
0807 - 0808 54 62.1 29.2 88.2 117.4
0808 -0819 1 63 103.1 29.2 1 133 1 162.2
Soumz:1B12013.
Regulatory Setting
Water quality requirements for discharges to municipal storm drainage systems are set forth in the General
Construction Permit, Order No. 2009- 0009 -DWQ, issued by the State Water Quality Control Board; and the
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, Order No. R8- 2009 -0030, issued by the Santa Ana
Regional Water Quality Control Board. Both permits are pursuant to National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) regulations implementing the federal Clean Water Act.
5.14.1.4 SOLID WASTE
Waste Management Inc. (WM[) collects solid waste in Santa Ana where it is then disposed in landfills
operated by Orange County Waste and Recycling (OCWR). OCWR operates a network of three active
landfills and four household hazardous waste collection centers serving 34 cities and over three million
residents.
In 2012, about 97 percent of solid waste landfilled from Santa Ana was disposed of at two facilities: the
Frank Bowerman Landfill in the City of Irvine, and the Olinda Alpha Landfill near Brea (CalRecycle 2013a);
the two landfills are described in Table 5.145 below.
Page 5.14 -10 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
Table 5.14 -5 Landfill Capacity
Source CalRecycle 2013x, Calrecyde 2013b, CalRecyde 2013c, CalRecycle 2013d.
Average daily disposal based on 300 operating days per year. The Bowerman and Olinda Alpha landfills are eadi open six days per week, Monday through Saturday,
except certain holidays.
Solid Waste Diversion
There ace 39 solid waste diversion programs in Santa Ana, including composting, household hazardous waste,
recycling, and special waste materials programs for materials such as tires, scrap metal, and
concrete /asphalt /rubble (CalRecycle 2013e).
Local jurisdictions in California ace required to divert at least 50 percent of solid waste generated within their
jurisdictions from landfills under AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act (California Public Resources
Code Sections 40000 et seq). One measure of compliance with AB 939 is actual disposal rates equal to or
lower than target disposal rates. In 2011, the last year for which data ace available, target disposal rates in
Santa Ana were 7.5 pounds per day (ppd) per resident and 16.9 ppd per employee; actual disposal rates were
4.8 ppd per resident and 11.3 ppd per employee. Thus, disposal rates were consistent with AB 939.
Regulatory Setting
State
AB 939 (Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989; Public Resources Code 40050 et seq.) established
an integrated waste - management system that focused on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land
disposal of waste. AB 939 required every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from
landfills by the year 2000. Compliance with AB 939 is measured in part by comparing solid waste disposal
rates for a jurisdiction with target disposal rates; actual rates at or below target rates are consistent with AB
939. AB 939 also requires California counties to show 15 years disposal capacity for all jurisdictions within the
county; or show a plan to transform or divert its waste.
Assembly Bill 341 (2011) increases the statewide goal to increase waste diversion to 75 percent by 2020 and
mandates commercial and multi -family recycling.
5.14.1.5 ELECTRICITY
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the project area. Estimated existing electricity usage
on the project site is about 30.7 million kilowatt -hours per year (kWh /yr), as shown below in Table 5.14 -6.
October 2014 Page 5.7¢77
Current Remaining Maximum Average Daily
Capacity Estimated Daily Load Disposal, 2012
Landfill Location Cubic Yards) Close Date Tons) Tons)i
Frank R. Bowerman 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road 205,000,000 2053 11,500 4,825Irvine, CA 92602
Olinda Alpha 1942 North Valencia Avenue 38 2021 8,000 5,210Brea, CA 92823 578,383
243,578,383Total129,827,278 tons) NIA 19,500 10,035
Source CalRecycle 2013x, Calrecyde 2013b, CalRecyde 2013c, CalRecycle 2013d.
Average daily disposal based on 300 operating days per year. The Bowerman and Olinda Alpha landfills are eadi open six days per week, Monday through Saturday,
except certain holidays.
Solid Waste Diversion
There ace 39 solid waste diversion programs in Santa Ana, including composting, household hazardous waste,
recycling, and special waste materials programs for materials such as tires, scrap metal, and
concrete /asphalt /rubble (CalRecycle 2013e).
Local jurisdictions in California ace required to divert at least 50 percent of solid waste generated within their
jurisdictions from landfills under AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act (California Public Resources
Code Sections 40000 et seq). One measure of compliance with AB 939 is actual disposal rates equal to or
lower than target disposal rates. In 2011, the last year for which data ace available, target disposal rates in
Santa Ana were 7.5 pounds per day (ppd) per resident and 16.9 ppd per employee; actual disposal rates were
4.8 ppd per resident and 11.3 ppd per employee. Thus, disposal rates were consistent with AB 939.
Regulatory Setting
State
AB 939 (Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989; Public Resources Code 40050 et seq.) established
an integrated waste - management system that focused on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land
disposal of waste. AB 939 required every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from
landfills by the year 2000. Compliance with AB 939 is measured in part by comparing solid waste disposal
rates for a jurisdiction with target disposal rates; actual rates at or below target rates are consistent with AB
939. AB 939 also requires California counties to show 15 years disposal capacity for all jurisdictions within the
county; or show a plan to transform or divert its waste.
Assembly Bill 341 (2011) increases the statewide goal to increase waste diversion to 75 percent by 2020 and
mandates commercial and multi -family recycling.
5.14.1.5 ELECTRICITY
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the project area. Estimated existing electricity usage
on the project site is about 30.7 million kilowatt -hours per year (kWh /yr), as shown below in Table 5.14 -6.
October 2014 Page 5.7¢77
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
SCE serves much of southern California; its service area extends from Orange and Riverside counties in the
south to Santa Barbara County in the northwest and Mono County in the north. SCE estimates that total
electricity consumption in its service area will increase from 99,224 GWh in 2011 to 109,888 GWh in 2020
CEC 2012); one GWh is one million kWh.
Table 5.14 -6 Estimated Existinq Electricity Demands
Land Use Amount (DU or BSF)
Electricity Demands, kWh ear
Per Unit (BSF or DU)' Total Demand
Office Park 815,346 17.97 14,651,768
General Light Industrial 505,037 9.65 4,873,607
Apartments Mid Rise 739 3589 2,652,360
Strip Mall 633,878 13.44 8,519,320
Total 30,697,055
1 Soumz: SCAQMD 2011
5.14.1.6 NATURAL GAS
The Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) provides natural gas to most of southern California, from
Imperial County in the south to part of Fresno County in the north. Total natural gas supplies available to
SCGC are forecast to remain constant at 3.875 billion cubic feet per day from 2010 through 2030 (CGEU
2012). Estimated existing natural gas demands in the project site are about 32.9 million kBTU per year. One
kBTU is equivalent to about 1.03 cubic feet of natural gas.
5.14.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project:
U -1 Would exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
U -2 Would require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects.
U -3 Would require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
U -4 Would not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, and new and /or expanded entitlements would be needed.
U -5 Would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that is has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments.
Page 5.14 -12 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
U -6 Would be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs.
U -7 Would not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds
would be less than significant:
Thresholds U -1 and U -7
These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis.
5.14.3 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.14 -1: Project - generated wastewater could be adequately treated by the wastewater service
provider for the project, however the existing sewer system is deficient and does not have
adequate capacity to serve the project. [Thresholds U -2 (part) and U -51
Impact Analysis:
Forecast Project Wastewater Generation
Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would result in a net increase in wastewater generation of 1,292 acre -
feet per year or about 1.15 million gallons per day, as shown below in Table 5.147. No change in wastewater
generation would occur in the Conventional Zoning Area, which is omitted from the table below.
As stated, there is approximately 17 mgd of remain treatment capacity at OCSD's Reclamation Plant No. 2.
Project generated wastewater represents less than seven percent of this remaining capacity. Therefore, there is
adequate existing and planned wastewater treatment capacity in the region to treat project generated
wastewater, and buildout of the Corridor Plan would not require construction of new or expanded
wastewater treatment facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
Table 5.14 -7 Forecast Proiect Wastewater Generation
Per resident/
Harbor Corridor Plan
Total
Existing (2013)
3,252 residents 75 243,900 273
1,386employees 25 34,650 39
Subtotal 278,550 312
Buildout(2035)
18,579 residents 75 1,393,425 1,561
1,559 employees 1 25 38,975 44
October 2014 Page 5.14 -13
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Soumz:1B12014
Wastewater Conveyance
The project sewer study modeled wastewater flows compared to sewer capacities in the Harbor Corridor Plan
buildout conditions. Upgrades were recommended to 48 sewer segments of 119 segments that were modeled.
The segments are in Westminster Drive from the Pacific Electric right- of-way west to just west of Harbor
Boulevard; in 11T Street from Harbor Boulevard east to Jackson Street; and near the intersection of Harbor
Boulevard and McFadden Avenue (see Figures 4.1A and 4.1E in the Sewer Study, Appendix J of this EIR).
The existing sewer segments are each 10 or 12 inches diameter, and are all recommended for upgrade to 15
inches diameter (1131 2014). This is a significant impact.
Wastewater Treatment Requirements
Wastewater treatment requirements for discharges to municipal storm drainage systems (MS4s) are contained
in the General Construction Permit, Order No. 2012 - 0006 -DWQ, issued by the State Water Resources
Control Board in 2012; and in Order No. 118- 2009 -0030 issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board in 2009. Plans for water quality protection that would be required for projects developed
pursuant to the Corridor Plan — Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans for construction projects, and Water
Quality Management Plans for design and operation of projects — are discussed in Section 5.7, Hydrology
and Water Quality, as are Best Management Practices that would be specified in such plans for
implementation in those projects. Impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 5.14 -2: Adequate water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet project requirements,
however the existing water system may not provide adequate capacity. [Thresholds U -2
part) and U -4]
Impact Analysis:
Forecast Project Water Demands
The Harbor Corridor Plan consists of an approximately 305 -acre redevelopment within the boundaries of
the existing North Harbor Specific Plan (NHSP). The new plan allows for new housing and mixed use
development opportunities. Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would generate an additional 3,884
dwelling units, 15,327 residents, 13,721 square feet of commercial space, and approximately 173 additional
employees in the plan area.
The existing and proposed water use was calculated using two methods. The fast method used the water
generation factors, based on data in the City of Santa Ana's 2010 UWMP. The UWMP projects a baseline
water usage of 128.1 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), based on a 10 -year range from 1995 to 2005. The
Page 5.14 -14 PlaceWorkr
Subtotal 1,432,400 1,604
Difference
15,327 residents 1,149,525 1,288
173 employees 4,325 5
Subtotal 1,153,850 1,292
Soumz:1B12014
Wastewater Conveyance
The project sewer study modeled wastewater flows compared to sewer capacities in the Harbor Corridor Plan
buildout conditions. Upgrades were recommended to 48 sewer segments of 119 segments that were modeled.
The segments are in Westminster Drive from the Pacific Electric right- of-way west to just west of Harbor
Boulevard; in 11T Street from Harbor Boulevard east to Jackson Street; and near the intersection of Harbor
Boulevard and McFadden Avenue (see Figures 4.1A and 4.1E in the Sewer Study, Appendix J of this EIR).
The existing sewer segments are each 10 or 12 inches diameter, and are all recommended for upgrade to 15
inches diameter (1131 2014). This is a significant impact.
Wastewater Treatment Requirements
Wastewater treatment requirements for discharges to municipal storm drainage systems (MS4s) are contained
in the General Construction Permit, Order No. 2012 - 0006 -DWQ, issued by the State Water Resources
Control Board in 2012; and in Order No. 118- 2009 -0030 issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board in 2009. Plans for water quality protection that would be required for projects developed
pursuant to the Corridor Plan — Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans for construction projects, and Water
Quality Management Plans for design and operation of projects — are discussed in Section 5.7, Hydrology
and Water Quality, as are Best Management Practices that would be specified in such plans for
implementation in those projects. Impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 5.14 -2: Adequate water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet project requirements,
however the existing water system may not provide adequate capacity. [Thresholds U -2
part) and U -4]
Impact Analysis:
Forecast Project Water Demands
The Harbor Corridor Plan consists of an approximately 305 -acre redevelopment within the boundaries of
the existing North Harbor Specific Plan (NHSP). The new plan allows for new housing and mixed use
development opportunities. Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would generate an additional 3,884
dwelling units, 15,327 residents, 13,721 square feet of commercial space, and approximately 173 additional
employees in the plan area.
The existing and proposed water use was calculated using two methods. The fast method used the water
generation factors, based on data in the City of Santa Ana's 2010 UWMP. The UWMP projects a baseline
water usage of 128.1 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), based on a 10 -year range from 1995 to 2005. The
Page 5.14 -14 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
City estimates that the water usage will be 108.9 GPCD by the year 2020 in order to meet the SBx7 -7 water
use target. This 2020 water usage rate was used to calculate the increase in water demand for the proposed
development for the buildout year 2035. The water demand was determined by calculating the difference in
existing population in the plan area and the proposed population with implementation of the Harbor
Corridor Plan. The results are summarized in Table 5.148. As shown in Table 5.148, the water demand
within the Harbor Corridor Plan area is estimated to be 2,266 acre -feet per year (ACY), which is an increase
of 1,800 ACY from current conditions.
Table 5.14 -8 Existing and Future Water Demands Based on Population
Harbor Corridor Plan Population Water Usage
Rate (GPCD)
Total Daily
Water Usage
allda )
Total Demand
Acre- FeetlYf
Existing Conditions (2013) 3,252 128.1- 416,581 467
Buildout (2035) 18,579 108.98 2,023,253 2,266
Difference 15,327 1,606,672 1,800
Total Project Net Increase
1,386 104- 144,144
1,800
Soumz: City d Santa Ana 2010 UWMP, 2011.
GPCD = Gallons percapita per day
Baseline mbar use of 128.1 GPCD is from the 2010 UWMPforthe 10-year period from 1995to 2005.
Future wateruse of 108.9 GPCD is the 2020 target water usagefrom the2010 UWMP.
The net increase in water demand shown above does not include the Conventional Zoning Area, since this
area would not result in a change or increase in development. However, due to the reduction in the per capita
water usage rate established in the City's UWMP for the buildout year, including the Conventional Zoning
Area would reduce the projects net increase in water demand. The net increase of 1,800 AFY would be 1,790
AFY with incorporation of the Conventional Zoning Area.
This estimate does not take into account the conservation measures that have been implemented by the City
of Santa Ana and the actual water usage rates within the City. Information obtained from the Metropolitan
Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) indicates that the most current (FY2011 -2012 municipal,
commercial and industrial, and institutional water usage rate is 104 GPCD and residential water usage is 66
GPCD.2 Therefore, an additional and more accurate water demand analysis was performed, using the existing
water usage rates within the City. The buildout demand rate is conservative because no further conservation
efforts were considered in the analysis. The results are provided in Table 5.149.
Table 5.14 -9 Existing and Future Water Demands Based on Existing Water Usage Rates
Harbor Corridor Plan Residential
Population
Water Usage
Rate (GPCD)
Total Daily
Water Usage
allda
Total Demand
AcrefeetlYr
Residential Population - Existing (2013) 3,252 66- 214,632 240
Residential Population- Buildout(2035) 18,579 66b 1,226,214 1,374
Difference 15,327 1,011,582 1134
CII Population - Existing (2013r 1,386 104- 144,144 161
2 Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), 2013. Orange Counp WaterSupplien, WaterRater &Finanaallolomation.
October 2014 Page 5.14 -15
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Table 5.14 -9 Existing and Future Water Demands Based on Existing Water Usage Rates
Harbor Corridor Plan Residential
Population
Water Usage
Rate (GPCD)
Total Daily
Water Usage
allda )
Total Demand
Acre-FeeLfYr
CII Population - Buildout (2035) 1,559 1041, 162,136 182
Difference 173 17,992 20
Total Project Net Increase 1,154
Source: MWDOG_ 2013.Oranoe County Water Suodiers Watur Ratesand Financiallnformaton
GPCD = Gallons per capita per day
Existing residential water useof 66 GPCD and C1 wa&r useof 104 GPCD is from MWDOC forFY 2011 -2012.
b.Conservatisely assumed to be thesame as existing water usage with no further conservation efforts.
CII = Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
As shown in Table 5.14 -9, this method of calculating water demand within the Harbor Corridor Plan area is
estimated to be 1,556 acre -feet per year (ACY), which is an increase of 1,154 ACY from current conditions.
This estimate, which is based on actual water usage rates within Santa Ana, is approximately 36 percent lower
than the estimate using the I JWMP baseline and projected water usage rates.
In order to evaluate water supply reliability, California statutes require the consideration of water supplies and
demands in three types of water conditions: normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years. There is no
statute or regulation that dictates the proper method for calculating demands in single dry and multiple dry
years, and no consistent approach has been developed by water professionals within the State. Consistent
with the 2010 i1WMP, the water demands in single dry and multiple dry years are projected to be equal to
demands in normal water years.
This is a conservative approach and overestimates water demands for the City and the project because it does
not take into account any water demand reductions that would be expected to occur, based on the City's
conservation efforts and the implementation of its Water Supplies Contingency Plan (WSCP) and Emergency
Water Conservation Plan (EWCP). The water demand presented in Table 5.14 -10 assumes a buildout year of
2035.
Table 5.14 -10 Normal, Single Dry; and Multiple Dry Year Demands (ACY)
Harbor Corridor Plan
Normal Year
Demand Single Year Demand Multiple Dry Year
Demand - Year 1
Multiple Dry Year
Demand - Year 2
Multiple Dry Year
Demand - Year 3
Total Project Demand 1,154 1 1,154 1 1,154 1,154 1,154
Source. Total demand at buldout calculated from Table 5.14-3.
Water Availability
A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared to assess the water demand and supply conditions with
implementation of the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan. As shown in Table 5.14 -9, the water demand for
overall buildout of the proposed project is a projected net increase of 1,154 ACY. Nearly all of the total
water demands (98 percent) can be attributed to residential uses. Within the context of the City of Santa
Ana's projected demands through 2035, the overall project demand represents just 2.3 percent of anticipated
Page 5.14 -16 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
demands in the City. This project water demand also represents less than 33 percent of the anticipated 7.7
percent increase in the City's total anticipated demand between 2010 and 2035. Since the City is nearly built
out and there are no other currently planned large scale development projects that were not accounted for in
the 2010 UWMP, the Citywill be able to meet the project's water demand. In addition, implementation of the
proposed Harbor Corridor Plan would occur in phases so that the increased demand would be a gradual
increase over time.
According to the City's UWMP, the City has adequate supplies to serve 100 percent of its customers during
normal., dry year, and multiple dry year demand through 2035 with projected population increases and
accompanying increases in water demand. If MWDOC were to impose Stage 3 water restrictions, the City
could anticipate the potential supply shortfall of imported water and would implement its Water Supply
Contingency Plan. This would balance demand against reduced supply by imposing water conservation
measures and subsequent stages of demand reduction.
This WSA concludes that the City will have sufficient water supplies available during normal, single dry, and
multiple dry years during a 25 year period to meet all projected water demands associated with its existing and
future customers, including the proposed project. In the unlikely event of a water shortage, implementation
of the City's Water Supply Contingency Plan and Emergency Water Conservation Plan would ensure that
sufficient water supplies were available to serve its customers, including the project and existing and future
users. Therefore, the proposed projects impact on water supply is less than significant.
Water Conveyance
The City of Santa Ana has indicated that while the existing water system adequately meets the current
demand and flow requirements, future projects may require upgrades to the existing network Segments that
exceed the capacity of the network would be a significant impact.
Impact 5.14 -3: Existing and/or proposed storm drainage systems are not adequate to serve the drainage
requirements of the proposed project. [Threshold U -3]
Impact Analysis: Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would be increase impervious surfaces in
the project area through the development of individual project sites. The majority of impervious surfaces
would come from development of the existing vacant lots, which make up approximately 11.6 acres of the
project area. At project completion, the Harbor Corridor Plan area is estimated to generate 15 percent more
runoff than in current conditions (BI 2013). With project drainage volumes were forecast by adding 15
percent to existing estimated drainage volumes. Needed storm drain improvements for project generated
drainage were identified by comparing with - project drainage volumes to existing capacities.
The Drainage Engineering Report prepared in 1993 by Boyle Engineering has shown that the existing
drainage system is deficient and unable to convey the current runoffs. Table 5.14 -11 shows the pipe capacities
and deficiencies if the recommendations of the Drainage Engineering Report were implemented and the
existing flows were increased by 15 percent to account for the implementation of the proposed project. As
shown in the table, after completion of specified drainage improvements, no drainage deficiencies would
October 2014 Page 5.14 -17
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
remain, with the exception of the pipe segment from 0702 to 0703, which would be deficient by 0.5 cfs. All
other capacities would be sufficient to handle the project development flows.
The recommendations made in the Drainage Engineering Report prepared by Boyle Engineering would need
to be implemented in order to convey existing runoff as well as future Harbor Boulevard corridor flows from
implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan. Mitigation has been provided at the end of this section
requiring that improvements outlined in the Drainage Engineering Report, which are summarized in the
drainage study prepared by IBI and highlighted in the detailed storm drain maps provided in the study (see
Appendix F), be implemented by the City of Santa Ana.
Additionally, the Public Works Agency is working on an updating its drainage master plan, which is
anticipated to be available July 2014. During the City's development review process, individual development
projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan would be required to comply with the
requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued, including payment of the required Drainage
Area Master Plan Fees, as outlined in Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 34 -193. The Drainage Area Master
Plan Fees are necessary in order to fund needed improvements to the City's drainage system to reduce the
cumulative impacts caused by new development, and are apportioned to new development based on new
development's fair share of the estimated costs of the improvements. These fees are payable at the rates in
place at the time of building permit issuance.
Table 5.14 -11 Future Pipe Capacities
Location Pipe ID
Exist.
CapacityI (cfs)
I Future Capacity Total
Capacity
cfs) 1 15% Future
Flow
cfs)
Future
Deficiency
cfs)
Prop. PipeI (inches)
Capacity
cfs)
17th Street to 5th Street
Northeast from south end of
0406 -0407 12.50 18 5.8 18.3 17.5 0.0
Harper St 0302 -0303 0.00 27 17.0 17.0 15.3 0.0
17th St From Seaboard Cir to
12.50 24 12.4 24.9 23.8 0.0
0428 -0408
East Garden Grove - Wintersburg 0330 -0377 6.60 27 17.0 23.6 20.1 0.0
Channel
18 5.8 18.3 17.9 0.0
Harbor Blvd north of McFadden
Ave
0571 -0572
5th Street to McFadden Avenue
Near Harbor Blvd /1st St
intersection 0406 -0407 12.50 18 5.8 18.3 17.5 0.0
1st St Westof Harbor Blvd to
Mountain View St
0426 -0427 12.50 24 12.4 24.9 23.8 0.0
0427 -0428 12.50 24 12.4 24.9 23.8 0.0
0428 -0408 12.50 30 22.5 35.0 32.4 0.0
Harbor Blvd south of 1st St 0581 -0582 12.50 18 5.8 18.3 17.9 0.0
Harbor Blvd north of McFadden
Ave
0571 -0572 12.50 21 8.7 21.2 21.0 0.0
0572 -0573 12.50 21 8.7 21.2 21.0 0.0
Harbor Blvd, 11th St to 5th St 0702 -0703 33.06 33.1 33.6 0.5
Clinton St and 5 St 0717 -0718 3.10 39 45.3 48.4 44.5 0.0
5 St east from Jackson St 0718 -0715 3.10 51 92.7 95.8 79.0 0.0
5th St, Jackson St to Figueroa St
0715 -0723 76.90 51 92.7 169.6 98.9 0.0
0723 -0724 98.30 57 124.7 223.0 138.8 0.0
0724 -0705 98.30 57 124.7 223.0 140.1 0.0
Figueroa St south from 5th St 0705 -0734 145.30 63 162.9 308.2 203.7 0.0
Page 5.14 -78 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
Soumz:1B12013.
Impact 5.14 -4: Existing and /or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate project - generated solid
waste and comply with related solid waste regulations. [Thresholds U -6 and U -7]
Impact Analysis:
Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation
Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would generate an estimated net increase of 47,680 pounds (23.8 tons)
of solid waste per day. Table 5.1412 shows the solid waste generated by buildout of the entire specific plan
area and the increase over existing conditions.
Table 5.14 -12 Estimated Net Increase in Solid Waste Generation by Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout
Land Use I Quantity and Units I Per Unit/Souare Foot' I Total
Residential 4,623 units 12.23 56,539
Commercial 1,967,982 square feet 0.013 25,584
Buildout Total 82,123
Existing Conditions
Residential
07340736 145.30 48 78.9 224.2 207.9 0.0
0736 -0737 120.00 57 124.7 244.7 207.9 0.0
0737 -0735 132.50 54 108.0 240.5 207.9 0.0
McFadden Ave, Jackson St to
Harbor Blvd
08040805 4.60 36 36.6 41.2 33.0 0.0
0805 -0806 4.60 42 55.3 59.9 52.1 0.0
McFadden Ave west of Harbor
Blvd 0573 -0574 1.60 30 22.5 24.1 21.0 0.0
Soumz:1B12013.
Impact 5.14 -4: Existing and /or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate project - generated solid
waste and comply with related solid waste regulations. [Thresholds U -6 and U -7]
Impact Analysis:
Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation
Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would generate an estimated net increase of 47,680 pounds (23.8 tons)
of solid waste per day. Table 5.1412 shows the solid waste generated by buildout of the entire specific plan
area and the increase over existing conditions.
Table 5.14 -12 Estimated Net Increase in Solid Waste Generation by Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout
Land Use I Quantity and Units I Per Unit/Souare Foot' I Total
Residential 4,623 units 12.23 56,539
Commercial 1,967,982 square feet 0.013 25,584
Buildout Total 82,123
Existing Conditions
Residential 739 units 12.23 9,038
Commercial 1,954,261 square feet 0.013 25,405
Existing Total 34,443
Net Increase 47,680
1 Soumz: SCAQMB 2011.
There is adequate landfill capacity in the region for project generated solid waste. Based on data in Table
5.14 -12 above, the combined residual daily disposal capacity (maximum permitted daily disposal less average
daily disposal) for the Frank Bowerman and Olinda Alpha landfills is 9,465 tons per day. The project would
generate up to 23.8 tons per day at buildout or 0.3 percent of the remaining residual disposal capacity.
Therefore, there is adequate landfill capacity for project generated waste. Buildout of the Harbor Corridor
Plan would not require OC Waste & Recycling to develop new or expanded landfills. Impacts would be less
than significant.
October 2014 Page 5.14 -19
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Solid Waste Diversion
Future land uses developed pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan would include storage areas for recyclable
materials awaiting solid waste collection. Future land uses would comply with existing regulations requiring
diversion of solid waste from landfills, such as regulations regarding household hazardous waste disposal;
disposal of special waste materials including tires; and recycling or reuse of construction and demolition
debris. Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would conform with compliance by the City of Santa Ana with
AB 939, which requires that 50 percent of solid waste be diverted from landfills.
Impact 5.14 -5: Existing and /or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate project - generated utility
demands. [No specific threshold]
Impact Analysis:
Electricity
As shown below in Table 5.14 -13, forecast electricity demands by buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan are
about 40.8 million kWh /yr, resulting in a net increase of 10.1 million kWh /year. SCE forecasts that it will
have adequate electricity supplies to meet project electricity demands, and implementation of the Harbor
Corridor Plan would not require SCE to obtain new or expanded electricity supplies.
Table 5.14 -13 Estimated Electricity Demands by Specific Plan Buildout
Land Use Scenario Amount (DU or BSF)
Electricity Demands, kWh ear
Per Unit (BSF or DU)' Total
Office Park
New 375,000 15.52 5,820,938
Old N/A
Subtotal 375,000 15.52 5,820,938
General Light Industrial
New 195,000 8.74 1,704,788
Old N/A
Subtotal 195,000 8.74 1,704,788
Apartments Mid Rise
New 3,884 3,433 13,335,627
Old 739 3,589 2,652,360
Subtotal 4,623 3,458 15,987,986
Strip Mall
New 998,721 11.91 11,889,774
Old 399,261 13.44 5,366,068
Subtotal 1,397,982 12.34 17,255,841
Total 40,769,553
Existin 30,697,055
Difference 1 10,072,498
Sourm: SCAQMD 2011.
Natural Gas
As shown in Table 5.1414, buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would result in an estimated net increase
of about 22.27 million kBTU per year; one kBTU is equivalent to 0.971 cubic foot of natural gas. The SCGC
forecasts that it has adequate natural gas supplies to accommodate the estimated net increase in natural gas
Page 5.14 -20 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
demand due to project buildout. The project would not require SCGC to obtain new or expanded natural gas
supplies beyond its existing and forecast supplies. Impacts would be less than significant.
Table 5.14 -14 Estimated Natural Gas Demands by Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout
Scenario Natural Gas Demands, kBTU per Yearr
Existing Conditions 32,918,190
Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout
Existing Land Uses to Remain 9,666,735
Future Land Uses 45,521,430
Total 55,188,165
Netlncrease 22,269,975
1 1 kBTU (that is, 1,000 BTU) is equivalent b0.971 cubicfoot d natural gas.
5.14.4 Cumulative Impacts
Water Supplies
Cumulative impacts on water supplies are considered for the City's water provider, MWD and OCWD. Water
providers are required to prepare plans to ensure adequate water supplies exist for future growth. According
to the WSA prepared for the project, MWD and OCWD have adequate water supplies to meet demands in
the City between 2015 and 2035 in normal year, single- dry-year, and multiple- dry -year conditions. In addition,
implementation of demand management measures in future projects and water shortage contingency plans
would further reduce additional water demand. No significant cumulative impact would occur, and buildout
of the Harbor Corridor Plan would not contribute to a cumulative impact on water supplies.
Wastewater Treatment
Cumulative impacts on wastewater treatment are considered for the Orange County Sanitation District
OCSD)'s service area, which is most of north and central Orange County (from the City of Irvine north and
west to the County boundaries). OCSD's service area is similar to eight combined Regional Statistical Areas
RSAs) used in the Orange County Projections 2010 by the Center for Demographic Research at California
State University Fullerton.3 Estimated total net increases in population and employment in the eight RSAs
between 2010 and 2035 from the Orange County Projections 2010 Modified are 317,515 and 245,859,
respectively (CDR 2012). Current remaining capacity for primary treatment at Reclamation Plant No. 2 is 17
mgd; expansion of secondary treatment capacity at that facility by 60 mgd is under construction. OCSD is
expected to have adequate wastewater treatment capacity for wastewater generation by cumulative
developments in its service area. No significant cumulative impact is anticipated, and buildout of the Harbor
Corridor Plan would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact.
Storm Drainage
Cumulative impacts on storm drainage are considered for the City of Santa Ana, as all of the proposed drain
pipe upgrades needed to accommodate project generated increases in drainage (as well as to remedy existing
3 The Regional Statistical Areas are A -36, B -41, E -44, F -39, G -42, H-37,1-38, andJ -35.
October 2014 Page 5.14 -21
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
deficiencies) are City storm drains. Other projects in the City would increase impervious areas on those
project sites, and thus could increase runoff rates and volumes. Each project would be required to ensure that
it has adequate drainage to support off site flows. Each project would also be required to implement other
Best Management Practices reducing runoff No significant cumulative drainage impact is anticipated, and
buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact.
Solid Waste
Cumulative impacts to solid waste disposal are considered for Orange County, the service area of OCWR that
operates the three landfills serving the County. Estimated net increases in population and employment in
Orange County between 2010 and 2035 are 401,872 and 288,549, respectively (CDR 2012). Cumulative
projects would increase solid waste generation in the County. The thud landfill in the County, Prima
Deshescha landfill near San Juan Capistrano, provides landfill capacity in addition to the Bowerman and
Olinda Alpha landfills described above, and has an estimated closing date of 2067. Given the total
capacities and estimated closing dates of the three landfills m Orange County, significant cumulative
impacts to landfill capacity would not occur, and implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would not
contribute to a significant impact.
5.14.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
Federal
United States Code, Title 33, Sections 1251 et seq.: Clean Water Act
Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Parts 122 et seq.: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPDES)
State
California Water Code Sections 10610 et seq.: Urban Water Management Planning Act
Senate Bill X7 -7: Water Conservation Act of 2009
California Water Code Sections 10910 et seq: SB 221 and SB 610: Water Supply Assessments
Public Resources Code Sections 40050 et seq.: Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989
Assembly Bill 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011): Recycling and Solid Waste Diversion
City of Santa Ana
Municipal Code Sections 39 -105 et seq.: Water conservation measures
Municipal Code Section 41 -1503: Iandscape Nvater use standards
5.14.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts
would be less than significant: 5.14 -4 and 5.145.
Page 5.14 -22 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant:
Impact 5.14 -1 Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would exceed the wastewater capacity of the
sewer pipelines.
Impact 5.14 -2 Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan may exceed the water capacity of the existing
water pipelines.
Impact 5.14 -3 Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would increase runoff from the site,
requiring drainage improvements to accommodate project generated runoff as well
as to remedy existing deficiencies.
5.14.7 Mitigation Measures
Impact 5.14 -1
14 -1 Prior to the first building permit pursuant to the proposed project, the City of Santa Ana
shall prepare a "Nexus" Study that will serve as the basis for requiring development impact
fees under AB 1600 legislation, as codified by California Code Government Section 66000 et
seq. The established procedures under AB 1600 require that a "reasonable relationship" or
nexus exist between the water and sewer infrastructure improvements and facilities required
to mitigate the sewer impacts of new development pursuant to the proposed project. The
sewer segment improvements shown on Table 5.1411 of the DEIR are necessary to
mitigate project impacts and shall be included, among other improvements, in the AB 1600
nexus study.
14 -2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit pursuant to the proposed project, the City
of Santa Ana shall prepare a Development Fee program pursuant to the AB 1600 Nexus
Study identified in Mitigation Measure 141, above. The Development Fee program would
fund the Harbor Corridor Plan area wide water and sewer infrastructure improvements. The
fee program shall stipulate that fees are assessed when there is new construction or when
there is an increase in square footage within an existing building or the conversion of
existing square footage to a more intensive use. Fees are calculated by multiplying the
proposed square footage or dwelling unit by the rate identified. The fees are included with
any other applicable fees payable at the time the building permit is issued. The City will use
the development fees to fund construction (or to recoup fees advanced to fund
construction) of the infrastructure improvements identified in Mitigation Measure 141.
14 -3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare water and sewer
studies and identify the sizing and location of backbone facilities necessary to serve the
proposed project, in accordance with City standards. The water and sewer plans shall be
submitted to the City's Public Works Agency for review and approval. Design of facilities
that serve the project shall be sufficient to meet the projected service demands.
October 2014 Page 5.14 -23
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impact 5.14 -2
Refer to Mitigation Measures 14 -1 through 14 -3.
Impact 5.14 -3
Refer also to mitigation measure 7 -1 in Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, repeated below.
7 -1 Prior to issuance of grading permits for future development projects in the Harbor Corridor
Plan, applicants shall submit site - specific hydrology and hydraulic Studies to the Public
Works Agency for review and approval. If existing facilities are not adequate to handle
runoff generated by the proposed development, then the applicant shall construct storm
drain improvements. If necessary storm drain upgrades cannot be implemented prior to
issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall provide onsite detention facilities, or
other methods to ensure that post construction runoff does not exceed pre development
quantities.
5.14.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with utilities and service
systems to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating
to utilities remain.
Page 5.14 -24 PlaceWorkr
6. Siqnificant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Chapter 1, Executire Summary, contains Table 1 -1, which summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and
levels of significance before and after mitigation. Though mitigation measures would reduce the level of
impact, the following impacts would remain significant, unavoidable, and adverse after mitigation measures
are applied:
Air Quality
Construction Emissions
Impact 5.2-1: Construction activities associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor
Plan would generate short-term emissions that exceed the South Coast An Quality Management District's
regional thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrous oxides (NOx) and would
significantly contribute to the South Coast Air Basin's nonattamment designations for particulate matter
PM3o and M5), ozone (03), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2 -1,
2 -2, and 2 -3 would reduce adverse effects, but this impact would remain significant and unavoidable after
mitigation.
Impact 5.2 -3: Construction activities related to buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Plan could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Implementation
of Mitigation Measures 2 -1 through 2 -3 would reduce adverse effects, but this impact would be
significant and unavoidable after mitigation.
Operational Emissions
Impact 5.2 -2: Long -term criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed
Use Transit Corridor Plan would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's regional
significance thresholds for VOC, CO, PM3o, and PM2 s and significantly contribute to the South Coast An
Basin's nonattamment designations for PM3o and PM?s, 03, and NO2. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures 2 -4 through 2 -9 would reduce this effect; however, this impact would remain significant and
unavoidable after mitigation.
Impact 5.2-6: The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan is a regionally significant project
that would contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations in the South Coast
Air Basin and would conflict with the assumptions of the applicable air quality management plan.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2 -1 through 2 -9 would reduce this impact, but it would be
significant and unavoidable after mitigation.
October 2014 Page 6 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 6 -2 PlaceWorkr
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Proiect
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.1.1 Purpose and Scope
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR )
include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would "feasibly attain most of the basic objectives
of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the
comparative merits of the alternatives" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). This chapter identifies potential
alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them, as required by CEQA.
Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines on alternatives (Section 15126.6[a] through [f]) are summarized
below to explain the foundation and legal requirements for the alternatives analysis in the EIR.
The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable
of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives
would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly'
15126.6[b]).
The specific alternative of `no project' shall also be evaluated along with its impact" (15126.6[c][1]).
The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation
NOP) is published, and at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would
reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on
current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally
superior alternative is the `no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior
alternative among the other alternatives" (15126.6[e] [2]).
The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a `rule of reason' that requires the EIR to
set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to
ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project" (15126.6[f]).
Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site
suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or
regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire,
control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)"
15126.6 [f] [1]).
October 2014 Page 7 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
For alternative locations, "only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant
effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR" (15126.6[f] [2] [A]).
An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose
implementation is remote and speculative" (15126.6[f] [3]).
For each development alternative, this analysis:
Describes the alterative,
Analyzes the impact of the alternative as compared to the proposed project,
Identifies the impacts of the project that would be avoided or lessened by the alternative,
Assesses whether the alternative would meet most of the basic project objectives, and
Evaluates the comparative merits of the alternative and the project.
Per the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), additional significant effects of the alternatives are discussed in
less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.
7.1.2 Project Objectives
As described in Section 3.2, the following objectives have been established for the proposed project and will
aid decision makers in their review of the project, the project alternatives, and associated environmental
impacts:
Provide for the development of the site consistent with City's General Plan.
Provide for new housing and mixed use development opportunities.
Expand development opportunities that respond to transit investments.
Create economic vitality by providing new opportunities for businesses and residents.
Provide a variety of safe and efficient travel choices and access to multi modal transportation.
Create a sense of place.
Enhance community health and wellness by creating safer street design for multiple modes of travel,
increase walkability and encourage live /work along the corridor.
7.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE
SCOPING /PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
The following is a discussion of the land use alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process
and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in this Draft EIR (EIR).
Page 7 -2 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
7.2.1 Alternative Development Areas
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are
capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first
step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially
lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any
of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (Guidelines Sec.
15126[5][3][1]). In general, any development of the size and type proposed by the project would have
substantially the same impacts on air quality, land use/planning, noise, population/ housing, public services,
recreation, transportation /traffic and utilities /service systems. Impacts related to aesthetics, cultural
resources, geology /soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology /water quality and mineral resources
would need a site specific analysis to determine if another location would reduce impacts. These impacts were
found to be less than significant and less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Another location
would not avoid or substantially lessen the effects of the project.
The purpose of the project is to create a transit corridor plan and would enhance an underutilized area and
expand development opportunities that response to transit investments. The project area is served by a
number of existing and future transit opportunities. A Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route, Orange County
Transportation Authority Route (OCTA) 543, began operating on Harbor Boulevard through the project site
in June 2013. An intercounty express bus route, OCTA 722, is scheduled to begin operation in early 2014 and
would serve the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue at the north end of the project
site. A Santa Ana /Garden Grove Fixed Guideway transit project is planned that would pass just north of the
north site boundary. A second BRT route is planned on Edinger Boulevard that would cross Harbor
Boulevard 0.5 mile south of the project site (OCTA 2011). The recent and planned transit improvements
along this segment of Harbor Boulevard help create an opportunity for redevelopment of this largely
commercial corridor with mixed land uses. While the proposed transit improvements extend beyond the
project site, the above mentioned combination of transit improvements is unique to this segment of Harbor
Boulevard. Since other sites would not meet the basic objectives of the project they were not considered.
7.2.2 Reduced Nonresidential Intensity Alternative
At buildout of the proposed project, nonresidential development intensity would only be approximately one
percent greater than existing conditions. This change is not great enough to differentiate a reduced
nonresidential project from the proposed project. Furthermore, because the proposed project is intended to
permit development of a mixed use community on the project site, reducing permitted nonresidential
intensity would be contrary to objectives of the proposed project, including those objectives that advocate for
provision of new opportunities for mixed use development and businesses. Therefore, a reduced
nonresidential intensity alternative was considered but rejected.
October 2014 Page 7 -3
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
7.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
Based on the criteria listed above, two alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of
alternatives which may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. These
alternatives are analyzed in detail in the following sections.
No Project /NHSP Alternative
Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative
Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to the proposed project and determined to be
environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only those impacts found significant and unavoidable
are used in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to
the proposed project. Only the impacts involving air quality were found to be significant and unavoidable.
Section 7.6 identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
7.4 NO PROJECT /NHSP ALTERNATIVE
The No Project /NHSP Alternative assumes that the Harbor Corridor Plan would not be adopted, the NHSP
would remain in effect, the Conventional Zoning Area would remain within the NHSP, and the existing
onsite buildings would remain. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), where a project is the
revision of an existing regulatory plan the "no project" alternative assumes continuation of the existing plan,
policy or operation into the future. Therefore, this alternative assumes that new development and
redevelopment would continue to occur in the project area consistent with the adopted NHSP land use
designations, development standards and design guidelines. Buildout of the NHSP would allow for 320
residential units and 4,867,789 square feet of nonresidential land uses. Note that the NHSP results in a
reduction of residential units compared to existing uses since some residential uses were existing in the area
prior to adoption of the NHSP. As compared to the proposed project, buildout of the NHSP would result in
a reduction of 4,395 residential units and an increase of 2,896,107 of commercial and other nonresidential
square footage.
7.4.1 Aesthetics
Under the No Project /NHSP Alternative, redevelopment would be allowed to continue consistent with the
NHSP, which would allow for redevelopment of the area to commercial nodes. Specifically, the NHSP land
use designations include General Commercial at the north, south and central portions of the corridor;
entertainment and single family residential uses between the commercial zones south of First Street; and
Recreational vehicle /automotive commercial, residential and open space north of Fifth Street. As compared
to the project, the buildout under this alternative would result in lower building height. The aesthetic quality
of the site would be somewhat similar to the existing buildings, in height and scale. The character would be
more automobile related uses with commercial shopping centers. While this alternative would be required to
meet the NHSP development standards and design guidelines, it would not be required to comply with the
Harbor Corridor Plan development standards and design guidelines. New development under this alternative
would not be required to incorporate the same level of design that would encourage pedestrian
Page 74 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
improvements, accessibility and safety to create and activate the street scene. Aesthetic impacts would be less
than significant under this alternative; however, impacts would be greater than the proposed project because
the aesthetic quality of the area would be enhanced by implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan.
7.4.2 Air Quality
Under this alternative, demolition, grading, soil export, and building construction would continue to occur as
individual projects are approved in accordance with the City's General Plan and NHSP. Therefore, short term
construction impacts would be similar to the proposed project.
Operational impacts would be less than the project because buildout of the NHSP would result in a decrease
in vehicle trips. However, development would not occur with the guidance of a comprehensive plan for the
area that encourages pedestrian activity, and therefore reliance on cars will be perpetuated. The reduction in
residential units within an area with existing and potential employment opportunities would result in the loss
of potential to increase internal trip capture, which may offset the decrease in vehicle trips as compared to the
project. The decrease in traffic would reduce air emissions, however, the emissions would still exceed the
SCAQMD thresholds and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
7.4.3 Cultural Resources
This alternative would allow development and redevelopment to occur in accordance with the NHSP. The
excavation required to build out the area would result in similar potential to encounter archeological or
paleontological during grading. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources would be similar to the proposed
project. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 -1, potential impacts to cultural resources would be
less than significant.
7.4.4 Geology and Soils
Geology and soils impacts would be similar to the project. Although the site would be developed with fewer
housing units, there would be a substantial increase of commercial uses. Overall, the development area would
be similar, except under the proposed project the Conventional Zoning Area is assumed to remain under its
existing uses. Therefore, construction on soils that have the potential to experience liquefaction, subsidence,
or expansion would be similar to the project. However, under both scenarios, potential impacts related to
geology and soils would be less than significant without mitigation.
7.4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under this alternative, redevelopment of the project area in accordance with the NHSP would generate less
GHG emissions as compared to the proposed project because it would reduce vehicle trips. However, it
would not reduce VMT because it would not place additional housing near employment and encourage
pedestrian friendly modes of travel. Therefore, GHG emissions would be less than the proposed project and
would result in a significant impact.
October 2014 Page 7 -5
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
7.4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Past and present uses and activities within the project area have known or suspected contamination of soils.
Development and redevelopment in accordance with the NHSP would result in similar impacts to health and
safety impact related to the presence of known or suspected on site contamination. Future development has
the potential to be exposed to suspected sites, and demolition activities may expose construction workers to
asbestos containing materials or lead based paints. This alternative would result in the same impacts related to
hazards and hazardous materials as the proposed project.
7.4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
The project area is currently developed. Development and redevelopment in accordance with the NHSP
would result in a similar amount of impervious surfaces as the proposed project. No changes to the volume
or velocity of stormwater would occur because the project area is built out and the area of impervious
surfaces is not expected to change. Short -term construction related and long -term water quality would be
similar to the proposed project since future projects under this alternative would be required to comply with
the Construction General Permit, requiring implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWPPP for projects one acre in size or more, and prepare a Water Quality Management Plan for all for all
projects that meet the thresholds. Therefore, this alternative would be less than significant with mitigation and
have similar hydrology and water quality impacts as the proposed project
7.4.8 Land Use and Planning
Unlike the proposed project, this alternative would not require a zoning ordinance amendment, a zone
change, or a General Plan amendment. However, this alternative would not meet the goals of the housing
element to the same degree because this alternative would not result in an increase in affordable housing
allowed on site. In addition, this alternative would not support the Iand Use Element Policy 2.4 to the same
degree as the project because it would not result in enhancements to the existing sidewalks. This alternative
would not provide a catalyst for revitalizing the corridor. As a result, impacts related to land use would
greater, but less than significant.
Under this alternative, grading and construction noise would be similar to the proposed project since
development would continue to be allowed in accordance with the NHSP. Stationary noise sources associated
with new commercial development would have the potential to increase noise levels at adjacent properties,
similar to the proposed project. Operational traffic related noise would be less since this alternative would
generate less vehicle trips. Overall, noise impacts would be less than the proposed project.
7.4.10 Population and Housing
Population and housing impacts would be increased by this alternative. This alternative would result in
approximately 10,000 employees due to the increase in approximately 4.9 million square feet of commercial
uses. This alternative would allow 320 residential units. As a result, the jobs - housing balance for the project
Page 76 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
area would be extremely jobs -rich and not in balance with the City overall. The jobs housing ratio within the
NHSP area at buildout would be 31, far higher than the existing, already jobs -rich jobs - housing ratio of 1.87
in the City of Santa Ana in 2010. As a result, impacts would be greater than the proposed project.
7.4.11 Public Services
Total development intensity in square feet would be lower in this alternative: assuming the 345 residential
units permitted by this alternative averaged 1,500 square feet, the units would total about 518,000 square feet.
Total permitted development would be about 5.52 million square feet including five million square feet of
nonresidential development. In the proposed project, 4,623 permitted residential units at an average of 1,500
square feet per unit gives a total of 6.93 million square feet of housing units, and a total of 8.90 million
square feet including permitted nonresidential land uses. Thus, demands for police and fire protection would
be somewhat lower in this alternative. Demands for public services dependent on population, including
schools, parks, and libraries would be lower in this alternative due to the reduction of proposed residential
units.
7.4.12 Recreation
Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would generate fewer residents in the project area. Fewer
residents would generate reduced demand for recreational facilities and services. Furthermore, the
deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities would be reduced. Therefore, impacts related to
recreation would be reduced under this alternative and would remain less than significant.
7.4.13 Transportation and Traffic
Bailout of this alternative would generate slightly less vehicle trips on study area roadways as compared to
the proposed project. Buildout of the NHSP land uses would generate 41,802 daily trips, while buildout of
the project would generate 54,357 daily trips. The alternative would generate 12,555 fewer trips at buildout.
This would result in a significant impact to the following intersections:
Euclid St and Edinger Ave — LOS F (AM Peak Hour)
Harbor Blvd and Trask Ave — LOS E (AM Peak Hour)
Harbor Blvd and Hazard Ave — LOS E (AM Peak Hour)
Fairview St and 17 St — LOS E/F (AM and PM Peak Hour)
Fairview St and V St — LOS F (PM Peak Hour)
Similar to the proposed project, all 15 study roadway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable level
of service E or better with buildout of the NHSP. However, this alternative would not involve the
development of improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the project area that would be developed by the
proposed project. Overall, transportation and traffic impacts of this alternative would be slightly less than
those of the proposed project.
October 2014 Page 7 -7
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
7.4.14 Utilities and Service Systems
Utilities and service systems impacts would be reduced by this alternative due to an overall reduction in
residents. Fewer residents would generate less solid waste and wastewater, and would have reduced demand
for water supplies. With mitigation, impacts related to utilities and service systems under this alternative
would remain less than significant.
7.4.15 Conclusion
Ability to Reduce Impacts
This alternative would reduce impacts to air quality (operation), greenhouse gas emissions, noise (operation),
public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. This alternative would
increase impacts to aesthetics, land use, and population and housing. Impacts of this alternative related to
construction related air quality and noise, cultural resources, geology and soils, and hydrology and water
quality would be similar to the proposed project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
This alternative would not achieve any of the following five project objectives: it would not provide for new
housing and mixed use development opportunities; create economic vitality by providing new opportunities
for businesses and residents; provide access to multi modal transportation; create a sense of place; or
enhance community health and wellness. This alternative would achieve one project objective, provide for the
development of the site consistent with City's General Plan. However, the Harbor Corridor Plan would
change General Plan designations for the project site to provide consistency with the general plan and zoning.
7.5 REDUCED RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative would reduce permitted residential units by 25 percent in the
Transit Node district and by 50 percent in the Corridor district; the permitted number of residential units in
the Neighborhood Transition district would be the same as in the proposed project. Total permitted
nonresidential development intensity in this alternative would remain the same as in the proposed project.
The total number of residential units permitted by this alternative would be 2,908, or 37 percent less than
that of the proposed project.
7.5.1 Aesthetics
Aesthetics impacts would be reduced by this alternative. Maximum permitted building heights would be
reduced to four stories in the Transit Node district and three stories in the Corridor district, compared to six
stories and four stories, respectively, in the proposed project. This alternative would permit redevelopment of
the Harbor Corridor Plan area, similar to the proposed project. Impacts would be similar but slightly less due
to the reduction in building heights.
Page 7-8 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
7.5.2 Air Quality
This alternative would reduce both construction and operational emissions of the proposed project due to
the reduction in permitted development intensity. However, it is expected that emissions of some air
pollutants would remain above regional thresholds. An quality impacts of this alternative would remain
significant and unavoidable.
7.5.3 Cultural Resources
This alternative and the proposed project would both permit redevelopment of the Harbor Corridor Plan
area. Although depths of grading and excavation could be slightly reduced in this alternative due to decreased
permitted building heights, cultural resources impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the
proposed project. As under the proposed project, potential impacts to cultural resources would remain less
than significant with mitigation.
7.5.4 Geology and Soils
Geology and soils impacts of this alternative, including impacts related to liquefaction, soil subsidence, and
soil expansion, would be similar to those of the proposed project; both scenarios would permit
redevelopment of the Harbor Corridor Plan area. Therefore, potential impacts related to geology and soils
would remain less than significant.
7.5.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by this alternative due to the reduction in permitted
development intensity. As under the proposed project, impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would be
less than significant.
7.5.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hazards and hazardous materials impacts of this alternative would be slightly reduced compared to those of
the proposed project due to the lower numbers of residents that could be exposed to hazardous materials
which could be present in site soils. Hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the proposed project would
be less than significant after implementation of mitigation.
7.5.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
This alternative would result in a similar amount of impervious surfaces as the proposed project. No changes
to the volume or velocity of stormwater would occur because the project area is built out and the area of
impervious surfaces is not expected to change. Short -term construction related and long -term water quality
would be similar to the proposed project since future projects under this alternative would be required to
comply with the Construction General Permit, requiring implementation of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for projects one acre in size or more, and prepare a Water Quality Management
October 2014 Page 7 -9
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Plan for all for all projects that meet the thresholds. Therefore, this alternative would be less than significant
with mitigation and have similar hydrology and water quality impacts as the proposed project.
7.5.8 Land Use and Planning
Land use and planning impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed project; this
alternative would require all of the discretionary permits required for the proposed project by the City of
Santa Ana. As under the proposed project, a zoning ordinance amendment, zone change, and General Plan
amendment would be required.
7.5.9 Noise
Noise impacts of this alternative would be reduced by the proposed project due to reduced construction
activities. The reduction of residents would reduce traffic- generated noise during the projects operational
phase. Noise impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant after implementation of
mitigation.
7.5.10 Population and Housing
This alternative would increase population onsite by 8,568 to a total of 11,687, or 6,892 less than the
proposed project. The net population increase would be within the forecast increase in population in the City
of Santa Ana between 2010 and 2035, based on General Plan land use designations, of 11,856 (CDR 2012).
Since the proposed project would exceed the growth projections in the city, this alternative reduces the impact
to population growth.
The jobs - housing ratio of the City in 2035 with buildout of this alternative would be 1.86, which is more
jobs rich than the proposed project with a jobs - housing ratio of 1.82. Therefore, this alternative would not
have the same benefit to the jobs - housing ratio in the city. Overall, this alternative would reduce population
and housing impacts compared to those of the proposed project; impacts of the proposed project would be
less than significant.
7.5.11 Public Services
Because implementation of this alternative would result in a lower number of housing units than the project
area, it would generate fewer residents. This alternative would result in a reduction of 6,892 residents as
compared to the project, which would generate reduced demand for fire protection, police, school, and
library services. Therefore, public service impacts would be reduced. As with the proposed project, impacts
related to public services would be less than significant.
7.5.12 Recreation
Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would generate 6,892 fewer residents in the project area
resulting in a reduced demand for recreational facilities and services. The deterioration of existing parks and
Page 7 -10 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
recreational facilities would occur at a slower pace due to reduced demand. Therefore, impacts related to
recreation would be reduced under this alternative and would remain less than significant.
7.5.13 Transportation and Traffic
Transportation and traffic impacts would be reduced in this alternative due to the 37- percent reductions in
residential units and associated trips. Similar to the project, transportation and traffic impacts of the proposed
project would be less than significant after implementation of mitigation.
7.5.14 Utilities and Service Systems
Utilities and service systems impacts would be reduced by this alternative due to an overall reduction in
residents. Fewer residents would generate less solid waste and wastewater, and would have reduced demand
for water supplies. Impacts of the project related to utilities and service systems would remain less than
significant.
7.5.15 Conclusion
Ability to Reduce Impacts
This alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and
hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and
utilities and service systems. Impacts to cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and
land use and planning would be similar to the proposed project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
This alternative would achieve most of the objectives of the proposed project. This alternative would achieve
the following throe objectives to a lesser degree due to the 37 percent reduction in residential units: provide
for new housing and mixed use development opportunities; create economic vitality by providing new
opportunities for businesses and residents; and provide access to multi -modal transportation.
7.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the "environmentally superior alternative" and, in cases where the
No Project" Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project, the environmentally superior
development alternative must be identified. One alternative has been identified as "environmentally superior"
to the proposed project:
Reduced Intensity Alternative
The Reduced Intensity Alternative has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative. This
alternative would lessen impacts associated with aesthetics, au quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and
hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and
utilities and service systems. The remaining impacts are generally the same as the proposed project. Although
October 2014 Page 7 -11
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
this alternative would reduce impacts to air quality, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. In
addition, this alternative would meet most of the project objectives, but to a lesser degree tban the project.
Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are:
i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (n) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant
environmental impacts." [Guidelines Sec. 15126.6(c)]
Table 7 -5 Summary of Impacts of Alternatives Compared to the Pr000sed Proiect
Topic Proposed Project No Project Alternative
Reduced Residential
Intensity Alternative
Aesthetics ITS H H
Air Quality
Construction
Operation
SU
SU
N
H
H
H
Cultural Resources LTS/M N N
Geology and Soils ITS N N
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ITS H H
Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS /M N H
Hydrology and Water Quality ITS N N
Land Use and Planning ITS H N
Noise
Construction
Operation
LTS/M
LTS /M
N
H
H
H
Population and Housing ITS H H
Public Services ITS H H
Recreation ITS H H
Transporhation/Traffc LTS/M H H
Utilities and Service Systems LTS /M H H
Notes: C I b: Less man signmcam; astM: Less man slgnlncant wan Mitigation Inmiporam; su: slgnnlcara ana unavowaule
H The alternative would result in lessofan impact than the proposed project
The alternative would result in greater impacts than the proposed project.
The alternative would result in the same/similarimpacts as the proposed project .
Page 7 -12 PlaceWorkr
8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
California Public Resources Code Section 21003 (f) states: "...it is the policy of the state that... [a]ll persons
and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process
in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical,
and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of
actual significant effects on the environment" This policy is reflected in the State California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) Section 15126.2(a), which states that "[a]n EIR [Environmental
Impact Report] shall identify and focus on the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project"
and Section 15143, which states that "[t]he EIR shall focus on the significant effects on the environment"
The Guidelines allow use of an Initial Study to document project effects that are less than significant
Guidelines Section 15063[a]). Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an EIR contain a statement briefly
indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be
significant, and were therefore not discussed in detail in the Draft EIR.
8.1 ASSESSMENT IN THE INITIAL STUDY
The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project in June 2013 determined that impacts listed below would
be less than significant. Consequently, they have not been further analyzed in this Draft EIR. Please refer to
Appendix A for explanation of the basis of these conclusions. Impact categories and questions below are
summarized directly from the CEQA Environmental Checklist, as contained in the Initial Study.
Table 8 -1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? I No Impact
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rack No Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology
Drovided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Droiect:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the No ImpactFarmlandMappingandMonitoringProgramoftheCaliforniaResources
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? I No Impact
October 014 Page 8 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
Table 8 -1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the oroiect:
a)
Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, orcause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
No Impact
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Public Resources Cade section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public No Impact
No Impact
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
Less Than Significant Impact
b)
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? No Impact
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or No Impact
c)
conversion of forest land to non - forest use?
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the oroiect:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly orthrough habitat
Alquist -Prlolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Less Than Significant Impact
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special No Impact
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
iv Landslides? No Impact
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat orother sensitive
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for No Impact
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or No Impact
by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal No Impact
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife Less Than Significant Impact
corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, No Impact
such asatree reservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, orother approved local, regional, orstate No Impact
habitat conservation Ian?
V. CULI URAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource No Impactasdefinedin15064.5?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside offormal No ImpactComo +o io.9 P
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture ofa known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist -Prlolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Less Than Significant ImpactGeologistfortheareaorbasedonothersubstantialevidenceofaknown
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
iv Landslides? No Impact
b Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ofseptic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for No Impact
the disposal of waste water?
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine Less Than Significant Impacttransport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Page 8 -2 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
Table 8 -1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WAI ER QUALI I Y. Would the project:
I) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? I No Impact
a)
Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
No Impact
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, Less Than Significant Impact
A. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a
project area?
No Impact
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a No Impact
Ressult in the loss, of availability of a locally important minerQal resource recovery
safety hazard for people residin or working in the project area?
b)
g) Impair implementation ofor physically interfere with an adopted emergency Less Than Significant Impact
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
response lanoremer en evacuation Ian?
c)
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
replacement housing elsewhere?
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacentto urbanized areas or No Impact
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WAI ER QUALI I Y. Would the project:
I) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? I No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact
c) Conflictwith any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community No Impact
conservation plan?
A. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
excessive noise levels?
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a No Impact
No Impact
value to there ion and the residents ofthe state?
people residing orworking in the project area to excessive noise levels?
b) Ressult in the loss, of availability of a locally important minerQal resource recovery No Impact
b)
ond
Less Than Significant Impact
e) ror a progea locaiea wlmin an airport Jana use plan or, wnere sucn a plan nas
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, Less Than Significant Impact
would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose No Impactpeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectareatoexcessivenoiselevels?
All. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
b) Displace substantial numbers ofexisting housing, necessitating the Less Than Significant Impactconstructionofreplacementhousingelsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of Less Than Significant Impactreplacementhousingelsewhere?
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic No Impactlevelsorathaneinlocationthatresultsinsubstantialsafetyrisks?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? I Less Than Significant Impact
XVIL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Less Than Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact
October 2014 Page 8 -3
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 84 PlaceWorkr
9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the
Proposed Proiect
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe
any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project should it be
implemented. Implementation of the proposed project would cause the following significant irreversible
changes:
Development of future projects within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would
include construction and demolition activities that would entail the commitment of nonrenewable
and /or slowly renewable energy resources; human resources; and natural resources such as lumber and
other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metals, water, and fossil fuels.
Demolition of existing commercial uses would occur over time and would be irreversible.
Future development in accordance with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan is a long-
term irreversible commitment of existing developed land in the City of Santa Ana.. Operation of the
project, which would allow an additional 13,721 square feet of commercial uses and 3,884 residential
units, would require the use of natural gas and electricity, fossil fuels, and water. The commitment of
resources required for the operation of the proposed project would limit the availability of such
resources for future generations or for other uses during the life of the project.
An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (e.g., police, fire, schools,
libraries, and sewer and water services) would also be required. The energy and social service
commitments would be long-term obligations in view of the low likelihood of returning the land to its
original condition once it has been redeveloped.
An increase in project related vehicle trips would accompany project related population growth. Over the
long term, emissions associated with such vehicle trips would continue to contribute to the South Coast
Air Basin's nonattainment designation for ozone (03) and particulate matter (PM?s and PM3o),
nonattainment for lead (l.os Angeles County only) under the California and National Ambient An
Quality Standards (AAQS), and nonattainment for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) under the California AAQS.
Given the low likelihood that the land would revert to lower intensity uses or to its current form, the
proposed project would generally commit future generations to these environmental changes.
October 2014 Page 9 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project
This page intentional# left blank.
Page 9 -2 PlaceWorkr
10. Growth - Inducing Impacts of the
Proposed Proiect
Pursuant to Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, this section is provided to examine
ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of
additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Also required is an
assessment of other projects that would foster other activities which could affect the environment,
individually or cumulatively. To address this issue, potential growth inducing effects will be examined through
analysis of the following questions:
Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major
infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing
regulations pertaining to land development?
Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of
service?
Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could
significantly affect the environment?
Would approval of this project involve some precedent setting action that could encourage and facilitate
other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
Please note that growth inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of
little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in
which this project could contribute to significant changes in the environment beyond the direct consequences
of developing the land use concept examined in the preceding chapters of this EIR.
Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major
infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing
regulations pertaining to land development?
This project would not remove obstacles to growth. The project would not extend infrastructure into
currently unserved areas. As discussed in section 5.14, Utilities and Service Systems, the project site and its area
are already developed, and existing utilities and service systems are available to provide service to the
proposed project with upgrades. Although upgrades to the existing utilities are necessary, major infrastructure
is already present in the area, and there are no known obstacles to growth. Approval of the Harbor Boulevard
Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not remove an existing regulatory obstacle to growth, but would
October 2014 Page 10 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
10. Growth - Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project
redefine the nature of future growth in the area. Therefore, the project is not considered growth inducing
with respect to removal of obstacles to growth within the project site.
Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired
levels of service?
The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan is in an urbanized area, and public services are
currently provided to the site. As discussed in Section 5.11, Public Services, the increased development intensity
at the project site would require further commitment of public services in the form of fire and police
protection, public schools, and parks in order to maintain a desired level of service. This would be considered
a long -term commitment. However, as discussed in Section 5.11, none of the public service agencies
consulted during the preparation of this EIR indicated that the proposed project would necessitate the
immediate expansion of its existing services and facilities in order to maintain desired levels of service.
Additionally, implementation of the existing fees requirement and mitigation measures would ensure that the
service capability would grow proportionate to the increase in uses and would not result in a significant
environmental impact. The proposed project would not, therefore, have significant growth - inducing
consequences with respect to public services.
Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that
could significantly affect the environment?
During project construction, a number of design, engineering, and construction - related jobs would be
created. This would last until each project is completed over an approximately 20 -year span and would be a
direct but temporary growth inducing impact of the project.
The increased number of employees and residents in the area would spur new economic investment in
commercial uses serving the project area. This would represent an increased demand for economic goods and
services and could, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses and /or the expansion of existing
businesses that address these economic needs. However, this effect would be less than significant since future
projects will be required to comply with the intensity allowed in the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Plan and City zoning code. Furthermore, the intent of the specific plan is to encourage
redevelopment of old commercial uses and underutilized parcels to accommodate local business growth
along the corridor and provide a more diverse range of retail and neighborhood oriented commercial uses.
Therefore, while the proposed project would have an indirect growth- inducing effect, this would be
accommodated by the surrounding neighborhood's current land uses and its ability to absorb local business
growth.
Would approval of this project involve some precedent - setting action that could encourage and
facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
The project would include a General Plan amendment and a zoning code amendment to replace existing
zoning districts for the project site with new zoning districts in the project area. General Plan and zoning
code amendments are common actions, and the project would not set a precedent that could lead to
significant environmental effects.
Page 10 -2 PlaceWorkr
11. Organizations and Persons Consulted
City of Santa Ana
Planning and Building Agency
Kasen Haluza, AICP, Interim Director, Planning and Building Agency
Sergio Klotz, AICP, Principal Planner
Melanie G. McCann, AICP, Associate Planner
Public Works Agency
Taig Higgins, Interim City Engineer
Zed Kekula, Interim Principal. Engineer
Rudy Rosas, PE, Senior Civil. Engineer
Nabil Saba, PE, Senior Civil. Engineer
Phillip Vakili, PE, Civil. Engineer
Police Department
Mike McCoy, Police Community Services Specialist
Orange County Fire Authority
Michele Hernandez, Management Analyst, Strategic Services
Garden Grove Unified School District
Margaret Brown, Director of Facilities
OC Waste & Recycling
John Arnau, CEQA & Habitat Program Manager
October 2014 Page 11 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
11. Organizations and Persons Consulted
This page intenlional# left blank.
Page 112 PlaceWorkr
12. Qualifications of Persons Pre
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Karen Hazula, AICP
Interim Director, Planning and Building Agency
Sergio Klotz, AICP
Principal Planner, Planning Division
Melanie G. McCann, AICP
Associate Planner, Planning Division
PLACEWORKS
Nicole Morse, Esq.
Associate Principal
Colin Drukker
Associate Principal
Nicole Vermilion
Associate Principal
Bob Mantey
Manager, Noise, Acoustics, and Vibration
Fernando Sotelo, INCE
Senior Associate, Noise, Vibration and
Acoustics
110 :ZION
BS, Applied Ecology, University of California,
Irvine
JD, Business law, Whittier law School
BA, Urban Studies and Planning, University of
California, San Diego
MURP, University of California, Irvine
BA Environmental Studies and BS Ecology and
Evolutionary Biology, University of California,
Santa Cruz, 2002
MURP, University of California, Irvine, 2005.
BS, Engineering, Harvey Mudd College, 1979
BS, Naval Engineering, University of Sao Paulo,
Brazil, 1998
MS, Transportation Engineering, University of
Southern California, 2001
October 2014 Page 12 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
12. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR
Michael Milroy BS, Biological Science California State University,
Associate Long Beach
MS, Interdisciplinary Studies: Neuroscience,
California State University, Long Beach
Ryan Potter BS, City and Regional Planning, CaliforniaAssociatePolytechnicStateUniversity, San Luis Obispo
MURP, University of California, Irvine
Cary Nakama AA, Computer Graphic Design, Platt College of
Graphic Artist Computer Graphic Design
BA, Business Administration: Data Processing and
Marketing, California State University, Long Beach
IBI GROUP
William Delo, AICP BA, Environmental Analysis and Design, UniversityAssociateofIrvine
Colleen Hsieh BA, Environmental Analysis and Design, UniversityTransportationPlannerofCalifornia, Irvine
Page 12 -2 PlaceWorkr
13. Biblioqra
Bies and Hansen. 2003. EngineeringNoise ControL- Theory and Practice. New York: Spon Press.
Bolt, Beranek and Newman. 1971. Noisefiom Construction Equpment and Operations, Building Equpment and Home
Appliances. Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005, April. Air Quality andLand Use Handbook: A Community Health
Perspective.
2006, November 1. ENMAC2007 Computer Model. Version 2.3.
2007, February. Ambient Air Quality Standardr. http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /research /nags /aags2.pdf.
2007, April 20. Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in California.
2007, July. Area Designations: Activities andMaps. http : / /www.arb.ca.gov /desig /desig.htm.
2007. Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cardr (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006).
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/cgi-bin/db2www /adamtop4b.d2w/start.
California Climate Action Team (CAT). 2006, March. Climate Action Team Report to Governor
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. California Environmental Protection Agency.
2007, April 20. CAT Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in California.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Environmental Analysis. 2002. Transportation
Related Earthborne Vibration: Callrans Experiences. Technical Advisory, Vibration. TAV-02- 01- R9601.
Prepared by Rudy Hendricks.
California Department of Finance (CDF). 2013, May. E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, January 2011 -2013.
http: / /www.dof. m.gov /research /demographic /reports /estimates /e -5/ 2011 -20 /view.php.
California Energy Commission. (CEC). 2006. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California. California
Climate Change Center. Report CEC -500- 2006 -077.
California Geological Survey (CGS). 2013, May 29. 2010 Geologic Map of California.
http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/GMC/stategeologi=ap.htrnl.
1998, April 15. Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Anaheim Quadrangle.
http: / /gmw. consrv. ca.gov/ shmp /download /quad /ANAHEIM /maps /ozn_Mah.pdf.
1998, April 15. Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Newport Beach Quadrangle.
http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/quad/NEWPORT BEACH/ maps / ozn_newb. pdf.
October 2014 Page 13 -1
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
13. Bibliography
Center for Demographic Research (CDR). 2012. Orange County Projections: 2010 Modified. California State
University, Fullerton.
Coast Community College District (CCCD). 2012. Hazard Mitigation Plan. III D: Dam Failure.
http: //w .cccd.edu /hazard_n itigation /dots /Community %2OForum %2OPP.pdf.
Cogstone, Inc. 2013, May. Archaeological Assessment for the Warner Avenue from Main Street to Grand
Avenue Widening Project.
Colorado Geological Survey (COGS). 2011, April 28. Defuution of Swelling Soils.
http: / /geosurvey.state.co.us /hazards /Swelling %20Soils /Pages /Def"tion.aspx.
Cooper, John. 2011, August 30. Geology and Paleontology of Orange County.
http: / /coopercmter.f dlerton. edu/ pdfs/ GEOLOGYmdPALEONTOLOGYofORANGECOUNT
Y.pdf.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2010, September 13. Glossary of Environmental Terms.
http: //w .dtsc.ca.gov /InformationResou ms /Glossary_of Enviro=ental_Terms.cfm.
Employment Development Department (EDD). 2013, September 3. Monthly Labor Force Data for
Counties: July 2013 — Preliminary. http: / /www.cahy is.ca.gov /file /lfmonth /comtyur- 400c.pdf.
2013, September 3. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places: July 2013 —
Preliminary. http: //w labormarkettnfo .edd.ca.gov /Contmt.asp ?pageid -1006.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2013, March 19. Radius Map. Environmental Database search.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009, December 3. Flood Zone Map 06059CO256J.
http: / /map l . msc. fema.gov /idms /IntraView. cgi? KEY— 84033771 &IFIT— l .
2009, December 3. Flood Zone Map 06059C0143J.
http: / /map l.msc.fema.gov /idms /IntraView. cgi ?KEY- 65262003&IFIT —1 .
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1978, December. Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction ModeZ U.S.
Department of Transportation. Report No. FHWA -RD77 -108.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. TransitNoise and Vibration ImpactAssessment United States
Department of Transportation.
Frey Environmental, Inc. 2005, November 29. Workplan, Additional Soil and Groundwater Investigation,
Former Oasis Drinking Waters, 1506 N. Clinton Street, Santa Ana, California.
http: / /geotracker.waterboards. ca.gov/ esi /uploads /geo_ report/7797209024/TO605902113.PDF.
Hernandez, Michele (Management Analyst, Strategic Services). 2013, August 26. Questionnaire response.
Orange County Fire Authority.
IBI Group (1131). 2013, March 18. Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor: Drainage Study.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC). 2001. 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report.
Page 13 -2 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
13. Bibliography
Malcolm Punic. 2011, June. Municipal Water District of Orange County: 2010 Final Urban Water
Management Plan. http: //w .mwdoc. com/ filesgallery/MWDOC_Final_2010_RUWMP.pdf.
McCoy, Mike (Police Community Services Specialist). 2013, November 5. Questionnaire response. Santa Ana
Police Department.
Metropolitan Transportation Authority of Los Angeles County (Metro). 2009. 2009 Long Range Transit Plan.
http: / /media.meLro.net / projects_ studies /images /fni l- 2009- LRTP.pdf.
National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC). 2001. Chlordane.
http://npic.orst.edu/facLshmLs/cblordmegen.pdf.
Natural History Museum ofLos Angeles County (NHN!). 2013, May 23. Vertebrate Paleontology Records
Search.
Orange County Public Works. 2013, July 3. East Garden Grove- Wintersburg Channel Improvement Project.
http: / /ocflood.com /nfc /projects /consLruction /east —g rden—grove_facility _ c05 /.
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 2013, June 3. Bravo! Bus Speeds Up Harbor Boulevard
Commute. http: //w .ocLa. net /News/ Bus /Bravo!- Bus - Speeds -Up- Harbor - Boulevard- Commute /.
2011, February 15. Destination 2035. http: / /www.ocLa.net /pdf /fnialirtp.pdf.
Orange County Water District. 2011, December 20. Groundwater Elevation Contours for the Principal
Aquifer. http: //w .ocwd. com / Portals /0 /Pdf /jme_WL2011L2.pdf.
2009, July 9. Ground Water Management Plan 2009 Update.
http: //w .ocwd. com /Portals /0 /News/ PublicationsReports /GWMPJuly2009Update.pdf.
Planning Center I DC&E, The. 2013, February. Initial Study for: Pacific Technology School.
Rimpo and Associates. URBENUS2007 Computer ModeL Version 9.2.2.
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). 2008, February. Water Quality Control Plan
for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan).
http: //w .swrcb.ca.gov /rwgcb8 /water issues /programs /basin plan/index.shtml.
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (SAE). 1971, October. House Noise : Deduction Measurementsfor Use in
Studies ofAircraft FlyomrNoise. AIR 1081.
Sonoma Technology. CALINE4 Computer Model, Version 1.31.
South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). 2013, May 1. Cultural Records Search and Historical
Resources Inventory. California State University, Fullerton.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. (SCAQMD). 1993, April. CEQAAir Quality Handbook.
2003, June. Final L.oca&ed Significance Threshold Methodology.
2006, October. FinalMethodology to Calculate PM25 and PM25 Significance Thresholds.
2007, June. Fina12007,4ir Quality Management Plan.
October 2014 Page 13 -3
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
13. Bibliography
South Coast AQMD List of Current Rules. Califomia Air ResourcesBoard.
http: //w .arb.ca.gov /clrdb /sc /=.htm. Accessed 2007.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2013, February 7. Pacific Electric ROW /West
Santa Ana Branch Corridor Alternatives Analysis. http: //w .scag.m.gov/perow/project-
documents.html.
2013. Compass 2% Strategy Opportunity Areas.
http: //w .compassblueprint.org /toolbox /opportuni"eas.
2012, April 4. 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
http: / /rtpscs. scag.ca.gov /Documents /2012 /fmal /f2Ol2RTPSCS.pdf.
2004, April. Destination 2030:2004 Regional Transportation Plan.
Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC). 2013, May 14. Significant Earthquakes and Faults:
Chronological Earthquake Index. http: //w .data.scec.org /significant /chron- index.html.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 2013. Dam Safety Program: Prado Dam. Los Angeles
District.
http: //w .spl.usace.army.n it /Missions /CivilWorks /Media /FactSheets /tabid /1321 /Article /2710/
dam- safety - program. aspx.
1985, August. Prado Dam Emergency Inundation Map, Plate No. 4.
United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2013, September 3. DP -1: Profile of General Population and Housing
Characteristics: 2010.
http: / /factfmder2.crosus.gov /faces /tableservims /jsf /pages / productview .xhtml ?pid— DEC_10_SF1
SF1DP1 TrodType =table
2013, September 3. Longitudinal Employment Household Dynamics (LEHD). OnTheMap.
http://onthemap.ces.mnsus.gov/.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011, December 21. 2010 Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
List. http: //w .waterboa ds.m.gov /water_ issues / programs /tmdl /integrated2010.shtrnl.
2011, April 18. Aldrin /Dieldrin. http: //w .epa.gov /pbt /pubs /alclrin.htm.
2004, September. Water Permitting 101. http: //w .epa.gov /npdes /pubs /101pape.pdf.
Industrial Source Complex Short Term Dispersion Model (ISCST3).
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2013. Topovie . http: / /ngmdb.usgs.gov /maps /TopoView /.
2012, July 24. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/1earn/topics/mercalh.php.
2006. Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30'X 60' Quadrangles, California.
http: / /pubs.usgs.gov /of/ 2006 / 1217/ of2006- 1217 _map /of2006- 1217 —geo1_map.pdf.
1981. 7.5- minute topographic map, Anaheim quadrangle.
Page 134 PlaceWorkr
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
13. Bibliography
1981. 7.5- minute topographic map, Newport Beach quadrangle.
Wald, David J., et al. 1999, August "Relationships between Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground
Velocity, and Modified Mercalh Intensity in California." Earthquake Spectra 15 No. 3.
October 2014 Page 13 -5
HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR
CITY OF SANTA ANA
13. Bibliography
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 136 PlaceWorkr
Exhibit "B"
SEE LASERFICHE
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -069 FOR EXHIBIT
Resolution No. 2014 -069
Page 7 of 8
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
FOR THE HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2013061027
The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the State
CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15091 (collectively, CEQA)
require that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a project is
approved and make specific findings. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides:
a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been
certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the
project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of
those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for
each finding. The possible findings are:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
as identified in the EIR.
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes
have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by
such other agency.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in
the final EIR.
b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the
finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified
feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall
describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and
project alternatives.
d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also
adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either
required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially
lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or
other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its
decision is based.
f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings
required by this section.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 further provides:
a) CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project
against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to
approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
benefits of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental
effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
b) Where the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to
support its action based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record.
This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned
in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall
be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
Having received, reviewed, and considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR)
and the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use
Transit Corridor Plan project, SCH No. 201 3061 027 (collectively, the EIR), as well as all other
information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings and Facts in
Support of Findings (Findings) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) are hereby
adopted by the City of Santa Ana (City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency.
These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken
by the City for the development of the project. These actions include the approval and /or
certification of the following:
the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan (HCP);
Environmental Impact Report No. (SCH #2013061027);
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to replace development standards from the adopted
North Harbor Specific Plan (NHSP) to the HCP;
Zoning Map Amendment to replace zoning district designations with the new HCP
zoning districts; and
2 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Zone Change to replace the NHSP land use designations with conventional zoning
designations to match existing land uses.
These actions are collectively referred to herein as the "project ".
A. DOCUMENTFORMAT
These Findings have been organized into the following sections
1) Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings.
2) Section 2 provides a summary of the project, overview of the discretionary
actions required for approval of the project, and a statement of the project's
objectives.
3) Section 3 provides a summary of public participation in the environmental review
for the project.
4) Section 4 sets forth findings regarding the environmental impacts that were
determined to be —as a result of the Initial Study, consideration of comments
received during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period, and analysis in
the EIR— either not relevant to the project or less than significant without
mitigation.
5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant
environmental impacts identified in the EIR.
These impacts include those that the City has determined are either not
significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the
imposition of existing regulations, standard conditions and /or mitigation
measures. In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all mitigation
measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMRP) for the project and adopted as conditions of the project by the Lead
Agency.
Section 5 also includes findings regarding those significant or potentially
significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR that will or may result from
the project and which the City has determined cannot feasibly be mitigated to a
less than significant level.
6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the proposed project.
B. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the
City's actions related to the project are at the City of Santa Ana, Planning and Building
Agency, 20 Civic Center, Room M -20, Santa Ana, California 92701. The City of Santa
Ana is the custodian of the Administrative Record for the project.
3 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
2. PROJECTSUMMARY
A. PROJECT LOCATION
The project area comprises approximately 425 acres oriented to Harbor Boulevard in
Santa Ana in central Orange County. The project area generally includes parcels
adjacent to Harbor Boulevard between Westminster Avenue and Lilac Way and parcels
along Westminster Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street one -half mile east of Harbor
Boulevard. The corridor's northern and southern ends are adjacent to the city
boundaries of Garden Grove and Fountain Valley, respectively. The project areas
consists of two areas 1) an approximately 305 -acre portion that directly fronts Harbor
Boulevard or perpendicular arterial streets and 2) 120 acres consisting of the Willowick
Golf Course and Campesino Park, residential properties along Jackson Street, and
commercial properties along 5th Street. The 120 -acre portion of the project area is east
of the Harbor Boulevard corridor and abuts the Santa Ana River to the east.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would replace the existing 425 -
acre NHSP. The plan would change the boundaries of the NHSP so that the project
would consist of two separate areas: 1) 305 acres within the boundaries of the existing
425 -acre NHSP generally along Harbor Boulevard ( "Harbor Corridor Plan" or "Specific
Plan "), and 2) 120 acres within the existing NHSP in the Willowick Golf Course area (or
Conventional Zoning Area "). Both of these areas constitute the "project" for purposes of
CEQA, but are described separately below.
Harbor Corridor Plan
Specific Plan Land Uses
The Harbor Corridor Plan introduces land use and circulation changes to approximately
305 acres of land within the boundaries of the existing 425 -acre NHSP, including
approximately 50 acres of right -of -way outside of parcels. The Harbor Corridor Plan lays
the foundation for a more livable and sustainable corridor by creating zoning to allow for
new housing and mixed -use development opportunities, providing development flexibility
to meet market demands, using a multimodal approach to circulation, and creating a
stronger identity for the area. The Harbor Corridor Plan creates a land use and
development framework to support from 1,700 to 4,600 residential units and 2 million
square feet of commercial and employment space. The project area may attract a variety
of new retail stores, restaurants, office buildings, hotels, museums, and housing options
in a more walkable, safe, and attractive environment.
Land use changes under the Harbor Corridor Plan would involve replacing the NHSP's
zoning districts with four Harbor Corridor Plan land use districts: Transit Node, Corridor,
Neighborhood Transitional, and Open Space (described below). Each district has its own
development standards, preferred building and frontage types, and strategies promoting
integration between new development and the existing neighborhood. Circulation
improvements introduced by the Harbor Corridor Plan emphasize a multimodal approach
to circulation and a dynamic relationship between the transportation corridor and
4 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
adjacent land uses. Development of the Harbor Corridor Plan was guided by the
following five principles:
1) Expanded development opportunities that respond to transit investments
2) A variety of safe and efficient travel choices
3) Economic vitality and new opportunities for businesses and residents
4) A sense of place
5) Community health and wellness
The four Harbor Corridor Plan land use districts are described below:
Transit Node (TN). The Transit Node district is intended to provide standards for
compact, transit- supportive mixed -use and residential development with a focus on
creating pedestrian activity at the street. This district offers the most significant
opportunities to respond to the regional and local transit investments, with direct
access to three existing BRT stations and proximity to one or more future fixed
guideway stations.
The district allows for a wide range of building types, including mixed -use flex blocks,
liners, stacked flats, courtyard housing, and live -work units. The district
accommodates shops, restaurants, and active commercial uses at street level, with
office and residential uses permitted on upper floors.
Corridor (CDR). The Corridor district is applied to properties along Harbor Boulevard
between BRT stations and is intended to provide housing options and neighborhood
serving uses within walking distance of a transit node. The district also identifies
areas set aside exclusively for moderate- and high - density residential projects to
facilitate a range of affordable housing options. Building types include lined block,
stacked flats, courtyard housing, live -work, rowhouses, and tuck -under units. Mixed -
use and nonresidential projects are centered on key intersections, while residential
and public /quasi - public uses infill at midblock locations.
Neighborhood Transitional (NT). The Neighborhood Transitional district provides
standards for development that acts as a transition between the single - family
neighborhoods to the north and south of 1st and 5th streets and the Corridor and
Transit Node districts.
Designated for the lowest scale and the lowest intensity of uses in the Harbor
Corridor Plan, development in this district is limited to residential, live -work, or
neighborhood- serving commercial uses. These uses may combine commercial on
the ground floor with residential above or in freestanding single -use buildings on the
same site at between two and three stories in height.
Open Space (OS). The Open Space and Recreation district identifies areas
reserved for community parks and other open spaces. Allowable structures in this
district are limited to those necessary to support the specific open space and
5 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
recreation purposes, such as sport -court enclosures, multipurpose buildings, and
trails. Additional open space will be required as new development occurs or close to
the Specific Plan area.
Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout
Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan could generate an additional 3,884 additional
dwelling units, 15,327 residents, 13,721 square feet of commercial space, and
approximately 173 employees in the plan area. Table 1 outlines the proposed zoning
designations and summarizes maximum buildout projections.
Table 1
Land Use Districts and Buildout Projections for the Harbor Corridor Plan
Harbor Corridor Plan
Land Use Districts Acres
Dwelling
Units Population
Commercial
Building,
Square Feet Employees
Transit Node (TN) 125 2,029 8,114 1,836,155 1,463
Corridor (CDR) 108 2,416 9,751 131,827 96
Neighborhood Transitional (NT) 15 178 714
Open Space & Recreation (OS) 4
ROW 53
Subtotal 305 4,623 18,579 1,967,982 1,559
Existing Land Uses 739 3,252 1,954,261 1,386
Difference Compared to Existing
Land Uses 3,884 15,327 13,721 173
Development Standards /Design Guidelines
New development within the project area will need to comply with the development
standards within the specific plan. The development standards detail the allowable
building type and form for each district, including lot size, maximum building height,
maximum stories, frontage type, building placement (setback requirements), and parking
standards. In addition, there are open space, public right -of -way, and landscaping
standards.
The Harbor Corridor Plan also includes design guidelines. The design guidelines are
intended to promote quality design, consistent with the overall vision, while providing a
level of flexibility to encourage creative design. The guidelines direct the physical design
of building sites, architecture, and landscape elements within the specific plan boundary.
This comprehensive approach represents a more understandable and predictable way to
shape the physical future by emphasizing building form and landscape design that
reinforce urban and transit - oriented development patterns.
July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Mobility
Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would also include improvements to Harbor
Boulevard and its cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and
Westminster Avenue. These improvements are designed to create a robust multimodal
corridor that accommodates the movement of vehicular traffic through the City and
region as well as other modes of travel. Proposed improvements include the
enlargement of sidewalk and parkway areas to facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian
travel along Harbor Boulevard and efficient connections to the regional bicycle network.
The improvements would maintain the same rights -of -way and number of travel lanes on
the affected roadways.
Phasing
The project will be developed in multiple phases over the next 20+ years. Development
of the project area and time frames would be controlled by both City decisions on public
improvements to streets and infrastructure as well as landowner decisions on the
development of privately owned properties. Implementation of the specific plan will
require collaborative efforts among local businesses, institutions, residents, the City, and
developers.
A variety of funding sources beyond City General Fund resources can be used to
implement the Harbor Corridor Plan. District -based and contractual assessment tools
are options that would allow areas in this plan to benefit from the funding they collect.
Developer contributions, impact fees, and standard agreements can all be used by the
City to initiate public right -of -way improvements. Regional, state, and federal grants as
well as City funds such as the capital improvement program are also potential funding
sources.
Flexibility in project implementation is also required to respond to changing economic
conditions and trends, which may require that the City revisit and reprioritize the specific
plan's implementation steps. For purposes of evaluating environmental impacts, buildout
of the specific plan is anticipated to occur by 2035.
Conventional Zoning Area
The remaining 120 acres of land within the existing NHSP is proposed to be extracted
from the NHSP and converted to conventional zoning. This area would not be included
in the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan. Land uses in the area consist of the Willowick Golf
Course and Cesar Chavez /Campesino Park, residential properties along Jackson Street,
and commercial properties along 5th Street. Zoning designations for the parcels in
question were determined based on existing conditions and would be adopted upon
repeal of the NHSP. Willowick Golf Course, Cesar Chavez /Campesino Park, and the
properties in between would be zoned Open Space Area (0), and residential properties
along Jackson Street would be zoned Two Family Residential (R2).
Conventional Zoning Area Buildout
Conventional zoning designations were chosen to be consistent with the existing land
uses. No new development is intended for this area. The R2 designation was chosen for
7 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
existing residential uses because it is consistent with the established character of the
neighborhood. There is one exception of two parcels along 5th Street (2.5 acres total).
Based on the City's OS zone, these parcels could be developed for commercial
recreation /entertainment and public /quasi - public facilities. However, the existing intensity
of development is not expected to change. Therefore, buildout projections for NHSP
areas proposed for conversion to conventional zoning assume no change in numbers of
dwelling units or population. Buildout projections for the parcels proposed for conversion
to conventional zoning are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Buildout Projections for Parcels Proposed to Be Converted to Conventional Zoning
Assumes no change from existing conditions.
Zoning Amendment
A Zoning Ordinance Amendment is required to replace the NHSP zoning designations
with the new Harbor Corridor Plan zoning districts. An amendment to the Zoning Map
will also be required to reflect the new specific plan zone.
Zone Change
A Zone Change is required to replace the NHSP zoning designations within the
Conventional Zoning Area to conventional zoning consisting of Open Space Area (0)
and Two Family Residential (R2).
General Plan Amendment
A General Plan Amendment would provide consistency between the City of Santa Ana
General Plan and the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan. Although the Harbor Corridor Plan
is consistent with the objectives and policies in the General Plan, new land uses are
proposed. Therefore, the project will require an amendment to the land use element to
update the land use map to include the boundaries of the Harbor Corridor Plan with a
land use designation allowing both residential and commercial uses.
C. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
Implementation of the project will require several actions by the City, including:
Certification of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2013061027). An Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed
project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA),
July 2014
Existing Land
Uses
Buildout of
Proposed Project Difference
Dwelling Units 92 92
Population 405 4051
Commercial Building, Square Feet 3,700 3,7001
Employees 3 3
Assumes no change from existing conditions.
Zoning Amendment
A Zoning Ordinance Amendment is required to replace the NHSP zoning designations
with the new Harbor Corridor Plan zoning districts. An amendment to the Zoning Map
will also be required to reflect the new specific plan zone.
Zone Change
A Zone Change is required to replace the NHSP zoning designations within the
Conventional Zoning Area to conventional zoning consisting of Open Space Area (0)
and Two Family Residential (R2).
General Plan Amendment
A General Plan Amendment would provide consistency between the City of Santa Ana
General Plan and the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan. Although the Harbor Corridor Plan
is consistent with the objectives and policies in the General Plan, new land uses are
proposed. Therefore, the project will require an amendment to the land use element to
update the land use map to include the boundaries of the Harbor Corridor Plan with a
land use designation allowing both residential and commercial uses.
C. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
Implementation of the project will require several actions by the City, including:
Certification of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2013061027). An Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed
project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA),
July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
as amended (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA
Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
Sections 15000 et seq.).
Adoption of the Harbor Corridor Plan ( "Specific Plan ")
General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element
Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Amendment to replace development standards
from NHSP with those in the HCP.
Zoning Map Amendment. Amendment to replace zoning district designations with
the new HCP zoning districts
Zone Change. Replace NHSP land use designations with conventional zoning
designations to match existing land uses
The Final EIR would also provide environmental information to responsible agencies,
trustee agencies, and other public agencies that may be required to grant approvals and
permits or coordinate with the City of Santa Ana as a part of project implementation.
These agencies include, but are not limited to:
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Issuance of National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits, as necessary.
South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD). Issuance of any air
quality permits required to implement the project consistent with SCAQMD Rules
201. 403, and 1403.
D. STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The statement of objectives sought by the project and set forth in the Final EIR is
provided as follows:
Provide for the development of the site consistent with City's General Plan.
Provide for new housing and mixed -use development opportunities.
Expand development opportunities that respond to transit investments.
Create economic vitality by providing new opportunities for businesses and
residents.
Provide a variety of safe and efficient travel choices and access to multi -modal
transportation.
Create a sense of place.
9 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Enhance community health and wellness by creating safer street design for multiple
modes of travel, increase walkability and encourage live /work along the corridor.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Final EIR includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) dated April 2014,
written comments on the Draft EIR that were received during the 45 -day public review period,
and written responses to those comments and clarifications /changes to the EIR. In conformance
with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental
review of the Harbor Corridor Plan project:
Completion of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was released for a 30 -day
public review period from June 13, 2013 through July 15, 2013. The NOP for the
Draft EIR was published in the June 15, 2013 edition of the Orange County Register,
a newspaper of general circulation. The NOP was sent to all responsible agencies,
trustee agencies, and the Office of Planning Research and posted at the Orange
County Clerk- Recorder's office and on the City's website on June 11, 2013.
During the NOP review period, a Scoping Meeting was held to solicit additional
suggestions on the content of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
EIR. Attendees were provided an opportunity to identify verbally or in writing the
issues they felt should be addressed in the EIR. The scoping meeting was held on
Tuesday, June 25, 2013, at 6:00 pm at Santa Ana Union Hall, 3904 West First
Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The notice of the public scoping meeting was included
in the NOP.
Preparation of a Draft EIR by the City that was made available for a 45 -day public
review period (April 18, 2014, to June 2, 2014). The Draft EIR consisted of analysis
of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan project and appendices
used to prepare that analysis. Appendices included the Initial Study and Notice of
Preparation, NOP comment letters, and technical appendices. The Notice of
Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR was distributed April 18, 2018. The NOA was
sent to all interested persons, agencies and organizations. The Notice of Completion
NOC) was sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public
agencies. The NOA was posted at the Orange County Clerk- Recorder's office on
April 18, 2014. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available for public review at the
City of Santa Ana Planning Counter (20 Civic Center Plaza) and the Santa Ana
Public Library (26 Civic Center Plaza). The Draft EIR was available for download via
the City's website: http:/( www .cisanta- ana.ca.us /harborplan /.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 12, 2014 to receive public
input on the Draft EIR during the 45 -day public review period. The hearing was held
at the Santa Ana City Council Chambers at 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana,
California, 92701. Notices of time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was
provided in accordance with CEQA and the City's Municipal Code. Oral testimony
was presented by the public this this hearing. Notice for the May 14, 2014 meeting
was published along with the NOA. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for
these meetings, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
Preparation of a Draft Final EIR including Draft EIR, comments on the Draft EIR,
responses to those comments, clarifications /revisions to the Draft EIR, Mitigation
10 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Monitoring and Reporting Program and appended documents. The Draft Final EIR
was made available for download via the City's website: http://www.ci.santa -
ana.ca.us /harborplan/ on April 17, 2014. Responses to commenters were sent on
August 14, 2014.
The Planning Commission held public hearings for the EIR on August,25, 2014 and
May 12, 2013 in the Santa Ana City Council Chambers at 22 Civic Center Plaza,
Santa Ana, California, 92701. Notices of time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid
meetings were provided in accordance with CEQA and the City's Municipal Code.
The Draft EIR, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to
and considered by the Planning Commission at these hearings. Notice for the August
25, 2014 meeting was published along with the NOA. Additionally, the item appeared
on the agenda for these meetings, which was posted at City Hall and on the City
website.
In compliance with Section 15088(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations
State CEQA Guidelines), the City has met its obligation to provide written
Responses to Comments to public agencies, at least 10 days prior to certifying the
Final EIR.
The City Council public hearing on the EIR is tentatively scheduled for to be held on
September 16, 2014, in the Santa Ana City Council Chambers at 22 Civic Center
Plaza, Santa Ana, California, 92701. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the
aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the City's Municipal
Code. The Final EIR, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were
presented to and considered by the City Council at this hearing.
The City held several public meetings and hearings on the project from December,
2010 to May, 2014, including the following:
8 neighborhood meetings;
2 open house events, including the Harbor Corridor Idea Fair in
September 2011;
2 community workshops;
3 Planning Commission study sessions; and
2 City Council meetings.
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project
consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
All information collected by City and its representatives relating to the project and /or
the Final EIR, including but not limited to the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Plan;
NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed
project;
The Scoping Meeting notes held during the 30 -day NOP period;
The Final EIR, including the Draft EIR and all appendices, the Responses to
Comments, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMRP) and all supporting materials referenced therein. All documents, studies,
11 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft EIR and Final EIR.
The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to
Comments of the Final EIR;
All written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public during the
45 -day public review comment period on the Draft EIR and testimony provided at the
May 12, 2014 Planning Commission public hearing;
All responses to written comments submitted by agencies and members of the
public;
All testimony provided by agencies and members of the public at the City Council
public hearings tentative scheduled on September 15, 2014,
All final City Staff Reports relating to the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the project;
All other public reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, or other planning
documents relating to the project, the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR prepared by the
City, consultants to the City, or Responsible or Trustee Agencies.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted by the City for
the project; the Ordinances and Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with
the proposed project; and all documents incorporated by reference therein;
These Findings of Fact and Overriding Considerations adopted by the City for the
project, any documents expressly cited in these Findings of Fact;
Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public
Resources Code Section 21167.6(e).
The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which these
findings are based are located at the City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency. The
custodian for these documents is the City of Santa Ana. This information is provided in
compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code
Regulations Section 15091(e).
4. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
Impacts Determined Less than Significant in the Initial Study
As a result of the Notice of Preparation circulated by the City on June 11, 2013, in connection
with preparation of the EIR, the City determined, based upon the threshold criteria for
significance, (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) that the project would have no impact or a
less than significant impact on the following potential environmental issues, and therefore,
determined that these potential environmental issues would not be addressed in the Draft EIR.
Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the EIR, and the comments received by
the public on the Draft EIR, no substantial evidence was submitted or identified by the City
which indicated that the project would have an impact on the following environmental areas:
12 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
1. Aesthetics.
a. Development allowed under the project would not have the potential to obstruct
or otherwise impact public views of scenic vistas.
b. There are no scenic resources onsite and the project area does not include a
state scenic highway.
2. Agriculture and Forest Resources.
a. There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance in or near the project area.
b. No portion of the project area conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or
is covered by a Williamson Act Contract.
c. The project area does not include forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for
Timberland Production.
d. The project does not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land
to non - forest use.
e. The project does not result in changes in the existing environment that could
result in the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural use or forest land to non -
forest land use.
3. Air Quality.
a. Land uses allowed in the project area are not expected to generate objectionable
odors. During construction of future projects allowed under the Harbor Corridor
Plan, emissions of odors may occur. However, these would be temporary and
are not expected to be highly objectionable.
4. Biological Resources.
a. Although there are vacant parcels in the project area, these parcels are graded,
disturbed land and do not feature native habitat. The area is surrounded by urban
land uses and isolated from areas supporting suitable habitat for sensitive
species.
b. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities occur in the project
area. The project area is not included in any local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations that identify riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural community.
c. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designates one waterway in the project area
as a riverine wetland. However, this waterway, which drains into the East Garden
Grove - Wintersburg Channel, consists of a fenced, man -made concrete channel
with limited vegetation. The channel would not be altered by development built
pursuant to the proposed project. The channelized Santa Ana River,
approximately 1,000 feet east of the project area, is also designated a riverine
wetland area. However, the river is adjacent to the Willowick Golf Course, which
would not be available for redevelopment under the Open Area (0) zoning
designation proposed for the course. Project implementation would not involve
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other direct or indirect impact
to these drainages or other wetlands under jurisdiction of regulatory agencies.
13 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
d. The project area is almost entirely developed and is surrounded by developed
urban uses. Thus, the project area is not available for overland wildlife movement
or migration. The project area contains some trees, but these are primarily
ornamental street trees and small groupings of other ornamental trees that do not
provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds.
e. Projects developed under the Harbor Corridor Plan may involve the removal of
existing ornamental trees, including street trees. However, these projects would
be required to comply with Chapter 33, Article VII of the Santa Ana Municipal
Code, which regulates the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees in the
city.
f. The project area is in the plan area of the Orange County Transportation
Authority Natural Community Conservation Plan Habitat Conservation Plan
OCTA NCCP /HCP), which will include the entirety of Orange County once
adopted. However, the OCTA NCCP /HCP is still under development and will
apply only to habitat restoration projects on land acquired to offset impacts to 13
freeway improvements funded through Measure M2, which was approved by
voters in 2006 (OCTA 2012). The project area does not contain any lands that
are being considered for habitat restoration.
5. Cultural Resources.
a. The project area does not include historically important resources, is not within
the City's three designated historic districts, and does not contain any of the
historic resources listed in the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties.
b. There are no known human remains in the project area. The project area is not
part of a formal cemetery and is not known to have been used for disposal of
historic or prehistoric human remains. In addition, ground has been disturbed on
almost all of the project area by construction of existing land uses. Thus, human
remains are not expected to be encountered during construction of projects built
pursuant to the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would
comply with provisions of state law regarding discovery of human remains.
6. Geology and Soils.
a. There are no Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones in or near the project area;
the nearest such zone is 2.9 miles southwest of the project area along the
Newport - Inglewood Fault. The risk of surface rupture of a known fault in or near
the project area is very low due to the lack of known active faults. Furthermore,
future projects developed pursuant to the project would be required to comply
with all applicable Building Safety Division requirements and impacts are less
than signficant.
b. The project area is generally flat with no significant slopes on or adjacent to the
project area and no impact related to landslides would result.
c. The project area is in a highly urbanized, built -out portion of central Orange
County and is largely flat; soils have already been disturbed by development.
Although soils in the project area could experience erosion during construction of
improvements to Harbor Boulevard and during development of individual projects
pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan, implementation of the proposed project
would not cause substantial soil erosion. Furthermore, future development within
14 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
the project area is required to comply with National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System regulations by preparing and implementing a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan specifying best management practices for minimizing
pollution of stormwater with soil and sediment during project construction.
d. The project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
a. Industrial uses requiring the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials would be prohibited in the project area under the zoning designations
identified for the site as part of the project. Land uses planned for the project
area would only use limited amounts of hazardous materials for cleaning and
maintenance purposes. Furthermore, individual projects built in accordance with
the project would be required to adhere to the existing regulations of local, state,
and federal agencies regarding the use and storage of hazardous substances
and therefore, less than significant.
b. The project area is not within the area covered by the John Wayne Airport land
use plan, or that of any other airport.
c. The project area is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip.
d. Implementation of the project would not conflict with the City of Santa Ana or
Orange County's emergency response or evacuation plans. Although
construction of physical improvements to Harbor Boulevard may result in
temporary rerouting of vehicular traffic— including emergency response
vehicles — police and fire services could be provided without interruption. The
proposed reconfiguration of and improvements to Harbor Boulevard would not
decrease its number of travel lanes, ensuring continued access to the project
area and surrounding areas by emergency access vehicles.
e. The project area is in a highly urbanized, built -out portion of central Orange
County outside of fire hazard severity zones designated by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. No impacts would occur.
8. Hydrology and Water Quality.
a. There are no inland water bodies near enough to the project area to pose a flood
hazard to the site through a seiche. The project area is also approximately six
miles from the Pacific Ocean, outside of the Tsunami Hazard Zone identified by
the California Emergency Management Agency. Lastly, the project area is
relatively flat and would not be susceptible to any mudflow.
9. Land Use and Planning.
a. Land use changes proposed by the project would not divide an established
community.
b. The project does not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
conservation plan.
10. Mineral Resources.
a. The project area is developed with commercial, residential, and other urban uses
and is not available for mining.
15 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
b. The project area and the surrounding vicinity are highly urbanized, and they are
not in or near a mining or oil or gas field site identified by the City of Santa Ana
General Plan. The project would not impact any locally important mineral
resources.
11. Noise.
a. The project area is not located in John Wayne Airport's land use plan area. The
project would not expose people to excessive aircraft noise.
b. The project area is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip.
12. Population or Housing.
a. Implementation of the project would gradually convert existing vacant land, auto -
related businesses, and other land uses into a transit - oriented mixed -use district.
The Harbor Corridor Plan would not convert existing residential areas to
nonresidential areas. Additionally, buildout of the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan
would result in an increase of 3,884 dwelling units in the project area. There are
739 dwelling units within the Harbor Corridor Plan area. Although these land
uses may be redeveloped as the corridor is revitalized, the existing dwelling units
would be allowed within the proposed zoning.
b. Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan could result in the redevelopment of
parcels containing existing housing. However, buildout of the Harbor Corridor
Plan would result in a net increase of 3,884 dwelling units in the project area.
13. Transportation/Traffic.
a. The project area is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport. Implementation of the project would not affect
any airport facilities and would not cause a change in the directional patterns of
aircraft.
b. Improvements to Harbor Boulevard would improve pedestrian and bicycle
mobility in the project area. The risk of hazards caused by traffic exiting onto
Harbor Boulevard from driveways and local collector streets would be minimized
by an expanded center median. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
c. The proposed reconfiguration of and improvements to Harbor Boulevard would
not decrease its number of travel lanes, ensuring continued access to the project
area and surrounding areas by emergency access vehicles. Therefore, impacts
are less than significant.
14. Utilities and Service Systems.
a. The project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region
SARWQCB). The Harbor Corridor Plan would not allow land uses requiring
treatment other than that provided at municipal wastewater treatment plants.
Furthermore, individual projects developed pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan
would be subject to an Orange County Sanitation District fee when they are
hooked up to a sewer line and would be required to comply with SARWQCB
requirements governing discharges to municipal storm drainage systems.
16 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
b. As of 2011, which is most recent year for which data is available, the City of
Santa Ana is not currently meeting its waste diversion rate prescribed. However,
future development of the project would comply with laws and regulations
governing solid waste, including AB 939, AB 32, and AB 341.
Impacts Determined to be Less than Significant in the DER
The following impacts were evaluated in the DER and determined to be less than significant
through implementation of the Specific Plan, its development standards and design guidelines,
and adherence with existing laws, codes, and statutes.
Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the EIR (which is incorporated herein by
this reference), and the comments received by the public on the Draft EIR, no substantial
evidence was submitted to or identified by the City indicating that the project would have a
potentially significant impact on the following environmental areas:
1. Aesthetics.
a. The proposed project would alter the visual appearance of the project area,
however it would not deteriorate the existing visual character or conflict with any
existing architectural characteristics specific to the area. [Threshold AE -3]
b. The proposed project would generate additional light and glare, however, it would
not affect day or nighttime views with the implementation of the Harbor Corridor
Plan Design Guidelines. [Threshold AE -4]
2. Air Quality.
a. Onsite operational - related emissions associated with the Harbor Boulevard
Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations. [Threshold AQ -4]
3. Geology and Soils.
a. Future development in accordance with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Plan would not subject people and structures to substantial adverse hazards
from ground shaking. [Threshold G -1.ii]
b. Future development in accordance with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Plan would not expose people and structures to substantial adverse
hazards from liquefaction or other seismic - related ground failure. [Threshold G- 1.iii]
c. Project buildout would not expose people or structures to substantial hazards from
ground subsidence, collapsible soils, and expansive soils. [Thresholds G -3 and G -4]
4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
a. Development of the proposed land uses within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use
Transit Corridor Plan would not result in a substantial increase of GHG emissions
that would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's proposed
efficiency target of 4.8 MTCOze. [Threshold GHG -1]
b. The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not conflict with plans
adopted with the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. [Threshold GHG -2]
5. Hydrology and Water Quality.
17 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
a. Development pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan would not substantially change
the amount of impervious surfaces in the project area and would therefore not
substantially impact groundwater recharge. [Threshold HYD -2]
b. Development pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan would not substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the project area in a manner that would result in a
substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. [Threshold HYD -3]
c. Project implementation would introduce development in an area of the City that is
within the dam inundation area of Prado Dam, however, it would not expose people
and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death due to the low probability of
a catastrophic event, continual surveillance and established emergency evacuation
procedures. [Threshold HYD -9]
6. Land Use and Planning.
a. Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not
conflict with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. [Threshold LU -2]
7. Noise.
a. Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would not cause a substantial increase in
noise related to additional vehicular traffic. [Thresholds N -1 and N -3]
8. Population and Housing.
a. The proposed project would directly result in population growth in the project area,
however, it would not result in a substantial impact on growth in the county or region
and would improve the city's jobs- housing balance. [Threshold P -1]
9. Public Services.
a. The proposed project would introduce new structures, residents, and workers into
the OCFA's service boundaries, thereby increasing the requirement for fire protection
equipment and personnel, but would not cause a significant environmental impact.
Threshold FP -1]
b. The proposed project would introduce new structures, residents, and workers into
the Santa Ana Police Department service boundaries. The Santa Ana Police
Department could provide police protection to the project site at buildout of the
Harbor Corridor Plan with existing levels of staff equipment, but would not cause a
significant environmental impact. [Threshold PP -1]
c. The proposed project would generate new students effecting the school enrollment
capacities of GGUSD schools, but would not cause a significant environmental
impact. [Threshold SS -1]
d. The proposed project would generate additional population increasing the service
needs for the local libraries, but would not cause a significant environmental impact.
Threshold LS -1]
10. Recreation:
a. The proposed project would generate additional residents, which would increase the
use of existing park and recreational facilities and result in the need for new or
is July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
expanded recreational facilities, but would not cause a significant environmental
impact. [Thresholds R -1 and R -2]
11. Transportation and Traffic:
a. Project - related trip generation in combination with existing and proposed cumulative
development would not result in designated road and intersections exceeding County
Congestion Management Agency service standards. [Threshold T -2]
b. The proposed project complies with adopted policies, plans, and programs for
alternative transportation. [Threshold T -6]
12. Utilities and Service Systems:
a. Existing and /or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate project - generated
solid waste and comply with related solid waste regulations. [Thresholds U -6 and U-
7]
b. Existing and /or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate project - generated
utility demands. [No specific threshold]
5. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the EIR, and the
effects of the project were considered (the analyses and conclusions in the DEIR and FEIR are
incorporated herein by reference to support the findings below). Because of the environmental
analysis of the project; compliance with existing laws, codes, and statutes; and the identification
of feasible mitigation measures, some potentially significant impacts have been determined by
the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, and the City has found —in accordance
with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1) —that
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or
avoid the significant effects on the environment. This is referred to herein as "Finding 1." Where
the City has determined — pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091(a)(2) —that "Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that
other agency," the City's finding is referred to herein as "Finding 2."
Where, as a result of the environmental analysis of the project, the City has determined that
either: (1) even with the compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and /or the
identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts cannot be reduced
to a level of less than significant, or (2) no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives are
available to mitigate the potentially significant impact, the City has found in accordance with
CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) that "Specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report." This is referred to herein
as "Finding 3."
A. AIR QUALITY
1) Potential Impact: Construction activities associated with the Harbor Boulevard
Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would generate short -term emissions that exceed
the South Coast Air Quality Management District's VOC and NOx regional thresholds
19 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
and would significantly contribute to the particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), ozone
03), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) nonattainment designations of the SoCAB.
Finding: 3. The City makes Finding 3 and determines that this impact is significant
and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measures 2 -1 through 2 -3 would reduce criteria air pollutants generated
from project - related construction activities. Buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed
Use Transit Corridor Plan would occur over a period of approximately 20 years or
longer. Construction time frames and equipment for individual site specific projects
are not available. There is a potential for multiple developments to be constructed at
any one time, resulting in significant construction related emissions. Therefore,
despite adherence to Mitigation Measures 2 -1 through 2 -3, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
MM 2 -1 Applicants for new development projects within the Harbor
Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan shall require the
construction contractor to use equipment that meets the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)- Certified
emissions standards according to the following schedule.
From the end of 2011 to December 31, 2014, all project -
related off -road diesel - powered construction equipment
greater than 50 horsepower shall meet Tier 3 off -road
emissions standards. Any emissions control device used by
the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no
less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel
emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as
defined by CARB regulations.
After January 1, 2015, all off -road diesel - powered construction
equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet the Tier 4
Final emission standards. Any emissions control device used
by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are
no less than what could be achieved by a Level 4 diesel
emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as
defined by CARB regulations.
Prior to construction, the project engineer shall ensure that all
demolition and grading plans clearly show the requirement for
EPA Tier 3 or higher emissions standards for construction
equipment over 50 horsepower. During construction, the
construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating
equipment in use on the project site for verification by the Building
Safety Division. The construction equipment list shall state the
makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment onsite.
20 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Equipment shall properly service and maintain construction
equipment in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations. Construction contractors shall also ensure that
all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to
five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources
Board's Rule 2449.
MM 2 -2 Applicants for new development projects within the Harbor
Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan shall require the
construction contractor to prepare a dust control plan and
implement the following measures during ground- disturbing
activities in addition to the existing requirements for fugitive dust
control under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule
403 to further reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. The Building
Safety Division shall verify compliance that these measures have
been implemented during normal construction site inspections.
Following all grading activities, the construction contractor
shall reestablish ground cover on the construction site through
seeding and watering.
During all construction activities, the construction contractor
shall sweep streets with Rule 1186— compliant, PM10- efficient
vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent
public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling.
During all construction activities, the construction contractor
shall maintain a minimum 24 -inch freeboard on trucks hauling
dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials and tarp materials with
a fabric cover or other cover that achieves the same amount of
protection.
During all construction activities, the construction contractor
shall water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a
minimum of every three hours on the construction site and a
minimum of three times per day.
During all construction activities, the construction contractor
shall limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more
than 15 miles per hour.
MM 2 -3 Applicants for new development projects within the Harbor
Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan shall require the
construction contractor to use coatings and solvents with a volatile
organic compound (VOC) content lower than required under Rule
1113 (i.e., super compliant paints). All architectural coatings shall
be applied either by (1) using a high - volume, low- pressure spray
method operated at an air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds
per square inch gauge to achieve a 65 percent application
21 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
efficiency; or (2) manual application using a paintbrush, hand -
roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge, to achieve a 100
percent applicant efficiency. The construction contractor shall also
use precoated /natural colored building materials, where feasible.
Use of low -VOC paints and spray method shall be included as a
note on architectural building plans and verified by the Building
Safety Division during construction.
2) Potential Impact: Long -term criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would exceed the South Coast
Air Quality Management District's VOC, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 regional significance
thresholds and significantly contribute to the particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5),
ozone (03), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) nonattainment designations of the SoCAB.
Finding: 3. The City makes Finding 3 and determines that this impact is significant
and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Finding
Incorporation of Mitigation Measures 2 -4 through 2 -9 would reduce operation - related
criteria air pollutants generated from stationary and mobile sources. Mitigation
Measures 2 -5 through 2 -9 would encourage and accommodate use of alternative -
fueled vehicles and non - motorized transportation. However, despite adherence to
Mitigation Measures 2 -4 through 2 -9, this impact would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
MM 2 -4 Applicants of residential developments which are designed to
include shared community barbeques shall only install electric
powered barbeque units. These units shall be specified on site
and building plans and shall be verified by the Building Safety
Division prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
MM 2 -5 Applicant - provided appliances shall be Energy Star appliances
dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers).
Installation of Energy Star appliances shall be verified by the
Building Safety Division during plan check.
MM 2 -6 Applicants of residential developments which include garage
and /or car port parking shall ensure that garage and /or car port
parking are electrically wired to accommodate a Level 2 (240 volt)
electric vehicle charging outlet per dwelling unit. The location of
the electrical outlets shall be specified on building plans and
proper installation shall be verified by the Building Safety Division
prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
MM 2 -7 Applicants of retail, commercial, office, and other non - residential
development shall provide Level 2 vehicle charging stations for
public use and where feasible, coordinate with the City of Santa
22 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Ana to install Level 3 (480 volt or higher) charging stations. The
location of the charging station(s) shall be specified on site and
building plans and proper installation shall be verified by the
Building Safety Division prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
MM 2 -8 Applicants for non - residential projects within the Harbor Boulevard
Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan, that employ 20 or more people —
which is equivalent to 16,000 square feet of retail space or 10,000
square feet of office space —shall implement an employee
commute trip reduction (CTR) program. The CTR program shall
identify alternative modes of transportation to the project, including
transit schedules, bike and pedestrian routes, and carpool /vanpool
availability. Information regarding these programs shall be readily
available to employees and clients. The project applicant or
designee shall consider the following incentives for commuters as
part of the CTR program:
Ride - matching assistance (e.g., subsidized public transit
passes)
Vanpool assistance or employer - provided vanpool /shuttle
Car - sharing program (e.g., Zipcar)
Bicycle end -trip facilities, including bike parking and lockers.
MM 2 -9 Applicants of commercial, office, retail, and other non - residential
development within the specific plan area shall provide the
following features to reduce project - related mobile- source air
pollutant emissions:
Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools.
Preferential parking for alternative -fuel vehicles (e.g.,
compressed natural gas or hydrogen).
Secure bicycle parking and storage facilities for visitors.
Commuter information boards identifying bicycle paths and
public transit routes and schedules.
3) Potential Impact: Construction activities related to buildout of the Harbor Boulevard
Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan could expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.
Finding: 3. The City makes Finding 3 and determines that this impact is significant
and unavoidable.
23 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measures 2 -1 and 2 -2 would reduce the project's regional construction
emissions and therefore also reduce the project's localized construction- related
criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, because existing
sensitive receptors may be close to project - related construction activities,
construction emissions generated by individual projects have the potential to exceed
SCAMQD's localized significance thresholds. Therefore, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures 2 -1 and 2 -2 apply to this impact.
4) Potential Impact: The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan could site
sensitive land uses in proximity to major air pollution sources.
Finding: 1. The City makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than
significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measure
Facts in Support of Finding
The proposed project would result in construction of up to 3,884 new residential units
within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan boundaries at buildout.
The exact locations of new sensitive land uses are not known at this time, although
residential uses would be allowed near existing onsite light industrial land uses in the
interim period until these industrial sites transition into new land uses. In addition,
residential uses would also be allowed near existing offsite light industrial land uses.
Light industrial land uses with sources of toxic air contaminants have the potential to
affect new sensitive land uses within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Plan. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 2 -10 would ensure that new
residential land uses proximate to major sources of toxic air contaminants reduce
risk by installing high- efficiency MERV filters to reduce indoor concentrations
particulates (including diesel particulate matter, which comprises the majority of risk)
below SCAQMD's threshold. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 2 -10, this
impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM 2 -10 Applicants for residential or residential mixed -use projects within:
1) 1,000 feet from the truck bays of an existing distribution centers
that accommodate more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40
trucks with operating transport refrigeration units, or where
transport refrigeration unit operations exceed 300 hours per week;
or 2) 1,000 feet of an SCAQMD permitted facility, or an industrial
facility which emits toxic air contaminants shall submit a health
risk assessment (HRA) prepared in accordance with policies and
procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) and the South Coast Air Quality
Management District ( SCAQMD).
24 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
The HRA shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator prior to
approval of any future discretionary residential or residential
mixed -use project. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer
risk exceeds one in one hundred thousand (1.0E -05), PM
concentrations would exceed 2.5 fag /m3, or the appropriate
noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the HRA shall identify the
level of high- efficiency Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value
MERV) filter required to reduce indoor air concentrations of
pollutants to achieve the cancer and /or noncancer threshold.
The Applicant shall be required to install high efficiency MERV
filters in the intake of residential ventilation systems, consistent
with the recommendations of the HRA. Heating, air conditioning
and ventilation (HVAC) systems shall be installed with a fan unit
power designed to force air through the MERV filter. To ensure
long -term maintenance and replacement of the MERV filters in the
individual units, the following shall occur:
Developer, sale, and /or rental representative shall provide
notification to all affected tenants /residents of the potential
health risk for affected units.
For rental units, the owner /property manager shall maintain
and replace MERV filters in accordance with the
manufacture's recommendations. The property owner shall
inform renters of increased risk of exposure to diesel
particulates when windows are open.
For residential owned units, the Homeowner's Association
HOA) shall incorporate requirements for long -term
maintenance in the Covenant Conditions and Restrictions and
inform homeowners of their responsibility to maintain the
MERV filter in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations. The HOA shall inform homeowners of
increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates when
windows are open.
5) Potential Impact: The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan is a
regionally significant project that would contribute to an increase in frequency or
severity of air quality violations in the South Coast Air Basin and would conflict with
the assumptions of the applicable air quality management plan.
Finding: 3. The City makes Finding 3 and determines that this impact is significant
and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measures 2 -1 through 2 -5 would reduce the project's regional
construction - related and operational phase criteria air pollutant emissions to the
extent feasible. However, given the potential increase in growth and associated
25 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
increase in criteria air pollutant emissions, the project would continue to be
potentially inconsistent with the assumptions in the AQMP. This impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures 2 -1 through 2 -5 apply this impact.
B. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1) Potential Impact: Future development that would be accommodated by the Harbor
Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan could impact unknown archeological
and /or paleontological resources during grading and construction activities.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less
than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measure.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure 3 -1 requires that project applicants in the plan area document
that they have retained qualified professionals to be on call during ground- disturbing
activities. Implementation of the measure also ensures that local, state, and federal
regulations are followed in the event that cultural resources are discovered.
Adherence to regulatory requirements and implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 -1
would reduce the potential impacts to cultural resources to less than significant
levels. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to cultural
resources would result from project implementation.
Mitigation Measures
MM 3 -1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, and for any subsequent
permit involving excavation to increased depth, the project
applicant for each development or redevelopment project
considered for approval pursuant to the Harbor Boulevard Mixed
Use Transit Corridor Plan shall provide letters to the City of Santa
Ana from a qualified archaeologist and paleontologist (for
excavations six feet below ground surface and deeper) who meet
the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications
Standards. The letters shall state that the project applicant has
retained these individuals, and that the consultant(s) will be on call
during all grading and other significant ground- disturbing activities.
In the event archeological or paleontological resources are
discovered during ground- disturbing activities, the professional
archeological or paleontological monitor shall have the authority to
halt any activities adversely impacting potentially significant
cultural resources until they can be formally evaluated.
Suspension of ground disturbances in the vicinity of the
discoveries shall not be lifted until the archaeological or
paleontological monitor, in coordination with the construction
contractor, has evaluated discoveries to assess whether they are
26 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
significant cultural resources, pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If significance criteria are met,
then the project shall be required to perform data recovery,
professional identification, radiocarbon dates as applicable, and
other special studies; they shall be offered for curation or
preservation to a repository with a retrievable collection system
and an educational and research interest in the materials, such as
the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History or California
State University, Fullerton, or other local museum or repository. If
no museum or repository is willing to accept the resource, the
resource shall be considered the property of the City, and may be
stored, disposed of, transferred, exchanged, or otherwise handled
by the City at its discretion.
C. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1) Potential Impact: Future development that would be accommodated under the
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor could create significant hazards
through accidental release of hazardous materials.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less
than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Construction of individual development projects that would be accommodated under
the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor would involve the demolition of the
existing buildings, structures, parking area and drive aisles, and other site
improvements. Due to the age of many of the buildings and structures throughout the
project area, it is likely that asbestos - containing materials (ACM) and lead -based
paint were used in the construction of these structures. Demolition can cause
encapsulated ACM to become friable and, once airborne, it is considered a
carcinogen. Such releases could pose significant risks to persons living and working
in and around the project site. Furthermore, exposure of contaminated soils to
workers and the surrounding environment could result in a significant impact.
However, all demolition activities would be required to comply with the SCAQMD's
Rule 1403, OSHA Rule 29 CFR Part 1926.62, and Sections 17920.10 and 105255 of
the California Health and Safety Code. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6 -1
would also further prevent impacts related to the potential release of ACM or LBP in
the project area by requiring that such materials are surveyed prior to demolition
activities. Lastly, implementation of Mitigation Measure 6 -2 would ensure that soil
contaminants are properly identified and disposed of in accordance with applicable
laws and regulations.
Compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures
6 -1 and 6 -2 identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with
accidental release of hazardous materials to a less than significant level. Therefore,
no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
27 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Mitigation Measures
MM 6 -1 Prior to the issuance of demolition permits for any buildings or
structures that would be demolished in conjunction with individual
development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor
Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor, the project applicant shall
conduct the following inspections and assessments for all
buildings and structures onsite and shall provide the City of Santa
Ana's Community Development Agency with a copy of the report
of each investigation or assessment.
The project applicant shall retain a certified lead
inspector /assessor to inspect buildings and structures onsite
for lead -based paint (LBP). The inspector /assessor's report
shall include requirements for abatement, containment, and
disposal of LBP, if encountered, in accordance with the State
of California Occupational Safety & Health Administration Rule
29 CFR Part 1926.
The project applicant shall retain a licensed or certified
asbestos consultant to inspect buildings and structures onsite
for asbestos - containing materials (ACM). The consultant's
report shall include requirements for abatement, containment,
and disposal of ACM, if encountered, in accordance with the
South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 1403.
MM 6 -2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for new development
within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor, the
project applicant shall submit a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) to identify environmental conditions and
determine whether contamination is present. The Phase I ESA
shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer and in
accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials
ASTM) Standard E 1527.05, Standard Practice for Environmental
Site Assessments: Phase / Environmental Site Assessment
Process. If recognized environmental conditions related to soils
are identified in the Phase I ESA, the project applicant shall
perform soil sampling as a part of a Phase II ESA. If
contamination is found at significant levels, the project applicant
shall remediate all contaminated soils in accordance with state
and local agency requirements (DTSC, RWQCB, Orange County
Fire Authority, etc.). All contaminated soils and /or material
encountered shall be disposed of at a regulated site and in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations prior to the
completion of grading. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a
report documenting the completion, results, and any follow -up
remediation on the recommendations, if any, shall be provided to
the Building Official and the City of Santa Ana's Community
28 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Development Agency evidencing that all site remediation activities
have been completed.
2) Potential Impact: Certain sites of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor
are included on a list of hazardous materials sites.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less
than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measure.
Facts in Support of Finding
There are several hundred hazardous materials sites listed within the project area.
Individual development projects that would be accommodated under the Harbor
Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor may be impacted by hazardous substance
contamination remaining from historical operations on a particular site that may pose
a significant health risk. However, hazardous substance contaminated properties are
regulated at the federal, state, and local level, and are subject to compliance with
stringent laws and regulations for investigation and remediation. This includes
compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; California Code of
Regulations, Title 22; and related requirements that would remedy any potential
impacts caused by hazardous substance contamination. Future development would
be required to comply with these existing laws and regulations.
In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure 6 -2 would ensure that previously
identified soil contaminants are properly identified and disposed of in accordance
with applicable laws and regulations. Therefore, impacts related to listed hazardous
materials sites would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 6 -2 applies to this impact.
D. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1) Potential Impact: Development pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan would increase
the amount of impervious surfaces in the project area and would therefore increase
surface water flows into drainage systems within the watershed.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less
than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
At project completion, the Harbor Corridor Plan area is estimated to generate 15
percent more runoff than in current conditions. The existing drainage system is
deficient and unable to convey the current runoff volumes. Mitigation Measure 7 -1
would reduce this impact by requiring that project applicants in the project area
construct storm drain improvements necessary to serve new land uses.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7 -2 would further reduce runoff by requiring
29 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
project applicants to minimize impervious areas, aiding infiltration of stormwater.
Upon compliance with these measures and the applicable provisions of the Santa
Ana Municipal Code, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM 7 -1 Prior to issuance of grading permits for future development
projects in the Harbor Corridor Plan, applicants shall submit site -
specific hydrology and hydraulic Studies to the Public Works
Agency for review and approval. If existing facilities are not
adequate to handle runoff generated by the proposed
development, then the applicant shall construct storm drain
improvements. If necessary storm drain upgrades cannot be
implemented prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant
shall provide onsite detention facilities, or other methods to ensure
that post- construction runoff does not exceed pre - development
quantities.
MM 7 -2 During the design of individual projects, applicants shall minimize
impervious area by incorporating landscaped areas over
substantial portions of a proposed project area. Furthermore,
impervious areas shall be directly connected to landscaped areas
or bioretention facilities to promote filtration and infiltration of
stormwater.
2) Potential Impact: During the construction phase of the individual development
projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan, adherence to the
General Construction Activity Permit would reduce short -term pollutant
concentrations from individual development sites.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less
than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Grading and construction activities of individual development projects that would be
accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan could generate oil and grease, trash and
debris, pesticides, other organic compounds such as solvents, degreasers, and
compounds in coatings. This would result in short -term impacts on stormwater
quality. However, project applicants for individual development projects would be
required to comply with existing water quality standards and waste discharge
requirements during all grading and construction activities. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures 7 -3 and 7 -4 require compliance with such requirements,
including those of the State Regional Water Quality Control Board and those
requiring project applicants to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWPPP). The SWPPP would specify BMPs that would protect water quality by
eliminating and /or minimizing stormwater pollution prior to and during grading and
construction.
30 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP would reduce, prevent, minimize, and /or treat
pollutants and prevent degradation of downstream receiving waters. Therefore, water
quality and waste - discharge impacts from grading and construction activities
associated with individual development projects that would be accommodated by the
Harbor Corridor Plan would not occur. Upon implementation of the aforementioned
mitigation measures, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM 7 -3 Notice of Intent (NOI). Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
for construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres,
the project applicant shall provide the City Engineer with evidence
that a NOI has been filed with the State Water Resources Control
Board. Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped
by the State Water Resources Control Board or Regional Water
Quality Control Board, or a letter from either agency stating that
the NOI has been filed.
MM 7 -4 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). Prior to the
issuance of grading permits for construction sites with a disturbed
area of one or more acres, the project applicant shall prepare a
SWPPP that will:
Require implementation of best management practices
BMPs) designed with a goal of preventing a net increase in
sediment load in stormwater discharges relative to
preconstruction levels;
During the construction period, prohibit discharges of
stormwater or non -storm water at levels which would cause or
contribute to an exceedance of applicable water quality
standards contained in the Basin Plan;
Discuss in detail the BMPs planned for the project related to
control of sediment and erosion, nonsediment pollutants, and
potential pollutants in non -storm water discharges;
Describe post- construction BMPs for the project;
Explain the maintenance program for the project's BMPs;
During construction, require reporting of violations to the
Regional Board;
List the parties responsible for SWPPP implementation and
BMP maintenance during and after grading. The project
proponent shall implement the SWPPP and will modify the
SWPPP as directed by the Storm Water Permit.
31 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
3) Potential Impact: Operation of individual development projects would reduce or
avoid contamination of stormwater through implementation of the Water Quality
Management Plan consistent with the MS4 Permit.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less
than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measure 7 -5.
Facts in Support of Finding
Land use and development types allowed in the project area under the Harbor
Corridor Plan would be expected to generate stormwater pollutants, including
pollutants of concern as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency. However,
priority development projects within the project area would be required to prepare
and implement water quality management plans (WQMPs) specifying BMPs to
minimize water pollution by the project. Adherence to the BMPs in the WQMP would
reduce, prevent, minimize, and /or treat pollutants and prevent degradation of
downstream receiving waters. BMPs identified in the WQMP would reduce or avoid
contamination of stormwater with sediment and would also reduce or avoid
contamination with other pollutants such as pathogens, heavy metals, nutrients,
organic compounds, and sediment toxicity. Mitigation Measure 7 -5 includes special
provisions for WQMPs prepared for projects in the project area.
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and Mitigation Measure 7 -5, water
quality and waste- discharge impacts from operation activities associated with
individual development projects accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM 7 -5 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Prior to the issuance
of building permits, project- specific WQMPs shall be submitted for
review and approved by the Building Department. The WQMP
shall identify the best management practices (BMPs) that will be
used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff. More
specifically, the WQMP shall:
Describe the routine and special post- construction BMPs to be
used at the proposed development site (including both
structural and non - structural measures);
Describe responsibility for the initial implementation and long-
term maintenance of the BMPs;
Provide narrative with the graphic materials as necessary to
specify the locations of the structural BMPs;
Certify that the project applicant will seek to have the WQMP
carried out by all future successors or assigns to the property.
32 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4) Potential Impact: Development of projects pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan
would place people and structures in a 100 -year flood zone.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less
than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Much of the northern half of the project area is a 100 -year flood zone. However,
multiple flood control improvements have been completed, are under construction, or
are planned, as part of the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project (SARMP). At
completion of the SARMP, 100 -year flood zones for flooding from the Santa Ana
River are expected to be substantially smaller than they are at present, including the
project area. Furthermore, hydrology studies for individual development projects that
would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan would be required; the studies
would have to include estimates of 100 -year flood depth on each respective site from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Alternatively, individual
development projects could request a Letter of Map Correction from FEMA if the
respective project applicants provide substantial evidence that the lowest adjacent
grade elevation is already above the 100 -year flood elevation at that site.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7 -1 requires that project applicants comply
with FEMA requirements regarding flood zones and requires that evidence of this
compliance be supplied to the City. Upon compliance with regulatory requirements,
and Mitigation Measures 7 -1 and 7 -6, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 7 -1 applies to this impact.
MM 7 -6 Prior to the issuance of precise grading permit for any lot or parcel
wholly or partially located within the 100 -year floodplain, the
applicant shall furnish to the City Engineer documentation
required by FEMA for approval of the Conditional Letter of Map
Revision /Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR /LOMR) process for
revision to the FIRM and Flood Insurance Study (FIS). The
applicant shall pay all preliminary and subsequent fees as
required by FEMA.
E. NOISE
1) Potential Impact: Noise levels at proposed residential areas would be above the 45
dBA community noise equivalent level (CNEL) interior and 65 dBA CNEL exterior
noise standards.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less
than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measure.
33 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Facts in Support of Finding
Without mitigation, outdoor living areas at residential uses and parks in the project
area would have the potential to be exposed to noise levels above the City's 65 dBA
CNEL interior noise standard. Additionally, with standard construction, interior noise
levels in residences could exceed the 45 dBA CNEL noise standard. Mitigation
Measure 9 -1 requires that project applicants incorporate architectural features that
reduce interior noise levels into their projects and design features to reduce noise
levels at outdoor living areas. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure 9 -1, this
impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM 9 -1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants for new
residential development in the Harbor Corridor Plan shall submit
an acoustic report prepared to the satisfaction of the Building
Official or their designee to ensure that noise levels at outdoor
living areas such as private yards, balconies, and park picnic
areas shall not exceed 65 dBA CNEL, and all residential habitable
rooms would meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard.
These noise studies would need to be submitted after the precise
grading and architectural plans are prepared, but prior to issuance
of building permits. The required exterior noise reduction can be
accomplished with sound walls or berms, or by site plan /building
layout design. The required interior noise reduction can be
accomplished with enhanced construction design or materials
such as upgraded dual - glazed windows and /or upgraded exterior
wall assemblies. These features shall be shown on all building
plans and incorporated into construction of the project. City
inspectors shall verify compliance of the building with the acoustic
report's recommendations prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
2) Potential Impact: Noise from the operation of commercial uses could cause the
noise level at the property line of any adjacent residential property to exceed the City
of Santa Ana noise standards.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less
than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measure.
Facts in Support of Finding
The operation of proposed commercial, office, and retail uses next to residential uses
would have the potential to introduce new stationary sources of noise, such as HVAC
units, and noise from entertainment establishments such as live music, patrons
voices, and speakerphones. These sources could have the potential to cause
sporadic exceedances of the noise standards in the municipal code or to generate
noise levels that would be readily perceptible (greater than 5 dBA over the ambient
noise) at residential properties immediately adjacent to future commercial, office, and
retail uses. The Harbor Corridor Plan would not necessarily introduce new sources of
34 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
stationary noise, but would increase the residential density in the area, which would
have the potential to expose persons to stationary noise above the City's noise
ordinance criteria.
No site - specific development is proposed at this time. Therefore, the specifications,
design features, and /or location of these potential noise sources and the resulting
effect of future development on nearby sensitive receptors cannot be quantified at
this time. However, Mitigation Measure 9 -2 would require project applicants to submit
acoustic reports that demonstrate that operation of proposed land uses would not
excessively increase noise levels. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 9 -2,
this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM 9 -2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants for new
commercial, office, or retail developments in the Harbor Corridor
Plan shall submit an acoustic report prepared to the satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator and Building Official or their designee to
ensure that the operation of stationary noise sources (i.e., HVAC
units, truck deliveries) would not cause a noise increase of more
than 5 dBA over the ambient noise levels at any adjacent
property. These noise studies would need to be submitted after
the precise grading and architectural plans are prepared, but prior
to issuance of building permits. This requirement can be
accomplished with selection of quieter equipment, judicious site
layouts and equipment positioning, and /or equipment enclosures,
sound screening, or parapet walls. These features shall be shown
on all building plans and incorporated into the construction of the
project. City inspectors shall verify compliance of the building with
the acoustic report's recommendations prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
3) Potential Impact: Construction activities would generate high levels of ground -borne
vibration.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less
than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measure.
Facts in Support of Finding
The closest vibration - sensitive structures are existing and future residential uses in
the project area. In addition, residential areas immediately adjacent to the
boundaries of the project area are also considered vibration sensitive and would
have the potential to be affected by construction activities during implementation of
the Harbor Corridor Plan. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 9 -3 would
ensure that project applicants minimize construction - related vibration related to their
projects. The measure requires applicants to prepare a vibration report to the
satisfaction of the City and use equipment that produces low levels of vibration. Upon
implementation of Mitigation Measure 9 -3, this impact would be less than significant.
35 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Mitigation Measures
MM 9 -3 Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants for projects within
the Harbor Corridor Plan that involve high- vibration construction
activities, such as pile driving or vibratory rolling /compacting, shall
be evaluated for potential vibration impacts to nearby sensitive
receptors. The project developer shall submit a vibration report
prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Ana Building
Official or their designee to determine if the use of pile driving
and /or vibratory rolling /compacting equipment would exceed the
Federal Transit Administration's (FTA's) vibration - annoyance
criteria of 78 VdB during the daytime or FTA's vibration - induced
architectural damage PPV criteria of 0.2 inches /second for wood -
framed structures or 0.5 inches /second for reinforced masonry
buildings. The construction contractor shall require the use of
lower- vibration - producing equipment and techniques. Examples of
lower- vibration equipment and techniques would include avoiding
the use of vibratory rollers near sensitive areas and /or the use of
drilled piles, sonic pile driving, or vibratory pile driving (as opposed
to impact pile driving).
4) Potential Impact: Construction activities would result in temporary noise increases
in the vicinity of the proposed project.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less
than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Construction of individual developments associated with buildout of the Harbor
Corridor Plan would temporarily increase the ambient noise environment at nearby
existing and future residential areas, churches, and parks. At each individual
receptor, the temporary increase would likely last for a few months. Even upon
compliance with time -of -day constraints established in the City's Municipal Code,
construction activities associated with any individual development may occur in close
proximity to noise - sensitive receptors, and noise disturbances may occur for
prolonged periods of time. The specific locations, duration, and equipment required
for individual projects are unknown. Mitigation Measures 9 -4 and 9 -5 require that
project applicants employ specific construction noise reduction strategies and
prepare a construction management plan that requires implementation of additional
noise reduction strategies. Compliance with these measures would reduce this
impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM 9 -4 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall
ensure the following notes are included on the grading plan cover
sheet, and the construction contractor shall comply with these
measures during the duration of all construction activities.
36 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to
minimize noise.
Fit all equipment with properly operating mufflers, air intake
silencers, and engine shrouds, no less effective than as
originally equipped by the manufacturer, to minimize noise
emissions.
Locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators,
compressors, staging areas) as far from noise - sensitive
receptors as possible.
Material delivery, soil haul trucks, and equipment servicing shall
be restricted to the hours between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Mondays
through Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays or federal holidays.
MM 9 -5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, each project applicant
within the project area shall prepare a construction management
plan that shall be approved by the City of Santa Ana Public
Works. The construction management plan shall:
Establish truck haul routes on the appropriate transportation
facilities. Truck routes that avoid congested streets and
sensitive land uses shall be considered.
Provide Traffic Control Plans (for detours and temporary road
closures) that meet the minimum City criteria. Traffic control
plans shall determine if dedicated turn lanes for movement of
construction truck and equipment on- and offsite are available.
Minimize offsite road closures during the peak hours.
Keep all construction - related traffic onsite at all times.
Provide temporary traffic controls, such as a flag person,
during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic
flow.
F. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC
1) Potential Impact: Project - related trip generation would impact levels of service for
the existing area roadway system.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less
than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Project - related trip generation would result in unacceptable levels of service at two
intersections: Fairview Street and 17`h Street and Fairview Street and 1'` Street.
37 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Mitigation Measure 13 -2 would require the City to implement a traffic mitigation
program that would identify and fund necessary improvements to the street network
that serves the project area. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 13 -1 and 13 -2
would not require right -of -way acquisitions and are consistent with proposed buildout
of the intersection per the City's Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and
Highways. Therefore, this is impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM 13 -1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall
evaluate the potential for any neighborhood cut through traffic.
Neighborhood cut through traffic shall be minimized through
implementation of traffic calming measures as approved by the
Public Works Agency.
MM 13 -2 The City of Santa Ana shall implement a program for traffic
improvements in the Harbor Corridor Plan. The program shall
prescribe the method of participation in the mitigation program in
the mitigation program by individual projects and guide the timely
implementation of mitigation measures. The program shall include
the following elements:
A funding and improvement program should be established to
identify financial resources adequate to construct all identified
mitigation measures in a timely basis.
All properties that redevelop within the Harbor Corridor Plan
should participate in the program on a fair share per new
development trip basis. The fair share shall be based upon the
total cost of all identified mitigation measures (see Mitigation
Measure 13 -3), divided by the peak our trip generation
increase forecast. This rate per peak hour trip should be
imposed upon the incremental traffic growth for any new
development within the Harbor Corridor Plan.
The project shall raise fund from full development of the
Harbor Corridor Plan to fund all identified mitigation measures.
The project shall monitor phasing development of the Harbor
Corridor Plan and defer or eliminate improvements if the
densities permitted in the Harbor Corridor Plan are not
occurring.
Program phasing shall be monitored through preparation of
specific project traffic studies for any project that is expected to
include more than 100 dwelling units or 100,000 sf of non-
residential development. Traffic impact studies should use
traffic generation rates that are deemed to be most appropriate
for the actual development proposed.
38 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Properties within Santa Ana and within one -half mile of the
Harbor Corridor Plan that redevelop to result in higher traffic
generation should also participate in the program to ensure
equity.
The City may elect to implement appropriate mitigation
measures as a condition of approval of the proposed
developments, where appropriate. All or part of the costs of
these improvements may be considered to be a negotiated
credit toward the program, however the program must be
administered in a manner that assures that it can fund
necessary improvements to maintain adequate level of service
at all intersections within the study. If funding of priority
improvements cannot be assured, credit for construction of
lower priority improvements may not be assured or may be
postponed until more program funds are available.
13 -3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall
prepare a traffic study, subject to review and approval of the City.
The traffic study will verify whether the project within the Harbor
Corridor Plan impacts the intersection locations identified below.
For those intersections, which are projected to exceed the City's
adopted performance criteria, the project will be conditioned to
construct or provide fair share funding toward those
improvements. The improvements are as follows:
Intersection #26: Fairview Street and 17th Street (Year 2035)
Improvements are to add a northbound through lane.
Intersection #27: Fairview Street and 1st Street (Year 2035)
Improvements are to add a southbound right -turn lane.
G. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
1) Potential Impact: Project - generated wastewater could be adequately treated by the
wastewater service provider for the project; however the existing sewer system is
deficient and does not have adequate capacity to serve the project.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less
than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would result in a net increase in wastewater
generation of approximately 1,292 acre feet per year, or about 1.15 million gallons
per day. No change in wastewater generation is anticipated to occur in the
Conventional Zoning Area of the project area. Several existing city sewer segments
in the project site are undersized based on Orange County Sanitation District
39 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
OCSD) sizing requirements, particularly in 5th Street, Washington Avenue, Green
Drive, and McFadden Avenue. Several segments that serve the project area would
be further impacted by buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan. These are each 10 or 12
inches in diameter, and are all recommended for upgrade to 15 inches in diameter.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 14 -1 and 14 -2 would ensure that a
development fee program is created to fund construction of necessary infrastructure
requirements. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure 14 -3 requires that project applicants
supply the City with necessary information regarding the sizing and location of
backbone facilities necessary to serve their proposed projects. Implementation of
these measures would reduce this impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM 14 -1 Prior to the first building permit pursuant to the proposed project,
the City of Santa Ana shall prepare a "Nexus" Study that will serve
as the basis for requiring development impact fees under AB 1600
legislation, as codified by California Code Government Section
66000 et seq. The established procedures under AB 1600 require
that a "reasonable relationship" or nexus exist between the water
and sewer infrastructure improvements and facilities required to
mitigate the sewer impacts of new development pursuant to the
proposed project. The sewer segment improvements shown on
Table 5.14 -11 of the DER are necessary to mitigate project
impacts and shall be included, among other improvements, in the
AB 1600 nexus study.
MM 14 -2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit pursuant to the
proposed project, the City of Santa Ana shall prepare a
Development Fee program pursuant to the AB 1600 Nexus Study
identified in Mitigation Measure 14 -1, above. The Development
Fee program would fund the Harbor Corridor Plan area -wide water
and sewer infrastructure improvements. The fee program shall
stipulate that fees are assessed when there is new construction or
when there is an increase in square footage within an existing
building or the conversion of existing square footage to a more
intensive use. Fees are calculated by multiplying the proposed
square footage or dwelling unit by the rate identified. The fees are
included with any other applicable fees payable at the time the
building permit is issued. The City will use the development fees
to fund construction (or to recoup fees advanced to fund
construction) of the infrastructure improvements identified in
Mitigation Measure 14 -1.
MM 14 -3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant
shall prepare water and sewer studies and identify the sizing and
location of backbone facilities necessary to serve the proposed
project, in accordance with City standards. The water and sewer
plans shall be submitted to the City's Public Works Agency for
40 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
review and approval. Design of facilities that serve the project
shall be sufficient to meet the projected service demands.
2) Potential Impact: Adequate water supply and delivery systems are adequate to
meet project requirements; however the existing water system may not provide
adequate capacity.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less
than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
The City of Santa Ana has indicated that while the existing water system adequately
meets the current demand and flow requirements, future projects in the project area
may require upgrades to the existing network. However, implementation of Mitigation
Measures 14 -1 and 14 -2 would ensure that a development fee program is created to
fund construction of necessary infrastructure requirements. Furthermore, Mitigation
Measure 14 -3 requires that project applicants supply the City with necessary
information regarding the sizing and location of backbone facilities necessary to
serve their proposed projects. Implementation of these measures would reduce this
impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures 14 -1 through 14 -3 apply to this impact.
3) Potential Impact: Existing and /or proposed storm drainage systems are not
adequate to serve the drainage requirements of the proposed project.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less
than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measure.
Facts in Support of Finding
At project completion, the Harbor Corridor Plan area is estimated to generate 15
percent more runoff than in current conditions. The existing drainage system is
deficient and unable to convey the current runoffs. However, Mitigation Measure 7 -1
would reduce this impact by requiring that project applicants in the project area
construct storm drain improvements necessary to serve new land uses. Upon
implementation of Mitigation Measure 7 -1 and the applicable provisions of the Santa
Ana Municipal Code, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 7 -1 applies to this project.
41 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
6. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE
SCOPING /PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
The following is a discussion of the land use alternatives considered during the scoping
and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis
in the DEIR.
Alternative Development Areas
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or
its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects
of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the
significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting
the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen
any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR
Guidelines Sec. 15126[5][6][1]). In general, any development of the size and type
proposed by the project would have substantially the same impacts on air quality, land
use /planning, noise, population /housing, public services, recreation, transportation /traffic
and utilities /service systems. Impacts related to aesthetics, cultural resources,
geology /soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology /water quality and mineral
resources would need a site specific analysis to determine if another location would
reduce impacts. These impacts were found to be less than significant and less than
significant with mitigation incorporated. Another location would not avoid or substantially
lessen the effects of the project.
The purpose of the project is to create a transit corridor plan and would enhance an
underutilized area and expand development opportunities that response to transit
investments. The project area is served by a number of existing and future transit
opportunities. A Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route, Orange County Transportation Authority
Route (OCTA) 543, began operating on Harbor Boulevard through the project site in
June 2013. An intercounty express bus route, OCTA 722, is scheduled to begin
operation in early 2014 and would serve the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and
Westminster Avenue at the north end of the project site. A Santa Ana /Garden Grove
Fixed Guideway transit project is planned that would pass just north of the north site
boundary. A second BRT route is planned on Edinger Boulevard that would cross
Harbor Boulevard 0.5 mile south of the project site (OCTA 2011). The recent and
planned transit improvements along this segment of Harbor Boulevard help create an
opportunity for redevelopment of this largely commercial corridor with mixed land uses.
While the proposed transit improvements extend beyond the project site, the above -
mentioned combination of transit improvements is unique to this segment of Harbor
Boulevard. Since other sites would not meet the basic objectives of the project they were
not considered.
2. Reduced Nonresidential Intensity Alternative
At buildout of the proposed project, nonresidential development intensity would only be
approximately one percent greater than existing conditions. This change is not great
enough to differentiate a reduced nonresidential project from the proposed project.
42 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Furthermore, because the proposed project is intended to permit development of a
mixed -use community on the project site, reducing permitted nonresidential intensity
would be contrary to objectives of the proposed project, including those objectives that
advocate for provision of new opportunities for mixed -use development and businesses.
Therefore, a reduced nonresidential intensity alternative was considered but rejected.
B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
The following three alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range
of alternatives that could potentially attain most of the basic objectives of the project and
have the potential to avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects
of the project.
No Project/NHSP Alternative
Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative
1. Alternatives Comparison
a) No ProjectNHSP Alternative
Description: The No Project/NHSP Alternative assumes that the Harbor Corridor Plan
would not be adopted, the NHSP would remain in effect, the Conventional Zoning Area
would remain within the NHSP, and the existing onsite buildings would remain. Pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), where a project is the revision of an
existing regulatory plan the "no project' alternative assumes continuation of the existing
plan, policy or operation into the future. Therefore, this alternative assumes that new
development and redevelopment would continue to occur in the project area consistent
with the adopted NHSP land use designations, development standards and design
guidelines. Buildout of the NHSP would allow for 320 residential units and 4,867,789
square feet of nonresidential land uses. Note that the NHSP results in a reduction of
residential units compared to existing uses since some residential uses were existing in
the area prior to adoption of the NHSP. As compared to the proposed project, buildout of
the NHSP would result in a reduction of 4,395 residential units and an increase of
2,896,107 of commercial and other nonresidential square footage.
Environmental Effects: The No Project/NHSP Alternative would reduce impacts to air
quality (operation), greenhouse gas emissions, noise (operation), public services,
recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. This alternative
would increase impacts to aesthetics, land use, and population and housing. Impacts of
this alternative related to construction - related air quality and noise, cultural resources,
geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality would be similar to the proposed
project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: This alternative would not achieve any of the
following five project objectives: it would not provide for new housing and mixed -use
development opportunities; create economic vitality by providing new opportunities for
businesses and residents; provide access to multi -modal transportation; create a sense
of place; or enhance community health and wellness. This alternative would achieve one
project objective to provide for the development of the site consistent with City's General
43 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Plan. However, the Harbor Corridor Plan would change General Plan designations for
the project site to provide consistency with the general plan and zoning.
Feasibility: Since the No Project/NHSP Alternative would allow the continuation of the
adopted specific plan, the feasibility of this alternative would rely upon the feasibility of
the allowed land uses. However, new development under the existing specific plan
would be limited by the existing deficient stormwater, wastewater, and water
infrastructure.
Finding: While the No Project/NHSP Alternative would lessen some of the
environmental effects of the proposed project, it would not eliminate any significant and
unavoidable impacts and would increase impacts to three environmental issue areas.
For these reasons, the City rejects this alternative.
b) Reduced Residential intensity Alternative
Description: The Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative would reduce permitted
residential units by 25 percent in the Transit Node district and by 50 percent in the
Corridor district; the permitted number of residential units in the Neighborhood Transition
district would be the same as in the proposed project. Total permitted nonresidential
development intensity in this alternative would remain the same as in the proposed
project. The total number of residential units permitted by this alternative would be
2,908, or 37 percent less than that of the proposed project.
Environmental Effects: This alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics, air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and
housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service
systems. Impacts to cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality,
and land use and planning would be similar to the proposed project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: This alternative would achieve most of the
objectives of the proposed project. This alternative would achieve the following three
objectives to a lesser degree due to the 37 percent reduction in residential units: provide
for new housing and mixed -use development opportunities; create economic vitality by
providing new opportunities for businesses and residents; and provide access to multi -
modal transportation.
Feasibility: This alternative is considered physically feasible.
Finding: While the Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative would lessen some of the
environmental effects of the proposed project, it would not eliminate the significant and
unavoidable air quality impacts. For these reasons, the City rejects this alternative.
44 July 2014
1
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2013061027
The City is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review, and certification of the
Final EIR for the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan. As the Lead
Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts
of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be
mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts
to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the
benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed Project. In making this
determination the City is guided by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 which
provides as follows:
CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -
wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against
its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve
the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
benefits, including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a
proposal (sic) project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental
effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered
acceptable. "
When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially
lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action
based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record. The statement of
overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. If an
agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be
included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of
determination.
In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public
agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and
thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that
overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh
the significant effects of the project.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the
following unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed Project and has
45 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City also
has examined alternatives to the proposed Project, none of which both meet the Project
objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed project for the reasons
discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings.
The Santa Ana City Council, the Lead Agency for this Project, having reviewed the Final
EIR for the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan, and reviewed all written
materials within the City's public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public
hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the
benefits of the Project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts
in reaching its decision to approve the Project.
2. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Although most potential project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated, as
described in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, there remain some project
impacts for which complete mitigation is not feasible. For some impacts, mitigation
measures were identified and adopted by the Lead Agency, however, even with
implementation of the measures, the City finds that the impact cannot be reduced to a
level of less than significant. The impacts and alternatives are described below and were
also addressed in the Findings.
The EIR identified the following unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project:
A. AIR QUALITY
1) Construction activities associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Plan would generate short -term emissions that exceed the South Coast Air
Quality Management District's VOC and NO, regional thresholds and would
significantly contribute to the particulate matter (PM10 and PM25), ozone (03), and
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin.
Proposed mitigation measures would reduce criteria air pollutants generated from
project - related construction activities. Buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use
Transit Corridor Plan would occur over a period of approximately 20 years or longer.
Construction time frames and equipment for individual site specific projects are not
available. However, there is a potential for multiple developments to be constructed
at any one time, resulting in significant construction related emissions. Therefore,
despite adherence to proposed mitigation, this impact would remain significant and
unavoidable.
2) Long -term criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the Harbor Boulevard
Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would exceed the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's VOC, CO, PM10, and PM25 regional significance thresholds
and significantly contribute to the particulate matter (PM10 and PM25), ozone (03),
and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin.
Proposed mitigation measures would reduce operation - related criteria air pollutants
generated from stationary and mobile sources. They would encourage and
accommodate use of alternative - fueled vehicles and non - motorized transportation.
46 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
However, despite adherence to these measures, this impact would remain significant
and unavoidable.
3) Construction activities related to buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Plan could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.
Proposed mitigation measures would reduce the project's regional construction
emissions and therefore also reduce the project's localized construction- related
criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, because existing
sensitive receptors may be close to project - related construction activities,
construction emissions generated by individual project have the potential to exceed
South Coast Air Quality Management District's localized significance thresholds.
Despite reductions resulting feasible mitigation measures, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
4) The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan is a regionally significant
project that would contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality
violations in the South Coast Air Basin and would conflict with the assumptions of the
applicable air quality management plan.
Proposed mitigation measures would reduce the project's regional construction -
related and operational phase criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible.
However, given the potential increase in growth and associated increase in criteria
air pollutant emissions, the project would continue to be potentially inconsistent with
the assumptions in the Air Quality Management Plan. Upon implementation of
proposed mitigation measures, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
B. ALTERNATIVES
The EIR evaluated two alternatives to the project and analyzed whether these
alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable environmental impacts
of the proposed project. The alternatives lessened some or all of the unavoidable air
quality impacts of the proposed project.
The Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative was determined to be environmentally
superior to the project and feasible. Although this alternative would reduce impacts to air
quality, those impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, this
alternative would not fully meet most of the project objectives.
3. CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
The following section describes the benefits of the project that outweigh the project's
unavoidable adverse effects and provides specific reasons for considering the project
acceptable even though the Final EIR has indicated that there will be significant project
impacts that are infeasible to mitigate.
47 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
A. IMPLEMENTS THE OBJECTIVES ESTABLISHED FOR THE PROJECT
The City established the following objectives for the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit
Corridor Plan project to aid decision - makers in their review of the project and associated
environmental impacts:
Provide for the development of the site consistent with City's General Plan.
Provide for new housing and mixed -use development opportunities.
Expand development opportunities that respond to transit investments.
Create economic vitality by providing new opportunities for businesses and
residents.
Provide a variety of safe and efficient travel choices and access to multi -modal
transportation.
Create a sense of place.
Enhance community health and wellness by creating safer street design for
multiple modes of travel, increase walkability and encourage live /work along the
corridor.
Implementation of the project would meet all of these objectives.
B. IMPLEMENTS THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENT'S HIGH QUALITY TRANSIT AREAS
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a council of
governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,
and Ventura counties. SCAG is the federally recognized metropolitan planning
organization for this region, which encompasses over 38,000 square miles. SCAG is a
regional planning agency and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning
transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. On April 4,
2012, SCAG adopted the 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS). The RTP /SCS provides a blueprint for improving
quality of life for residents by providing more choices for where they will live, work, and
play and how they will move around.
With the adoption of the 2012 RTP /SCS, the areas previously known as 2% Strategy
Opportunity Areas were updated by SCAG and replaced with what are now called high
quality transit areas (HQTA), which are a part of and integrated into the SCS portion
Chapter 4) of the 2012 RTP /SCS. An HQTA is generally a walkable transit village or
corridor that is within a half mile of a well- serviced transit stop or a transit corridor with
15- minute or less service frequency during peak commute hours. The overall land use
pattern of the 2012 RTP /SCS focuses jobs and housing in the region's designated
HQTAs (SCAG 2012). The entire project site is identified as an HQTA in the 2012
RTP /SCS.
48 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
The Harbor Corridor Plan emphasizes a sustainable multimodal approach consistent
with the City's Go Local Transit Vision, which aims to link downtown, employment
centers, educational facilities, and expanded housing choices. The project proposes
mixed -use and residential, pedestrian- oriented development at high densities that would
support increased transit use — within the three transit nodes surrounding the
intersections of Harbor Boulevard at 17th Street, 1st Street, and McFadden Avenue. A
limited -stop bus route, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Route 543,
began service on Harbor Boulevard between Fullerton and Santa Ana, through the
project site, in June 2013. Route 543 has stops at each of the three proposed transit
nodes. Development of a light -rail transit line on the Pacific Electric right -of -way that
passes through the north end of the project site was recommended by an Alternatives
Analysis completed by the Southern California Association of Governments in February
2013 (SCAG 2013). A fixed guideway transit project on the part of the Pacific Electric
right -of -way in Santa Ana and Garden Grove is part of the Preferred Plan in OCTA's
Long Range Transit Plan (OCTA 2011). Completion of a transit line on the portion of the
right -of -way in Los Angeles County is scheduled for 2027 (Metro 2009).
In addition to providing jobs and housing near a major transportation corridor, the Harbor
Corridor Plan continues to recognize the important role Harbor Boulevard plays in
circulating vehicular traffic through the region by maintaining the number of traffic lanes.
The Harbor Corridor Plan also encourages consolidated vehicular access points along
the corridor.
The Harbor Corridor Plan proposes improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities and
linkages by creating a pedestrian - friendly streetscape, encouraging a variety of building
frontages and decreased setbacks. New street designs facilitate safe bicycle and
pedestrian travel along Harbor Boulevard and efficient connections to the regional
bicycle network, including the Santa Ana River Trail.
Although the Harbor Corridor Plan would result in substantial population growth, it would
provide an overall benefit to the community by encouraging walkability and alternative
transportation. The Harbor Corridor Plan is a sustainable multimodal plan that at buildout
encourages the reduction of per- capita vehicle miles traveled for the region, which is one
of the goals of SCAG's Compass Blueprint for HQTAs. By providing additional
commercial square footage in the area, commuters would not need to travel outside the
City to other areas of Orange County for employment.
C. THE HARBOR CORRIDOR PLAN IMPROVES THE JOBS -TO- HOUSING
BALANCE IN THE CITY
Implementation of the project would improve Santa Ana's jobs- housing balance. Effects
of Harbor Corridor Plan buildout on jobs- housing balance in the City are estimated by
adding project - generated jobs and housing units to forecasts of employment and
housing in the City of Santa Ana in 2035 (see Table 3). As shown in the table, Santa
Ana's existing jobs- housing ratio is 1.87, or jobs -rich. The jobs- housing ratio is forecast
to become slightly more jobs -rich (1.91) by 2035. Buildout of the Harbor Corridor plan
would develop up to 4,623 housing units, a net increase of 3,884 units over the existing
739 units onsite; and would add an estimated net increase of 173 jobs to the site. The
jobs- housing balance in Santa Ana with project buildout added to existing forecast would
49 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
be reduced to 1.82, slightly more housing -rich than the existing forecast, resulting in a
more favorable jobs- housing balance.
Table 3
Jobs - Housing Balance in Santa Ana, 2035, with Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout
D. PROVISIONS OF THE HARBOR CORRIDOR PLAN WORK TO IMPROVE
QUALITY OF LIFE, THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, AND DEFICIENT
INFRASTRUCTURE
Although buildout of the project area would result in significant environmental impacts on
related to air quality, the Harbor Corridor Plan encourages and promotes more
environmentally sustainable development and reduced vehicle miles traveled than would
otherwise result in the development of the area. The project would improve Harbor
Boulevard and its cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and
Westminster Avenue in order to create a robust multimodal corridor that accommodates
the movement of vehicular traffic through the City and region as well as other modes of
travel. The project would encourage bicycle and pedestrian safety along the corridor by
enlarging the sidewalk and parkway areas (planting new landscaping and trees) and
creating efficient connections to the regional bicycle network. Infrastructure
improvements would maintain the same rights -of -way and number of travel lanes on the
affected roadways. These improvements would result due to the promotion of transit
alternatives reducing vehicle miles traveled and encourage walkability by improving
pedestrian safety.
The project area has identified existing deficiencies in its stormwater and wastewater
conveyance system. Adoption of the specific plan would require the establishment of a
nexus study and development fee program to fund water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements. Future development within the Harbor Corridor Plan would be required to
upgrade these facilities through physical improvements or payment of fees (see
mitigation measures 7 -1, 7 -2, and 14 -1 through 14 -3). These upgrades would benefit the
existing residences and businesses in the area.
E. THE HARBOR CORRIDOR PLAN SUPPORTS THE CITY'S REGIONAL
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA)
The Harbor Corridor Plan provides an opportunity to allow for affordable homes in the
City, which can be counted towards the lower income RHNA requirement. The State of
California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) estimates the
relative share of California's projected population growth that would occur in each county
based on CDF population projections and historical growth trends. These figures are
compiled by HCD in a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for each region of
California. Where there is a regional council of governments, the HCD provides the
50 July 2014
Employment Housing Units Jobs - Housing Ratio
2010 143,987 76,918 1.87
2035 existing forecast 149,440 78,323 1.91
2035 with Harbor Corridor Plan
Buildout 149,613 82,207 1.82
D. PROVISIONS OF THE HARBOR CORRIDOR PLAN WORK TO IMPROVE
QUALITY OF LIFE, THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, AND DEFICIENT
INFRASTRUCTURE
Although buildout of the project area would result in significant environmental impacts on
related to air quality, the Harbor Corridor Plan encourages and promotes more
environmentally sustainable development and reduced vehicle miles traveled than would
otherwise result in the development of the area. The project would improve Harbor
Boulevard and its cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and
Westminster Avenue in order to create a robust multimodal corridor that accommodates
the movement of vehicular traffic through the City and region as well as other modes of
travel. The project would encourage bicycle and pedestrian safety along the corridor by
enlarging the sidewalk and parkway areas (planting new landscaping and trees) and
creating efficient connections to the regional bicycle network. Infrastructure
improvements would maintain the same rights -of -way and number of travel lanes on the
affected roadways. These improvements would result due to the promotion of transit
alternatives reducing vehicle miles traveled and encourage walkability by improving
pedestrian safety.
The project area has identified existing deficiencies in its stormwater and wastewater
conveyance system. Adoption of the specific plan would require the establishment of a
nexus study and development fee program to fund water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements. Future development within the Harbor Corridor Plan would be required to
upgrade these facilities through physical improvements or payment of fees (see
mitigation measures 7 -1, 7 -2, and 14 -1 through 14 -3). These upgrades would benefit the
existing residences and businesses in the area.
E. THE HARBOR CORRIDOR PLAN SUPPORTS THE CITY'S REGIONAL
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA)
The Harbor Corridor Plan provides an opportunity to allow for affordable homes in the
City, which can be counted towards the lower income RHNA requirement. The State of
California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) estimates the
relative share of California's projected population growth that would occur in each county
based on CDF population projections and historical growth trends. These figures are
compiled by HCD in a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for each region of
California. Where there is a regional council of governments, the HCD provides the
50 July 2014
Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
RHNA to the council. The council then assigns a share of the regional housing need to
each of its cities and counties. The process of assigning shares gives cities and counties
the opportunity to comment on the proposed allocations. The HCD oversees the process
to ensure that the council of governments distributes its share of the state's projected
housing need. The State of California Housing Element laws (Section 65580 to 65589 of
the California Government Code) require that each city and county identify and analyze
existing and projected housing needs within its jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies,
and programs to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing for
all economic segments of the community, commensurate with local housing needs.
The City's recently adopted 2014 -2021 Housing Element addressed the RHNA carryover
balance of 201 lower income units from the last adopted housing element. These units
would be accommodated through land rezoned in the Harbor corridor Plan area
exclusively for residential development.
E. CONCLUSION
For the abovementioned reasons, implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would
have environmental, economic, and social benefits that outweigh the unavoidable
adverse environmental impacts of the project. The Harbor Corridor Plan would help
reach regional goals for land use, transportation, and economic stability; improve the
jobs -to- housing ratio; require more environmentally sustainable development; reduce
regional VMT; improve deficient infrastructure, and provide a guiding framework for
future development.
51 July 2014
Exhibit °C°
SEE LASERFICHE
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -069 FOR EXHIBIT
Resolution No. 2014 -069
Page 8 of 8
August 2014 ( Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT
CORRIDOR PLAN
for City of Santa Ana
Prepared for:
City of Santa Ana
Contact: Melanie G. McCann, AICP
Associate Planner
20 Civic Center Plaza, M -20
Santa Ana, California 92701
714.667.2796
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Contact: Nicole Morse, Esq., Associate Principal
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
info @placeworks.com
www.placeworks.com
HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN MMRP
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Table of Contents
SectionPage
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ ..............................1
1.1 PURPOSE OF LITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM .................................... 1
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ...................................................................................................... 1
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... ............................._2
1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................................................................................... ............................._2
2. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCESS ........................................................... ..............................5
2.1 MITIGATIONMONEFORING PROGRAM ORGANIZATION ........................... ..............................5
2.2 MITIGATIONMONEFORING TEANI ........................................................................ ..............................5
2.3 ARBITRATION RESOLUTION ...................................................................................... 6
2.4 ENFORCEMENT ................................................................................................................ 6
3. MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ................................................ ..............................7
3.1 PRE- NfITIGATIONMEETING ..................................................................................... ............................._7
3.2 CATEGORIZEDMITIGATIONME ASURES/ MdTRLK ........................................ ............................._7
3.3 IN -FIELD MONITORING .............................................................................................. ............................._7
3.4 DATABASE NLANAGEMENT ........................................................................................ ............................._7
35 COORDINATION WITH CONTRACTORS ............................................................... ............................._7
3.6 LONG- TERNIMONITORING ....................................................................................... ............................._7
4. MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTS .......................................................... .............................25
4.1 FIELD CHECK REPORT ............................................................................................... ............................_23
4.2 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE REPORT ..................................................... .............................23
4.3 ARBITRATION /ENFORCEMENT REPORT .......................................................... .............................23
S. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................... .............................27
6. REPORT PREPARATION ................................................................................ .............................29
6.1 LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................................................................... ............................... 29
August 2014 Page i
HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN MMRP
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Table 3 -1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements .................................................................. ..............................9
Page ii PlareWorkr
1. Introduction
1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
This bfitigation Monitoring Program has been developed to provide a vehicle by which to monitor mitigation
measures and conditions of approval outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), State
Clearinghouse No. 2013061027. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared in conformance with
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and Insert Cite Monitoring Requirements. Section 21081.6
states:
a( V -hen making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a( of Section 21081 or
when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision
c( of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply:
1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes
made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate
or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring
program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For
those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the
request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over
natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the
lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring
program.
2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other
material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is
based.
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project area comprises approximately 425 acres oriented to Harbor Boulevard in Santa Ana in central
Orange County. The project area generally includes parcels adjacent to Harbor Boulevard between
Westminster Avenue and Lilac Way and parcels along Westminster Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street one -half
mile east of Harbor Boulevard. The corridor's northern and southern ends are adjacent to the cite boundaries
of Garden Grove and Fountain Valley, respectively. The project areas consists of two areas 1) an
approximately 305 -acre portion that directly fronts Harbor Boulevard or perpendicular arterial streets and 2)
120 acres consisting of the Willowick Golf Course and Campesino Park, residential properties along Jackson
Street, and commercial properties along 5th Street. The 120 -acre area is east of the Harbor Boulevard
corridor and abuts the Santa Ana River to the east.
August 2014 Page 1
HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN MMRP
CITY OF SANTA ANA
1. Introduction
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan (Harbor Corridor Plan( mould replace the existing
425 -acre North Harbor Specific Plan (NHSP). The plan mould change the boundaries of the NHSP so that
the project mould consist of the two separate areas: 1) 305 acres within the boundaries of the existing 425
acre NHSP generally along Harbor Boulevard ( "Harbor Corridor Plan" or "Specific Plata"), and 2) 120 acres
within the existing NHSP in the Willowick Golf Course area (or "Conventional Zoning Area"). Both of
these areas constitute the "project" for purposes of CEQA.
The Harbor Corridor Plan mould allow up to 4,623 dwelling units and 1,954,261 square feet of commercial
units within four land use districts: Transit Node (TN), Corridor (CDR), Neighborhood Transitional (NT),
and Open Space (OS). Buildout mould allow for a net increase of 3,884 dwelling units and 13,721 square feet
of commercial uses.
The 120 -acre Conventional Zoning area would be removed from the NHSP and redesignated to match
existing land uses. In this area, the intensity of development is not expected to change and buildout would
match the existing uses with 92 dwelling units and 3,700 square feet of commercial space.
A detailed project description is provided in Section 3.3.2, De.rmption of the Project, of the DEIR.
1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The EIR identified adverse impacts that would be potentially significant without mitigation, and
recommended mitigation that mould eliminate these impacts or reduce them to a less than significant level.
1.4.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant Before Mitigation
The CEQA Guidelines have significance thresholds for environmental impacts. Impacts in the following
topic areas were identified as less than significant without mitigation in either the Initial Study or the DEIR:
Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Land Use and Planning
1\lineral Resources
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Page 2 PlaceWorkr
PROJECT TITLE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAMCLIENT
1. Introduction
1.4.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts That Can Be Mitigated, Avoided,
or Substantially Lessened
Impacts in the following topic areas were identified in the DEIR as less than significant after implementation
of mitigation measures set forth in the DEIR and listed in Table 3 -1:
Cultural Resources
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Noise
Transportation and Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
1.4.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts
Four impacts in the following topic area were identified as significant and unavoidable:
Air Quality
August 2014 Page 3
HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN MMRP
CITY OF SANTA ANA
1. Introduction
This page intentional) , lft blank.
Page 4 PlareWorkr
2. Mitigation Monitorina Process
2.1 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval
that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code
21081.6. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program is designed to ensure compliance with adopted
mitigation measures during project implementation. For each mitigation measure recommended in the DEIR,
specifications are made herein that identify the action required and the monitoring that must occur. In
addition, a responsible agency is identified for verifying compliance with individual conditions of approval
contained in the bfitigation Monitoring Program. In order to effectively track and document the status of
mitigation measures, a mitigation matrix has been prepared and includes:
Responsibility for implementation
Timing
Responsibility for monitoring
Monitor
bfitigation measure timing of verification has been apportioned into several specific timing increments.
Information pertaining to compliance with mitigation measures or any necessary modifications or
refinements will be documented in the comments portion of the matrix.
2.2 MITIGATION MONITORING TEAM
2.2.1 City of Santa Ana
The City of Santa Aria Planning and Building Agency is the designated lead agency for the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City is responsible for review of all monitoring reports,
enforcement actions, and document disposition. The Planning and Building Agency shall designate a Project
bfitigation Monitor for the proposed project
2.2.2 Recognized Experts
The use of recognized experts as a component of the monitoring team is required to ensure compliance with
scientific and engineering mitigation measures. VlAe recognized experts may assess compliance with required
mitigation measures, consultation with the City planning staff shall take place in the event of a dispute.
August 2014 Page 5
HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN MMRP
CITY OF SANTA ANA
2. Mitigation Monitoring Process
2.3 ARBITRATION RESOLUTION
If the mitigation monitor identifies a mitigation measure that, in the opinion of the monitor, has not been
implemented or has not been implemented correctly, the problem mill be brought before the Cite Planner for
resolution. The decision of the Cite Planner is final, unless appealed to the Cite Manager. The Cite Planner
mill have the authority to issue stop work orders until the dispute is resolved.
2.4 ENFORCEMENT
Agencies may enforce conditions of approval through their existing police power, using stop -work orders,
fines, infraction citations, loss of entitlements, refusal to issue building permits or certificates of use and
occupancy or, in some cases, notice of violation for tax purposes. Criminal misdemeanor sanctions could be
available where the agency has adopted an ordinance requiring compliance with the monitoring program,
similar to the provision in many zoning ordinances that affirm the enforcement power to bring suit against
violators of the ordinances.
Page 6 PlareWorkr
3. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
3.1 PRE - MITIGATION MEETING
A pre -mon toxin( meeting will be scheduled to review mitigation measures, implementation requirements,
schedule conformance, and mitigation monitoring committee responsibilities. Committee rules are
established, the entire mitigation monitoring program is presented, and any misunderstandings are resolved.
3.2 CATEGORIZED MITIGATION MEASURES/MATRIX
Project - specific mitigation measures have been categorized in matrix format, as shown in Table 3 -1. The
matrix identifies the environmental factor, specific mitigation measures, schedule, and responsible monitor.
The mitigation matrix will serve as the basis for scheduling the implementation of, and compliance with, all
mitigation measures.
3.3 IN -FIELD MONITORING
Project monitors and technical subconsultants shall exercise caution and professional practices at all times
when monitoring implementation of mitigation measures. Protective wear (e.g. hard hat, glasses) shall be
worn at all times in construction areas. Injuries shall be immediately reported to the mitigation monitoring
committee.
3.4 DATABASE MANAGEMENT
All mitigation monitoring reports, letters, and memos shall be prepared utilizing Microsoft Word software.
3.5 COORDINATION WITH CONTRACTORS
The construction manager is responsible for coordination of contractors and for contractor completion of
required mitigation measures.
3.6 LONG -TERM MONITORING
Long -term monitoring related to several mitigation measures will be required, including fire safety
inspections. Post - construction fire inspections are conducted on a routine basis by the Orange County Fire
Authority.
August 2014 Page 7
HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN MMRP
CITY OF SANTA ANA
3. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
This page intentional) , lft blank.
Page 8 PlareWorkr
E
q
k
Cr
LEO
IL
t5 0
0.
0 QZQQ
W QF0ZOQm nK00mKQ ~ I CJ
N
C
d
dd
E GdNa'
Qi
S C
O
CO
O c0
O c,
m O
CH_
C
O
co
M
G
M
dd
o a U
m Ocd
N O
c
v N v N0
c LEO c LEO
o m m m m
a mQ a mQC
0 m o mcyc
m m o
c m o 2 m'o 2
o o
m E ° a E ° U
m m
0 0
LL LL
c li5m i5m
T
a aCaa
C
N N
O dn- d d
a o 0
m m ca y° y y° y
O V C% C `-' m V C V O). E2E N N U
m.2
O E
O Cd
i V U U
N
U U OC d 2 °
O m O C d CO O N O Y . N O (V C CO O VS C NE"
V N L O O
LL O 0dLC E C O d> O) 2 "°--' N C C L >
m 0
N
mO > f2 E C E (V
C NN O d n dO m o N O O
A> V C> 2 E L i o (V d
m O) -° V NUN EU O O U N p_ N U
V
O
C C O NdL
C N~ V m Oa O O
E w o `-' LO S y o
E t5 N t5 t5 15
U -O C LL i N O L O E N w° a O >i O
N N N
K Q 2 U E 2E W :E w
N
Q f °
N
z
z
J<
K OO0 )
K ~ KO
U)
E
C
O
O
cO
co0)
9
y
N
C
E
l
Qd
C
O
CO
CO
O'.
M
d
a
H
dd
o a U
m Ocma+
N O
0 mC m C m C m C
O] 0 gym 0 gym 0 gym 0
o m m m m m m m m
a ¢ a ¢ a ¢ a
C
a
o 5
a
o c
a
o 5
a
o 5mamamama
m m m m
o m o m 0o m o m
a r0 a r0 a r0 a r0
c li5m li5m li5m i5m
T
a a a aCnNnNnNnN
CO dn- d d d d
a o o o o
v
O (V C 'O m> O° 0 OOVVwd
m° `o m m m m om' w m s c m y m aci .n c vvc20._
L
M46 W
U °) V 2,LvC Q o U N N
U` L d (VNL d O
ddN ° °° U
C N
K
L
V U LQ O= m C C
N O O
2 C w- >.
C O "5 C N (Va j
N m N O'OCJN (p O
md
m oa O] p EFE
O 6 m m a> m "O .> C m 0 E N N L a E N CtCmUE (V a C N L O O L' E n F j L N
N a U d U C N U J O L aVO (V O _ O
N N i E O)
O
d O
O C¢ L y O) N 'O Nmm N C N°
a ° m O mmo d N U- N >. c m "
E 'O O yE "> ai • m -- s° ° y' m a c cLi m 3 a ° c o o- o .na>
a m. s o a o
c
m oVc= o
m m a m co m m a m m.
0? c m o 0 o a m° U m m m m m c m 0mo._ m -_ V E'2 N m o N 3 $ O C m
v N °' O) (V (V N E d N N mNn L N CN2ENdNUmm
d
o a m m m m'om
c C.
c- m
cc°
a
E n L N L C o L C n m C N n N W'- n d U m
o y m o5 EvHa E> QLi a a.'i' Q °`00 Q v m v N >U Qv 5$
N N N N
a
ON
o¢
z
w¢ F0zo¢ m nK00mK
I CJ
N
C
d
dd
E
yam+
N
E OdNa'
3 Q.
S C
O
CO
O c0
m O
cO
co
M
G
M
dd
o a U
m Ocd
N O
o dCNCNC
f2 m O) O] O) O] C1 0
c cm c c a= -
a c d c d c Na
co c dme c dme c c 0mm
a dm a dm a mQQQ
m
o ° m
Vacimaa2d
o 0
o m a mara
a
m m m
T
a a aCnnn
C
N N N
O dn- d d d
a o 0 0
N
w O °O
w' n d C O)
0> E o
m U m m m m. m- E O a s= v
V L n O w O n'O O O Od N
coO°
o> Q m s °- E m m m E V a'Eo a O v mddn (V N L (V C C N d v-i
d d Na° .o m o
c m c o o m m a m m a a a` m m co m o a
O" v m mm v m m m m m Y
c o o aa o w m 2 2 £
o m U a m o m
d° C C E L O
my u o o EEScmo ` E s a m aci m o b o° moE
5 a 6 o m c d Ea - d m m o N N a ci o f
K o
N N N
z
z
J<
K OOD )
K ~ KO
U)
E
C
O
O
CO
co0)
y
N
C
E
v
Qd
C
O
C
CO
CCO
Qi
C
M
d
a
dd
o a U
m ° cm a+
N O
c0
c
c0
a
C
y
O
CE d pNdCj
v Z5 2 EE y
cT
C
CO dn- a EC -
C N o C 'O N N E R_ L R O p R
O N CNRR
O N y
O X_ (V ._ d IEYC 'O
W -O C_ q N I C
V Q Q
E
U O R
O d
L n
W O` 2 CR C oNdLnRdCEOCoUd f
n O L C° O O U N Q U C O) C? V R N R C E N EN
i N d C OQ R L E V d y R C C N" 8,2 d QN
O N
N E
R _ m" L w >w C . L N NV N O
y
V
N CCOiNdNNENOORCO> d C R y V ELOREEQO)E O N N dw C L r O
m N U O R> K p L - `--' N E C
N`. N'OQN
O
C'OC'C =WO
O O NON
61,-
R y p) C dNny N2iN
C °
oC
S EN
N C° N C>=
E O
N m d U U L O p ppM >i S N y -O c6= d d R N N° d
42— o w d L LVRi d - o `o o `o92wdRy
2,,,< K
S m s a o ya .m N R d> m
m
cTi
2EcEoNs .°- m m w` o Q m 3 w wO
P °_ n 5 C N N R E
CE._ W R O O r R C C C N w V E N O Q
E' N R N O U UKRO 'O d 'O R C
wdCEL-' t5 N C w O
V O O O n E O R V C NQNE_ O)" O C LL d LL
o x O x C_ C C y
O O N R n O N 4 R O N i N f C C H S i> '° E O
ON
0 QZQ
wQ F0ZOQm nK00m>
Q ~ I CJ
U) E
C N
E OdNa'
O
S C
O
CO
O cO
O
C O
co
M
G
M ~
d
Qo
mo
L O
NW
m avx
m E `oso .
m vom
o- o
o `o
a 0 E omm , -o
a s o
mL_ E NO
E
o momom - E ° m r
O y mLmd
NwUK
ON
KJQK
J_
U
CiN
a
z
z
J<
0 00o>
0 U0U
U)
E
O
O
cO
coO)
y
M
d
a
d
o
doi
o
m
T OLdOrOo -
r m
a
a v
N Nra °mmmya
m o b o
m `O m
a v ym
y O a .=
U O N
O v
m y5o aa
c°i > o E v - m m
m m (VVL
J
6
Q
N
ODK
62DzQN
K
62
N
am m w
aN
m m o
mm 0aUmamia
om E
m amNo
o :o
m
E
2
m
Q
am
m
02
O 2
a m m y N mOmVUEm
m O 0 y0oEa U o
y U E
E m m
a C m E
NmONS
mmo
o
m `
o
m E m m6o> u 2 m o
46 mc2 >
m
0 p C N
o r`oU WO -O wp U
d (V d N
m 2 y m n omyEVKmm
E N V
o- wE v QMaoVoVmmmsamm
N C t5
U C
d N V d O U
u m w
16Qmom
c m o `O O w
O LV
ONOOO
N
O O N C vmwmE $ m03
o .n o m m
o ° t5 m o
N O L 0 KCCO
d i ~_ O U
y
m Q a-o0mmm
m F o m m
v c E
L '5 N C O O
am aEi ami mUOCw2E
d U - d C V 'M.
o ° v Q O
m ° o L° o m yo - Ommama m
H ° m y"v U
EFEOm
v
m
O E o E
d C daa. °_ `o a
Q m m a mcnm my
W o m mo a smL° E o mmmmam
m
2 m a E m "-
0o maov ,on
cn " -
m
Q
am
m
02
C
N
2i N L d WEdONO
EE o N d a£
a Q EmmE a o n
a>i o N _ -2 HNOQCCVQUoUEcnm
m
v v m C L m o
m x a E~ W
p O N C
U V E C O N O
y o N m
n ° mm Li v "vN
o a 0 E Nom _ E
S - Q
co
m Ed $ m w K
a
ON
o
ZQQwQF0ZOQm nK000m>
Q - xo
N
C
d
U) C
l_
a
E Q
m O
d
c a
mm
N O
Qi
S C
0
C
E
O
H
CO
T
O c
C
O
n
a E
c,
cO
G
m
0
a
C
C C
O
O0-
co
E m y .,d E
M
E `5
N
E q C N a
M
O m" d
dd
a
o a U
m O
mmQ
c a
mm
N O
c0
c
a
0
C
E
a
H
LL
c
a
T
C
mc
mm
O
C
mc
mm
O
n
a E
m m
0
1'-
m
0
a
m m
m m C d
a
C L i 0
li5m
Q
aN
N0a
O0-
c -
2 m N
o v
E m y .,d E
o
o c > U `o -o o a 0 °>
E `5
N
E q C N a
E c m U -" a o m c V
u` Z m m o
O m" d
E
v
a `m E m m > 2 m -m oaci ,° o> w C vC
y° E a 3 >.
N E dCU
d
mOyO- -o C NE
C O m d C (V m " v w C O (V EW -05W -° ay d 0 w --s d
tp N— C M W— 'O >i 'O
Q ° .-a m
m
2 y
d
E 6 a a 0 E U m
maa m c c
O O N
N d O 2C
m ma m$ m£
o E 00 UO
N iv O
V . l` N w m O y D) C (V C
E 0V
oPO` -O Q >: O NcNammddUc !CWON
O (V mlV) C 2m
W a>i N
m ` m c m 2aoO O
o _ a E
dVOL
C° U ° ULLdWLLa3Umm O]Q
H
6CrCr
6
0zQ
OJOK
Y2
N
a
a
mmQ mmQ mmQ
a a
LL LL a
a
mc
mm
O
mc
mm
O
mc
mm
O
m m
0
m m
0
m
0
a a a
li5m
Q
aN
N0a
li5m
Q
aN
N0a
i5m
Q
aN
N0a
c -
2 m N
o v
m y o
o v E `5Eq C N a
m y- m m w u` Z m m o m
E
m > m m 2Eod y m0VSV`a` y° E a 3 >. m
n
a c c o a m `m `o m y U o
m mad ° m dy- doa NE. m maa m c c
N d O 2C i N
OONdw N iv OE0VVCLLCO ._ ' N om O (V mlV) C 2m N
m ` m c m 2aoO OasCOE (V dVOL
O) (p w Loo
O
N xOCo a o o `
d LL
mLLm C -O 7. LL n
Eo
o
cNCwa p
o v` > a ` ao o' E dm
Z
m y >. O, ... L d O w 'O a O Emo2 >. E N C
N
omo
co a m m vmtm
m I "> gym - ar m --am oLL$s 2 2
rr'
oayw mU
Nr'
Z
Mr'
z
z
J<
K OOD )
K ~ KO
U)
E
C
O
O
CO
co0)
y
N
C
d
d
Qd
C
O
CO
CO
Qi
M
d
a
dd
o a U
m Oc
N O
co U
m
a
0
co a
C d
mc
m
w
m
o o E
a
m m m
y m
0
o
0 m
o
a a
c om 0m
T
a aCaaNcE5Odn- d d
a E o 0
m w y P o o a
2E
o a C7yaaCy2, 15 c m y
m
N° a
15
O
0 0 0 0 o E o- o- E s v d
co m
wV a Q
w w >. c .- m o m y o a E C7
W t5 w O V L V O m d
O mo 5
O(OE m m m a N CY
2 m N O) d
O N
d NNOOE wt5L CdL dW o0O`CO' mom (V aNL
N> O C` C C O
co
d N v o 4 "w U ' d"
O Nmm `o O ama O7 Cdm C dm _ Co ° N E d a a
V a L U w
o
o o
d
K m
w
mE- E w v y c a V U O]° a-Ei ao-
m
a o K v mo m m n n m',`oO]
w a E v
mZ5 c c m o x w o
4e5 w
J E w 'O w> d
o "O c6 w N lO N
I
a
ON
0 ¢
Z
W ¢ F0ZO ¢ m nK000
my
I CJ
N
C
d
dd
l_
E OdNa'
Qi
S C
O
CO
O cO
0 Qi
0
co
M
N O
M
dd
o a U
oca
N O
c0
c0 m
EFEOm
a
c0 n]
C
m
ao E
c v a
m
y vymom
oa
c m
T
O_ C nN
CO Un- a o
c- a
cy°
cVv o
LL N L m m -o d d Wi
d OmO O0O ">0 QLL
U m O m m m w s m
m E Q T E LL
o
E C L (V O 1
U C d N N O LL n` yVV " LL NL (V N v Np
O L_ O d
mm mEa
m E o m m o m 45 m ° c m o-
o 2 o m OnU ao
N L c m C c E v m m N m n L m
o
ash o m
mw
maUU
CY L N w K N
am c w
N
m m Co "v oc - y
mm 0
c aUccmmLL
mcv
ao
Ucm ma
0
o
a
m
Q
aN
N
a
0v
N V
EFwEO m >> H
N v _
m `m m
C
a y c y v m E yay
d o V oo
o = ot5
O C
W E E
0 o
O O ° n
a mdvEvavvan
NO
mN
z
z
J<
K OOD )
K ~ KO
U)
E
C
O
O
CO
co0)
y
N
C
dE
v
Qd
C
O
CO
CO
Q.
M
d
a
dd
o a U
m Ocma+
N O
EFO
a m m m m mm v
o m Q cUE m UOavam
C Q
m wco mc
c o c
H o m a
Q m
LL a LL
c om 0m
T
a aCnNnN
CO dn- d d
a
O '
O1 p N N N V Q C o C N 'O L . N d N O)
5 0 "O >i O C EamdEoW °- CO N N L N a Ha `ovmc0-= w m
o v m s o
c b m a a > o3mo ° w s `o N m v-
v s
o ` m a E m
0 N O . d L O) N d (p N N i O_ • y d p_ O d
L i N 'O O 2i ddCNd . U 0 0 N O~ N (V " O' 6 C N rOCE> d >i O d O U C d d c LLm
L N m E
N U O ONO5 > o w n N N N O' UCo
N
O C dNOLONCCCnUC U nCd >-OLO)d -w w w VUOI
o m - - -_ o" a a s E w "v `o m
v 3 s o y m._:E m aog .n a- o m om m0oLwHcmycmw `o m "d m v 5 w m U O Eac
o °m
o c'> c-
m m- ao m o d•-o aP_? w ° m ma N a> o
mQ °
o- m O m a y 'n m o °- 3 c m E m= m
o- 5 s
w ai
m.c ? N u= N f m Q N E
i' m w o. cAwCo E d Q c d
ann-o mma m._om "vUo
oa >E -oo- ommom . Z > o d E- a -
m m 2 wm ., adci m c ao m° o y U o m
w
m.
v d m m o m> m m m o ° v w w= c c L" w d d V cmC- EnomommE N c m m ° m 2 ... c- w o v °- E E o
L - o' a o -- w u
E m °' y o >. y m ° `0 3 o m s . °_ °= y m m> c w
y o o omoyooa3~ m u15 v i EoNE
m€ y m a a o v o d m E o ° E d -o daxiacv °- m E O d o m Q o v $"i `m a Q m H o a 2 2 ai ° a a°i o 0
a
ON
0 QZQQ
W QF0ZOQm nK00mKQ ~ I O
N
C
d
dd
E
yam+
N
E GdNa'
3 Q.
S C
O
CO
O c
c G
m O
Cai
C
O
co
M
G
M
dd
o a U
m Ocdm." N O
c c
c
m
scc
m a
a mm a
C Q
mc
mm
o
mc
mm
o
0 0
oa oa
c li5m i5m
T
a aCaNaN
CO dn— d d
a o 0
m m y c m
C V C N L :
a o `mdLLJ " o yO °' ONO '5 d N N C d N (V d L
I O) N N c m
Ni
O LZ5 a C y a (V
EO d U 'O O U V N a N L-' EN] V m m° m
m >> H a > y m R m m E
E w 0
o w-
w vova`o m° o 2 m
O ° N o o a od3mISE > o E n y
oILoNmmmaavoo
m m c m
o -° v ° v£
oa
y a y£ m
o
a ° o S° 2 m c v S m a m m a`ai m
fO m
vm° m a o m L a
W m o w o s m
m L N C 2EmN (VpN
m
m2N . mN V)
O Ln >. C m N OV d O ENm L~ NN
i E O
O a C N
O N O (` Ui.
C CN d Nd OOV WE LE i OdL 2 Wwm
E d L C -O m> O 0 0 5 C
Q v U C °U N m C O d d L d N °U
On
E
q
k
rw-1
E
C5 6EF
E 4i5
o
2 t5
o
o
J=E Z{I)§
OQ
zQwQ
F0ZOQm nK00m
Q - xo
N
C
d
dd
E
yam+
N
E OdNa'
Qi
S C
o a U
O
CO
O cO
c a
O c,
N O
CO
co
M
ac
G
M
dd
o a U
m Oca
N O
co
c ac
a
o
co a
a
C
m
v
ao
c
c
H a
0
o
a
i5
T
O_ C nN
CO dn- a o
c- a
mtvm- 6"
n o
N N w O o _ C4, O 0 0 'O (V n°
O O O
n._qN O) LCaNV>.dy n o
N O n n
C E CEo (V n L O (VON . E O O N y O C N N
c E >d Lmuo "v E o O ao
n 2vO O HOOO E L O- E C O C (V E N N L N O
o m .°nm2
a m E -ovoi m m E °m E a` m m - c°a aNi m
aE`
goads Edd ° aoUimwEa >amvom> a NmNm
O N 'O_ >> ~ 'O O p_ O a
N O
m0mEmommowO (VC o H m m m m
d L N V N N
a
2 m 2 m
0 E N N O N O L C N p E C 'O (V C N d LL C LL C
o m 0 s m E o E `o, m° E w
pm
2E aEi io o r o
dN ( O C n" C C n d d
o E n o m E o a a
t5 E -c6 aE E E 5 a oE
N> N >i (V n N C n O N N
U H U 'O d N- C i& (V H E 'O L O C E C V E E O n o 0 O= O
o maac)
M
N
N
N
wU
N
6
NW
H
H
V
0a
m
0
m
a
O
2
mmN
aam
r' m
mm
Nm
2E
r'
N
m
rc z
z z
K OO0 )
K ~ KO
N
C
N
E
N
C
O
O
CO
co0)
9
y
N
C
dE
v
Qd
Q. C
O
C
CO
CCO
Q.
M
d
a
s a
g m
C E
o a U
m ° Cm a+
N O
co
p
a
N
a
N
a
N
c a
LL
a
LL
a
LL
C
w w m
o
aoi
o
0
a
0
a a
oT_
m
Q
m
Q
m m a
C N N
n- a E o
ooO (V w E 21 n (V C LL O ~ O y (V C (V ` N
o o
O °
C
O N m O N
a o `m a
m °) N N L Ooo
C Od
vmi m E m oN o a oa'o m o$ m m w oL.. v (Cp o N C CdQ° o N v o m aoi m o oa o m " C datom '= a o o- m
V O V
E °o oaso av oo m "v c m o,2 24 m "'n ay `womm
v c H
a 5 m 3 L a E m o o m
o m
acLommm° w w U' Q- m o o a o N E o m m EmoomomEm 'o 0 0 a-- a wo
m V m >. mp
m m a E4? o'n3_ a y o> m vm
2' °mE,m vmm onooft
N m m U "x - °- Lvoi '_' mm
mzmm
o `m °- y d m a m V` ovQmm. o E- N 3¢ momZammwCN
o m o
m (r L m w m° m .nN
2
m
6
O
m C w '° N m n E . Cm — m E+ N Q > O o L O L m m` 2 . p m '°
fC n E m ° m O) yjUopm> . w w m = yj N 2i i O) L L C w m o L$ m - m m 7 '-' m 2 v (V = m l
o v a
ma- °a m aE a°i 6oZo -U m m m ... a °v o oi° m m oa w aoi vSm> v m L o E o o o o m
Lm.
o m :_. c a o _p w o N o y y o Evyvmyw> m > m V m a> ° a E o m> t m m" y v
O (V a O m n
2
m `-' 0 11 O m C U mCmyQ: y o y m m E y m a m m E o o, L U
C m N PN (V y V o w_ Nmdm= OVff m m o V C C m C m
s >
N V
cn o m E
o ` ° o m
m o o vmi m. o a> mv2mm> aQ v= c V
ma2i ` y mmK o a m aEim a !2 >> 0 m
m ami s w E m m o L° m` o m "E a m °- m a m odUadNC0mddLL >j C (p C (p O m U w d d o (V 0 d
4 4
i
a
ON
o¢ Y z
w¢ F0zo¢ m
K000
myK
xo
U)
E
N
O
O
CO
coO)
Cl)
c
CK
l
a
4. Mitigation Monitoring Reports
bfitigation monitoring reports are required to document compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program
and to dispute arbitration enforcement resolution. Specific reports include:
Field Check Report
Implementation Compliance Report
Arbitration/Enforcement Report
4.1 FIELD CHECK REPORT
Field check reports are required to record in -field compliance and conditions.
4.2 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE REPORT
The Implementation Compliance Report JCR) is prepared to document the implementation of mitigation
measures on a phased basis, based on the information in Table 3 -1. The report summarizes implementation
compliance, including mitigation measures, date completed, and monitor's signature.
4.3 ARBITRATION/ENFORCEMENT REPORT
The Arbitration/Enforcement Report (AER) is prepared to document the outcome of arbitration committee
review and becomes a portion of the ICR.
August 2014 Page 25
HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN MMRP
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Mitigation Monitoring Reports
This page intentional) , lft blank.
Page 26 PlareWorkr
5. Communitv Involvement
Monitoring reports are public documents and are available for review by the general public. Discrepancies in
monitoring reports can be taken to the arbitration committee by the general public.
August 2014 Page 27
HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN MMRP
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Community Involvement
This page intentional) , lft blank.
Page 28 PlareWorkr
6. Report Preparation
6.1 LIST OF PREPARERS
City of Santa Ana
Melanie G. McCann, MCP, Associate Planner
PlaceWorks
Nicole Morse, Esq., Associate Principal
Ryan Potter, Project Planner
August 2014 Page 29
HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN MMRP
CITY OF SANTA ANA
6. Report Preparation
This page intentional) , lft blank.
Page 30 PlareWorkr