Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-26-18_AGENDA PACKETREVISED 11/21/2018 CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA November 26, 2018 5:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California MARK McLOUGHLIN Chair, Citywide Representative CYNTHIA CONTRERAS-LEO Vice Chair, Ward 5 Representative ERIC ALDERETE Ward 1 Representative LYNNETTE VERINO Ward 2 Representative KENNETH NGUYEN Ward 3 Representative ROMAN REYNA Ward 4 Representative BEATRIZ MENDOZA Ward 6 Representative The Planning Commission Agenda can be found online at http://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us/coc/granicus.asp Si tiene preguntas en español, favor de llamar a Narcee Perez al (714) 667-2260. Nếu cần liên lạc bằng tiếng Việt, xin điện thoại cho Tony Lai số (714) 565-2627. If you wish to submit a comment on any item on the Agenda, please submit to eComments@santa-ana.org by 3 p.m. the day of the meeting; emails received after said time will be on file for public viewing the day after the meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this Planning Commission meeting, please contact Michael Ortiz, City ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 647-5624. Please call prior to the meeting date, to allow the City time to make reasonable arrangements for accessibility to this meeting. [Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II, 28 CFR 35.102] Lisa E. Storck Legal Counsel Candida Neal, AICP Planning Manager Sarah Bernal Recording Secretary Minh Thai Executive Director PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 1 November 26, 2018 Basic Planning Commission Meeting Information Five-Year Strategic Plan (2014-2019) Detailed information at: http://www.santa-ana.org/strategic-planning/ Vision, Mission and Guiding Principles - The City of Santa Ana is committed to achieving a shared vision for the organization and its community. The vision, mission and guiding principles (values) are the result of a thoughtful and inclusive process designed to set the City and organization on a course that meets the challenges of today and tomorrow. Vision - The dynamic center of Orange County which is acclaimed for our: •Investment in youth •Safe and healthy community •Neighborhood pride •Thriving economic climate •Enriched and diverse culture •Quality government services Mission – “To deliver efficient public services in partnership with our community which ensures public safety, a prosperous economic environment, opportunities for our youth, and a high quality of life for residents.” Guiding Principles •Collaboration •Efficiency •Equity •Excellence •Fiscal Responsibility •Innovation •Transparency Strategic Plan Goals/Objectives/Strategies: Goal 1 - Community Safety Goal 2 - Youth, Education, Recreation Goal 3 - Economic Development Goal 4 - City Financial Stability Goal 5 - Community Health, Livability, Engagement & Sustainability Goal 6 - Community Facilities & Infrastructure Goal 7 - Team Santa Ana ********* Code of Ethics and Conduct - The people of the City of Santa Ana, at an election held on February 5, 2008, approved an amendment to the City Charter which established the Code of Ethics and Conduct for elected officials and members of appointed boards, commissions, and committees to assure public confidence. A copy of the City’s Code can be found on the Clerk of the Council’s webpage. The following are the core values expressed: Integrity · Honesty · Responsibility · Fairness · Accountability · Respect · Efficiency Agenda Information - The agenda descriptions provide the public with a general summary of the items of business to be considered by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is not limited in any way by the “Recommended Action” and may take any action which the Commission deems to be appropriate on an agenda item. Except as otherwise provided by law, no action shall be taken on any item not listed on the agenda. Public Comments/Public Input - Pursuant to Government Code Sec. 54954.3, the public may address the Planning Commission on any and all matters within the Commission’s jurisdiction. At the discretion of the Chair, at the first Public Comment portion of the meeting, all comments may be considered jointly. The public will be given the opportunity to speak on any and all matters contained on any of the Consent Calendar and Business Calendar items and/or on issues of public interest within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Members of the public shall be given three (3) minutes for each duly noticed hearing (unless the matter is continued prior to taking public testimony). All requests to speak shall be submitted in writing to the Commission Secretary at the beginning of the meeting and before Public Comments begin. Speaker forms will be available at the meeting. REQUESTS TO SPEAK SHALL NOT BE ACCEPTED AFTER THE PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION BEGINS WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE CHAIR. When speaking, all persons addressing the Planning Commission shall follow the rules of decorum as detailed on the back of the speaker form. The presiding officer shall have the power and responsibility to enforce decorum and order of the meeting as set forth in Section 2-104(c) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. Consent Calendar - All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion without discussion unless a member of the Commission “pulls” an item(s) from the consent calendar for a separate vote. Senate Bill 343 - As required by Senate Bill 343, any non-confidential writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning & Building Agency during normal business hours. Agenda & Minutes - Staff reports and documents relating to each agenda item are on file in the office of the Planning & Building Agency and are available for public inspection during regular business hours, 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday and alternate Fridays. The Planning & Building Agency is located in City Hall Ross Annex, 20 Civic Center Plaza, 2nd Floor, Santa Ana, California, (714)667-2700. Council meeting agendas, staff reports, and minutes are available the Friday before a Planning Commission meeting at the following website address: www.santa-ana.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 2 November 26, 2018 CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENTS - At this time the members of the public may address the Planning Commission regarding any non-agenda items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission. No action may be taken on non-agenda items unless authorized by law. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve staff recommendation on the following Consent Calendar Item: A-B. A. MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2018 {STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 5, 1} RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Minutes. B. EXCUSED ABSENCES RECOMMENDED ACTION: Excuse absent commission members. * * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * ** CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine by the Planning Commission. These items will be enacted by one motion without discussion unless otherwise directed by the Chairperson. Persons wishing to speak regarding Consent Calendar matters should file a "Request to Speak" form with the Recording Secretary. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 3 November 26, 2018 RESOLUTIONS 1. PROPOSED STREET VACATIONS OF THIRD AND BREEDEN STREET - KC HEIDLER, APPLICANT {STRATEGIC PLAN NOS. 3, 2; 3, 4} – Taig Higgins, Public Works. Pursuant to the California Environmental Act (CEQA), the project is exempt per General Rule Section 15061 (b) (3). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Determine that the proposed street vacations are in conformance with the General Plan. PUBLIC HEARING 2. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2018-01, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2018-01, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2018-06 AND AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2018-10 FOR THE PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET – AC2525 Main Street, LLC, APPLICANT {STRATEGIC PLAN NOS. 3, 2} – Selena Kelaher, Case Planner. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 (State Clearinghouse No. 2018021031) has been prepared for the project. Legal noticed published in the Orange County Register on November 16, 2018 and notices mailed on November 15, 2018. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Continue the matter until a date to be determined. * * * END OF BUSINESS CALENDAR * * * 3. REVIEW AND DISCUSS PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATED AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET BUSINESS CALENDAR All matters listed under the Business Calendar are generally items requiring discussion and action. Persons wishing to speak regarding Business Calendar matters should file a "Request to Speak" form with the Recording Secretary. WORK STUDY SESSION All matters listed under the Work Study Session are generally items requiring discussion. No action will be taken. Persons wishing to speak regarding Work Study Session matters should file a "Request to Speak" form with the Recording Secretary. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 4 November 26, 2018 COMMENTS 4. STAFF COMMENTS 5. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT –The next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS • Density Bonus Agreement National CORE Housing at 609 N. Spurgeon • Annex a 25-acre area of land at the northeast corner of 17th Street and Tustin Avenue. • Amend various sections of Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) • 2709 W. Westminster Avenue #E_Modification to the existing CUP for alcohol sales. • 3417 W. 5th Street_ construct eight (8) two-story attached townhome units in two buildings. • Housing Opportunity Ordinance Review 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22, 2018 ACTION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA October 22, 2018 CALLED TO ORDER COUNCIL CHAMBER 22 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 5:44 P.M. ATTENDANCE COMMISSIONERS Present: MARK MCLOUGHLIN, Chair BEATRIZ MENDOZA KENNETH NGUYEN LYNETTE VERINO COMMISSIONERS Absent: ERIC ALDERETE CYNTHIA CONTRERAS-LEO, Vice Chair ROMAN REYNA STAFF Present: MINH THAI, Executive Director CANDIDA NEAL, Planning Manager LISA STORCK, Assistant City Attorney SELENA KELAHER, AssociatePlanner SARAH BERNAL, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENTS (on non-agenda items): The following spoke in opposition to the proposed project located at 2525 N. Main Street. •Dale Helvig: Concerned with the information included in the Draft Environmental Impact (DEIR) Report. •Clay Henderson: 10 days to review the Final EIR is insufficient. •Mark Angell: Concerned with information in the DEIR regarding water supply. •Lisa Ganz: Concerned with information included in the DEIR regarding cumulative impacts of all projects in the vicinity. •Art Pedroza: Concerned with increased traffic near school on Main and Edgewood. •Karen Igar: Concerned with information in the DEIR regarding cumulative impacts of all projects in the vicinity. •Diane Fradkin: Concerned with missing information in the DEIR. •Robert DeBach: Urged Commission to listen to the residents. •Jo Lester: 10 days to review the Final EIR is insufficient. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22, 2018 • John Stevens: Concerned with traffic; must consider the shallow water well located on site. • Marisol Gomez: Concerned with traffic safety; nearby neighborhood is historically sensitive. • Bill Bonnett: Project density is incompatible with nearby neighborhood. • Bill Sornstein: More time is needed to address concerns with the DEIR • Michael Bar: 10 days to review the Final EIR is insufficient. • Justin Chapman: DEIR does not include Main Place Mall project. ***END OF PUBLIC COMMENTS*** CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2018 MOTION: Approve Minutes. MOTION: Nguyen SECOND: Verino VOTE: AYES: McLoughlin, Mendoza, Nguyen, Verino (4) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: Alderete, Contreras-Leo, Reyna (3) B. EXCUSED ABSENCES MOTION: Excuse absent commission members: Alderete, Contreras-Leo, Reyna. MOTION: Reyna SECOND: Verino VOTE: AYES: McLoughlin, Mendoza, Nguyen, Verino (4) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: Alderete, Contreras-Leo, Reyna (3) * * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * ** 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22, 2018 BUSINESS CALENDAR ITEMS RESOLUTIONS 1. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2018-02 FOR THE ELAN MIXED-USE PROJECT LOCATED AT 1660 EAST FIRST STREET - WERMERS PROPERTIES, APPLICANT Case Planner Pezeshkpour provided a staff report which included a summary of action taken by the Commission at the meeting held on July 23, 2018. MOTION: Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2018-02 as conditioned for the Elan mixed-use development project. MOTION: Verino SECOND: Mendoza VOTE: AYES: McLoughlin, Mendoza, Nguyen, Verino (4) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: Alderete, Contreras-Leo, Reyna (3) ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS ***Item No. 5 considered out of order*** 5. CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING ON NOVEMBER 5, 2018 TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATED AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET. The following written communications were received and distributed prior to the meeting. • Lisa Ganz: Opposed • Susan Hyatt: Opposed The following spoke in opposition to holding a Special Meeting on November 5, 2018. • Cathy Morehead • Ellen Koldewey • John Fradkin • Patricia Coleman • Stephen Swytak • Bart Barnett • Diane Fradkin • Patty Maize • Bea Tiritill • Peter Katz • Gregory Skinner • Lisa Ganz • Christine Denny-Helvig • Brett Franklin • Lenette Wardinski • Ed Murashie • Dale Helvig • Peggy Steggell • Michael Plantamura • Rob Richardson 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22, 2018 • Bill Bonnett • Jeff Dresser • Adriana De La Rosa • Michelle O’Valle • Karen Igar • Justin Chapman • Gary Hendrix • Stephanie Lopez Commission agreed that a Special Meeting on November 5, 2018 to consider the proposed project is not warranted. PUBLIC HEARING 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2018-04 AND AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2018-07 FOR THE ANNEXATION OF A 25-ACRE COUNTY ISLAND AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SEVENTEENTH STREET AND TUSTIN AVENUE - CITY OF SANTA ANA, APPLICANT {STRATEGIC PLAN NOS.3, 2} – Vince Fregoso, Case Planner. Pursuant to the California Environmental Act (CEQA), the project is exempt per Section 15319 CEQA guidelines. Staff requested the matter be continued to a future date. MOTION: Continue the matter to a future date. MOTION: Verino SECOND: Nguyen VOTE: AYES: McLoughlin, Mendoza, Nguyen, Verino (4) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: Alderete, Contreras-Leo, Reyna (3) 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2018-19, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2018-20 AND VARIANCE NO. 2018-11 TO ALLOW AN EATING ESTABLISHMENT WITH DRIVE- THROUGH SERVICE, AFTER-HOURS OPERATIONS AND A DRIVEWAY WITHIN 150 OF AN INTERSECTION AT 2301 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE – RALPH DEPPISCH, APPLICANT {STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 3, 2} – Selena Kelaher, Case Planner. Pursuant to the California Environmental Act (CEQA), the project is exempt per Section 15303 – Class 3 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures of the CEQA guidelines. Matter continued from the October 8, 2018 by a vote of 5:0 (Mendoza and Nguyen absent). Legal noticed published in the Orange County Reporter on September 28, 2018 and notices mailed on September 28, 2018. Case Planner Kelaher provided a presentation which included a project description, background, site improvements, improvement plan, and additional conditions. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22, 2018 Commission discussion ensued regarding the exit and funding for a protected left-hand turn signal. The applicant spoke in support of the matter. Chair McLoughlin opened the Public Hearing and the following spoke on the matter. •Dale Helvig spoke in support; does not see an issue with traffic. •Ulysses Carmona expressed concern with queuing of cars interfering with the nearby bus stop. MOTION: 1.Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2018-19 as conditioned to allow drive-through window service; 2.Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2018-20 as conditioned to allow for after-hours operations within 150 feet of residentially zoned and used property; and 3.Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2018-11 as conditioned to allow a driveway within 150 feet of a street intersection. MOTION: Verino SECOND: Nguyen VOTE: AYES: McLoughlin, Mendoza, Nguyen, Verino (4) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: Alderete, Contreras-Leo, Reyna (3) 4.ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2018-04 TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 41 OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO R2 AND TOWNHOUSE STANDARDS, SCHOOLS, CITYWIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES, AND FRENCH PARK (SD-19) AND HENINGER PARK (SD-40) – CITY OF SANTA ANA, APPLICANT {STRATEGIC PLAN NOS. 3, 2; 5, 3} – Jerry Guevara, Case Planner. Pursuant to the California Environmental Act (CEQA), the project is exempt per Section 15061(b)(3) CEQA guidelines. Matter continued from the October 8, 2018 meeting by a vote of 5:0 (Mendoza and Nguyen absent). Legal noticed published in the Orange County Register on September 14, 2018 and notices mailed on September 14, 2018. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22, 2018 Chair McLoughlin proposed that the item be continued to allow the sub-committee sufficient time to review the matter. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Continue the matter to a later date. MOTION: McLoughlin SECOND: Mendoza VOTE: AYES: McLoughlin, Mendoza, Nguyen, Verino (4) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: Alderete, Contreras-Leo, Reyna (3) COMMENTS 6.STAFF COMMENTS: Planning Manager Neal •Commission to appoint a third member to the Zoning and General Plan sub-committee at a future date. 7.PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Commissioner Nguyen •Appreciates condolences on the passing of his father. Commissioner Mendoza •Happy Election Day and Happy Veteran’s Day. Commissioner Verino •Happy Election Day and Happy Veteran’s Day. •Meeting should be adjourned in memory of Commissioner Nguyen’s father. Chair McLoughlin •The proposed project located at 2525 N. Main Street should not be considered this year. ADJOURNED IN MEMORY OF GENERAL TRI NGUYEN 7:19 P.M. - The next meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Monday, November 26, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California. Sarah Bernal Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CORRESPONDENCE NOVEMBER 26, 2018 ITEM NO. DATE RECEIVED NAME FAVOR OPPOSITION 2 11/12/2018 MEYER X 2 11/13/2018 HELVIG X 2 11/19/2018 SCHARTZ X 2 11/20/2018 ROBERTS X 2 11/26/2018 IGAR X 2 11/26/2016 WOOD X 2 11/26/2018 GHOTBZABEH X 2 11/26/2018 DRURY X 2 11/26/2018 KEENAN X 2 11/26/2018 IGAR (2) 2 11/26/2018 JOHNSON X Dale Helvig  2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706  714‐541‐7254  helvig_denny@msn.com        Sunshine Meeting Report ‐ Neighborhood Rebuttal‐Table View    Page 1 of 2  2018‐11‐13  Tuesday, November 13, 2018  Minh Thai, Executive Director, Planning   Planning and Building Agency ● M‐20  20 Civic Center Plaza  Santa Ana CA 92702    Subject:  2525 N. Main Residential Development Sunshine Meeting Rebuttal  The applicant, AC 2525 Main LLC, submitted to the city a Sunshine Ordinance Community Meeting  Report.  NSAPA finds the report lacking in facts and it does not represent the meeting that was held  on November 15, 2017.  The rebuttal was written in February 2018, after the applicant finally  submitted their version.  A far cry from the requirement to provide timely and detailed minutes of  the meeting including a written record of the comments provided by the community members.  I  would like to offer my viewpoint on how the meeting was conducted.  In addition, please include this  with the package be given to the Planning Commission.    Prior to responding line‐by‐line I would like to list a few glaring oversites on their part.  1. The meeting was attended by 400‐500 concerned residents.  The applicant, AC 2525 Main  LLC, had sign‐in sheets and should be able to provide an accurate count on attendees.  The shear  number of people attending is indicative of the community concerns regarding this project and it  should be included in the report.  2. The notes do not address a straw poll that was held at the meeting where attendees were asked if  they wanted apartments built at 2525 N. Main St.  The verbal response was overwhelming, 99%  voted nay with only 4‐5 people voting yea.    3. The report makes no reference to the raw negative emotion exhibited by an overwhelming  majority of the residents in attendance.  4. The applicant made a mockery of the Sunshine Ordinance.    5. The applicant did very little preparation and coordination work for the Sunshine meeting.    Dale Helvig  2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706  714‐541‐7254  helvig_denny@msn.com        Sunshine Meeting Report ‐ Neighborhood Rebuttal‐Table View    Page 2 of 2  2018‐11‐13  6. The applicant believed the project would take 1.5 years to entitle.  7. The project is under‐parked.  8. The applicant said the City would gain 30.6 million in taxes, over a 25 years.  Avoids mentioning the  revenue that could be generated by a 200‐300k square foot office building.      Respectfully,  Dale A Helvig  Chairman, North Santa Ana Preservation Association (NSAPA)      cc:  Raul Godinez II  Santa Ana City Manager  Candida Neal,   Planning Manager  Vince Fregoso,   Principle Planner  Selena Kelaher  Associate Planner  Mark McLoughlin  Chairman, Planning Commission  Phil Schaefer,   Vice Chair, Historic Resources Commission  Sarah Bernal  Recording Secretary  Michael O’Valle,   President, Park Santiago Neighborhood Association (PSNA)    Rebuttal to Developers View on Sunshine Meeting  Sunshine Meeting Report ‐ Neighborhood Rebuttal‐Table View  Page 1 of 14 2018‐11‐13 Comments from November 15, 2017 Sunshine Ordinance Meeting Regarding  2525 Main Residential Development A presentation by the Applicant’s team was made to outline the development process and the review that the City of Santa Ana will conduct including the environmental review.  A brief description of the project design was provided as well as discussion of anticipated benefits to the community.  Comments and questions were received from the attendees.  Responses have been provided.  Land Use:   COMMENT  QUESTION REPORTED TO DEVELOPER  DEVELOPER RESPONSE: NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE: 1.  Why buy a property to rezone? The site was identified in 2015 by the City of Santa Ana as a likely rezone site and the City placed it on its Envision Map, designating it as residential with unlimited height and unlimited density. In addition, the site should be residential because the proposed residential use next to single family residential is a prototypical manner in which cities are planned. Typically, it is much more common for home owners to resist commercial uses next to their homes, not a residential use. In fact, the State of California is now focusing on requiring EIRs to study the impacts of commercial uses adjacent to homes. I personally don’t recall any mention being made about the Envision map designating the site as residential with unlimited height and unlimited density.  On the Envision map it clearly states:  “Note: This map represents a conceptual effort and its contents are in a draft format and do not represent any formal efforts to rezone or re‐designate properties shown. Dated November 16, 2015”  We are against any rezoning, whether that is “typical” or not.  We have coexisted with the 2525 office building very nicely since its construction, and before it, with the site’s previous tenants.  In any case, current zoning limits the height of the building to 3 floors and setback to 50 feet. 2.  Build an office project. Office would create significantly more traffic than the existing use, for instance, a 5‐story office building would generate approximately 10,000 daily trips compared to approximately 2,812 daily trips for the proposed use (if the existing building were occupied it would create 2,938 daily trips). Additionally, office vacancy in this sub‐market is approximately 20%, whereas multi‐family vacancy is less than 3%. Clearly the need for housing in Santa Ana is one of the most extreme. It is well known that Santa Ana is one of the most overcrowded/dense cities in terms of people to housing ratios (for every 1 housing unit, there are 4.5 people; whereas Irvine is 1 to 2.6 and Newport Beach is 1 to 2.2). The existing housing ratio in Santa Ana is detrimental, by creating a shortfall of housing results in over‐crowding and unaffordable housing options. The reference to a 5‐story office complex is not relevant.  The property is zoned P (PROFESSIONAL), which limits the building to 3‐stories.  The applicant makes the point that Santa Ana is one of the most overcrowded/dense cities in terms of people to housing ratios.  This is our point as well, Santa Ana does not need more housing, it needs more jobs and places for high quality jobs.  Where do these stats come from?  I see no quoted reports.  Rebuttal to Developers View on Sunshine Meeting  Sunshine Meeting Report ‐ Neighborhood Rebuttal‐Table View  Page 2 of 14 2018‐11‐13 Land Use:   COMMENT  QUESTION REPORTED TO DEVELOPER  DEVELOPER RESPONSE: NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE: 3.  Putting Single family units on site will solve crime issue.  We are in the process of researching and studying the effects that a larger amount of people will have on crime in the area. We will share the data with the community once it is completed.  Crime.  Since January 1, 2017 only one police call was made on the 2525 N. Main St. property, and that was for a traffic accident.  If crime/vandalism of their building started after they purchased the property, then either it hasn’t been reported or it did not exist.  Either way it is poor oversite.  In either and then neglected it. Added November 13, 2018:  One year later and still no data. 4.  No apartments. We are hopeful that the quality of the community will change these opinions and the neighbors will take the time to learn and better understand about the community and City benefits.  We don’t understand what they mean by “the quality of the community will change these opinions…”.  The project does not fit with the existing community.  The residents bought property based upon the existing quality of community and its surrounding areas.  The developer is suggesting change which can only be detrimental to that quality by increasing existing housing density and population transiency of the immediate area.  Rezoning to unlimited height and unlimited density does nothing to improve community and city benefits.5.  No re‐zoning. We are hopeful that the quality of the community will change these opinions and the neighbors will take the time to learn and better understand about the community and City benefits Applicant is providing a duplicate response that adds no real value.  Our simple answer is the property is zoned professional so we will respond with simple answer that this property is zoned P (PROFESSIONAL), and it should stay that way.  The fact the applicant paid an outrageous price based on an Envision map is not our concern.  There are many examples of repurposing property without having to destroy it.  Look at the southwest section of the Orange Circle. On the Envision map it clearly states: “Note: This map represents a conceptual effort and its contents are in a draft format and do not represent any formal efforts to rezone or redesignate properties shown. Dated November 16, 2015”6.  Need to disclose previous mortuary use on site to people.  As a part of the environmental impact report, it will investigate all former uses and of course the report will be made public I take this as a commitment to perform a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 7.  Would you rezone a property next to your neighborhood? We believe in urban areas the future of housing is denser than in years past. The data is overwhelming that developing multi‐family in close proximity to job centers will reduce traffic, reduce environmental issues, and is less taxing on the infrastructure. Response does not address the question. We believe that people will migrate to areas that have affordable housing, no matter where the location.  Don’t destroy the quality of life for single family home owners.  We need high paying job locations.  Rebuttal to Developers View on Sunshine Meeting  Sunshine Meeting Report ‐ Neighborhood Rebuttal‐Table View  Page 3 of 14 2018‐11‐13 Land Use:   COMMENT  QUESTION REPORTED TO DEVELOPER  DEVELOPER RESPONSE: NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE: 8.  On this site you can put 40 single family/for sale homes and they will sell. The cost of urban infill sites such as this one (17mm) make it cost prohibitive to develop single family. In addition, this is a major thoroughfare with a mixture of uses and significant freeway noise, all making for the site to be incompatible for single family residences. So what is 17mm?  The applicant admits it is a major thoroughfare with a mixture of uses and significant freeway noise.  So why expose even more people to these issues?  So…all the houses on Bush and any other street bordering 17th/5 fwy are now incompatible for single family residences?  The increase in property values for those properties (we need proof) refutes that claim.  We want no rezoning.  It is incompatible for any housing.  We agree with the developer with one addition…the major thoroughfare with a mixture of uses and significant freeway noise make this site incompatible for any residences…which is why it must remain zoned as it currently is for a maximum 3 story office building. 9.  Oppose apartments of any kind. It is our understanding the neighbor’s impression of an apartment project is not consistent with what we intend to develop. In the upcoming weeks, we will launch a website detailing the quality of construction and vast amenities. The project will resemble a fine resort, not some of the underwhelming projects from years ago. Keep in mind, the folks that will occupy this community will make a minimum income of $58,000 per year, with an average income of $85,000 a year. We don’t buy it and would like to see how these numbers were derived.  Based on current rents projections and assuming 30% of one’s income should be towards rent the minimum income for a studio apartment ($2000) would be $80,000. and a 3 bedroom ($3800) would be $152,000.  Where are these jobs and do you really believe people not going to use cars? The average income of the overcrowded areas will not change and the density of this property will only drastically increase. 10.  Our neighborhood is a jewel, don’t want your project it will damage our neighborhood. It is our intention to leave the community better than we found it. We intend to post on our website all of the benefits the project will bring to the City and the Community.   Can’t wait to see this! 11.  Rezone would take away our quality of life, some business use ok. Again, we are hopeful that the quality of the community will change these opinions and the neighbors will take the time to learn and better understand about the community and City benefits. Third time answer has been provided.  Rebuttal to Developers View on Sunshine Meeting  Sunshine Meeting Report ‐ Neighborhood Rebuttal‐Table View  Page 4 of 14 2018‐11‐13 Land Use:   COMMENT  QUESTION REPORTED TO DEVELOPER  DEVELOPER RESPONSE: NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE: 12.  If the rezoning is going to happen, why are we even talking? The City of Santa Ana has a process for review of the application that includes an environmental review before Planning Commission and City Council hearings. The developer would not have acquired this site had City staff not identified it as an unlimited density and unlimited height residential site over 3 years ago. Nevertheless, the site is not re‐zoned, City staff, Planning Commission and City Council will take into account both the needs of the City and the existing community in coming to a determination if the site is ultimately rezoned. Please be mindful that Main Street and its businesses, which include the hospitals, retail and services, are supportive of more quality housing stock to its workforce. In addition, the project application will be following the process of City review including the CEQA environmental process before any decisions are made. Third time for this response as well.  Our answer remains this property is zoned P (PROFESSIONAL), and it should stay that way.  The fact the applicant paid an outrageous price based on an Envision map identified it as an unlimited density and unlimited height residential site over 3 years ago is not our concern.  On the Envision map it clearly states:  “Note: This map represents a conceptual effort and its contents are in a draft format and do not represent any formal efforts to rezone or redesignate properties shown. Dated November 16, 2015” 13.  So it is a foregone conclusion that the re zone will happen? The City of Santa Ana has a process for review of the application that includes an environmental review before Planning Commission and City Council hearings. The developer would not have acquired this site had City staff not identified it as an unlimited density and unlimited height residential site over 3 years ago. Nevertheless, the site is not re‐zoned, City staff, Planning Commission and City Council will take into account both the needs of the City and the existing community in coming to a determination if the site is ultimately rezoned. Please be mindful that Main Street and its businesses, which include the hospitals, retail and services, are supportive of more quality housing stock to its workforce.  In addition, the project application will be following the process of City review including the CEQA environmental process before any decisions are made. Fourth time with this response as well. 14.  Why bring apartments to this neighborhood? Office vacancy in this sub‐market is approximately 20%, whereas multifamily vacancy is less than 3%. Clearly the need for housing in Santa Ana is extreme. . It is well known that Santa Ana is one of the most overcrowded/dense cities in terms of people to housing ratios (for every 1 housing unit, there are 4.5 people; whereas Irvine is 1 to 2.6 and Newport Beach is 1 to 2.2). The existing housing ratio in Santa Ana is detrimental, by creating a shortfall of housing results in over‐crowding and unaffordable housing options. Duplicate answer.  Rebuttal to Developers View on Sunshine Meeting  Sunshine Meeting Report ‐ Neighborhood Rebuttal‐Table View  Page 5 of 14 2018‐11‐13 Land Use:   COMMENT  QUESTION REPORTED TO DEVELOPER  DEVELOPER RESPONSE: NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE: 15.  We need apartments but not on this site. There are a lot of apartments planned for adjacent areas We find the location of this site, adjacent to both public transportation and major thoroughfares (the 5 Freeway and the 22 Freeway) make it ideal for multi‐family housing, not to mention the adjacent retailers and employers are in desperate need for high income households in the submarket, along with knowledgeable workers (those workers with specific skill sets). Please keep in mind that the culture has changed in that professionals today are renting in far greater numbers than the previous generation. In addition, we would sell these units as condominiums, once the market allows us to do so, however, post‐recession lenders still have not loosened their requirements making it difficult for many to qualify for mortgage financing. Whether they are apartments or condominiums, it doesn’t make a difference.  The concept of condominiums was not even discussed at this meeting so why is it mentioned here? 16.  Not appropriate for our neighborhood. We find the location of this site, adjacent to both public transportation and major thoroughfares (the 5 Freeway and the 22 Freeway) make it ideal for multi‐family housing, not to mention the adjacent retailers and employers are in desperate need for high income households in the submarket, along with knowledgeable workers (those workers with specific skill sets). Please keep in mind that the culture has changed in that professionals today are renting in far greater numbers than the previous generation. In addition, we would sell these units as condominiums, once the market allows us to do so, however, post‐recession lenders still have not loosened their requirements making it difficult for many to qualify for mortgage financing. Duplicate answer.  Rebuttal to Developers View on Sunshine Meeting  Sunshine Meeting Report ‐ Neighborhood Rebuttal‐Table View  Page 6 of 14 2018‐11‐13 Land Use:   COMMENT  QUESTION REPORTED TO DEVELOPER  DEVELOPER RESPONSE: NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE: 17.  Is there any research about how it works to have apartments adjacent to older neighborhoods? The site is situated on a main thoroughfare with all different types of uses, situating a multi‐family community next to services will reduce the use of cars and support the other adjacent retailers. We are studying potential means to mitigate cut‐through traffic into Santiago Park either through reconfiguration of the existing egress, or a gate. In general, most cities are planned with multi‐family housing next to single family housing with commercial next to the multi‐family. The site makes much more sense as a multi‐family residential use.  Typically residents are unhappy when commercial uses are next to their homes, not residential uses. That is why this site was identified three years ago by staff to be rezoned for residential. In addition, the park is having vagrant issues and this problem will be somewhat mitigated with professionals living at this location, because it will create a deterrent via a nighttime presence. “will reduce the use of cars” GIVE US A BREAK!  We know cut through traffic will increase.  I interpret the statement of “most cities are planned with multi‐family housing next to single family housing with commercial next to the multi‐family” two ways: 1) a city will implement this if they are designing an ideal situation and it is known ahead of time.  It does not state if cities are in the practice of rezoning at the expense of single family homes and 2) it discusses the idea of zoning buffers, a concept that the Planning Commission is trying to rectify.  Having an unlimited density and unlimited height residential site next to a residential site defies this concern. 18.  Our community opposed apartments being built in our vicinity in the 1960’s and they did not get built. The vision and the needs of the City have changed. The City now is greatly in need of housing stock in order to prevent overcrowding and to provide affordable housing options. Again, the previous generations were able to navigate their families into home ownership, but the environment has changed and the barriers to acquire a home are significant and real. Overcrowding occurs when an entity continues to provide high density living spaces, period. 19.  What is the Sunshine Ordinance?  A City Ordinance that requires a community meeting to be held by the applicant after the application is filed to educate about the proposed project and obtain input. The community input that was provided was inadequately recorded by applicant.  The applicant has made a mockery of the Sunshine Ordinance. 20.  Why doesn’t developer put money in a property in a broken neighborhood in Santa Ana? The developer has been active in Orange County and has developed in all types of neighborhoods. The existing office building was developed as a boiler room/call center for Wells Fargo; it is now obsolete because this type of use has been farmed out to other countries. The site will be developed, and again, this type of use will provide for needs of the retailers, of the adjacent employers, produce significant revenue for the City, and is situated on a public transit corridor, ideal for reducing the use of automobiles. The building is not obsolete.  The developer has no vision.  We live in homes that were built as early as 1889.  Rebuttal to Developers View on Sunshine Meeting  Sunshine Meeting Report ‐ Neighborhood Rebuttal‐Table View  Page 7 of 14 2018‐11‐13 Land Use:   COMMENT  QUESTION REPORTED TO DEVELOPER  DEVELOPER RESPONSE: NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE: 21.  This neighborhood has been here for 100 years We know this is a fantastic neighborhood and it is our objective to leave the neighborhood better than we found it. Again, the site is not in Park Santiago, it is on a main thoroughfare, and its position is ideal to work in harmony with the adjacent retail, restaurants, office and main transit corridors. Keep in mind that for decades, this site has been a different use than the single family homes located in Park Santiago and it is our understanding that the issues were minimal. The issues have been minimal.  The applicant’s proposal is a major change.  The project site is located within Park Santiago, just look at all the city maps.  It may be located on a major thoroughfare, but it is not near any mass transit stations. 22.  No rezoning, no GPA, no apartments Please refer to responses to comments 4 and 5 Even they got tired of repeating themselves. 23.  Don’t want to be packed in like sardines. The density of this project is consistent with hundreds of other Southern California projects, including those found in Santa Ana, Irvine, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Anaheim and Huntington Beach. The projects have added tremendous value to both the cities and the communities they are situated in by providing quality housing, bringing quality folks to the neighborhood, and supporting local businesses. The proposed project will provide more than 10x the revenue compared to the existing structure, thereby helping to reduce any fiscal challenges the City currently faces. The City is in need of a variety of new services and better services and this can only be achieved through expansion of its tax base.  The rubber meets the road. The promise in the sky of increased revenues at the expense of existing homeowners.  It does not evaluate income from repurposing the land and in fact was not even discussed outside of flashing a slide. 24.  Concerned about privacy, people would be able to see into backyards of adjacent houses. We have purposely oriented the unit windows toward the park, toward the courtyards and away from any of the adjacent neighbor homes. We currently are studying sight lines and in the event it is determined that this is an issue, the developer will either revise the design, pay for fencing and/or landscaping to screen the backyards. It is our understanding that the adjacent 9‐story office building (which is far higher) has not created privacy issues for the adjacent homes. It is also our intention to bury existing power lines, thereby beautifying the adjacent neighborhood.  Could be the privacy issues from the 9‐story office building was addressed by the 100‐year old eucalyptus trees. And the 9‐story office building is up the street and not even adjacent to 2525 N. Main St.  Again, not discussed at Sunshine meeting.  25.  This project would ruin our quality of life. Please refer to responses to comments 21, 23 and 24. No comment.     Rebuttal to Developers View on Sunshine Meeting  Sunshine Meeting Report ‐ Neighborhood Rebuttal‐Table View  Page 8 of 14 2018‐11‐13 Traffic and Parking:   COMMENT   QUESTION REPORTED TO DEVELOPER  DEVELOPER RESPONSE: NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE: 1.  Where are the 900 cars? There will be a parking structure that the buildings are wrapped around. The center of the site will contain a 7‐level parking structure; the residences will be constructed around the garage, allowing residents to park on the same level as their home. This type of development is both ideal for the residents and screens and screens the parking structure from surrounding area views. Proposal was for an 8‐story parking structure.  Are they already reducing the onsite parking? 2.  Streets aren’t wide enough to accommodate apartments. We will work with our traffic engineers, architects and City staff to make the egress away from Park Santiago community and towards Main Street. You can’t fit a round peg into a square hole.  This will be interesting.   3.  Cowan Heights residents cut through our streets already. We believe you have a wonderful community and we will look into any means to mitigate this and any existing nuisance. It occurs now, what will be different except the increased volume? 4.  Nearby Apartments are not full and traffic is already miserable.  Santa Ana is among the worst cities in terms of housing shortages in the nation, in fact, Santa Ana’s housing share of the housing stock in 2000 was 34% of the housing in the vicinity (including Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Irvine, Tustin); however, by 2015 Santa Ana’s share was down to 27%. As noted above, Santa Ana vacancy rate is less than 3%, it is virtually impossible to have a lower vacancy rate; it is clearly indicative of a housing under‐supply. There have been countless studies and articles over the last 3.5 years documenting Orange County’s housing shortage, resulting in folks paying far too much for housing, increasing traffic, increasing pollution, and destroying the quality of life (because people end up spending hours a day in their cars commuting).  If Orange County’s housing shortage is not solved, it will drive out workers and drag down the region’s robust economy. Without more places for workers to live, more 20 and 30‐somethings will leave and business will struggle to recruit high quality employees.  Does not even address the traffic issue.  The applicant makes the point that Santa Ana is one of the most overcrowded/dense cities in terms of people to housing ratios.  This is our point as well, Santa Ana does not need more housing, it needs more jobs and places for high quality jobs 5.  Need to account for all the future apartments in Santa Ana and Orange in area in traffic analysis. The traffic study area is extensive and will address the appropriate area as determined by City staff and will analyze up to 2040 traffic. We don’t need a study.  Just sit on the corner of Main And Edgewood any weekday morning or evening and you can see the serious problems that currently exist. 6.  Need to assume 2 persons per apartment, this is Santa Ana, there won’t be 1 person in an apartment. We have taken into account data from apartment communities in determining the quantity of parking that is necessary to operate an organized and quality community. Data does not equate to reality.  Even millennials need cars.    Rebuttal to Developers View on Sunshine Meeting  Sunshine Meeting Report ‐ Neighborhood Rebuttal‐Table View  Page 9 of 14 2018‐11‐13 Traffic and Parking:   COMMENT   QUESTION REPORTED TO DEVELOPER  DEVELOPER RESPONSE: NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE: 7.  There is a huge problem with cars running through Park Santiago now. We will work with our traffic engineers, architects and City staff to make the egress away from Park Santiago community and towards Main Street. The only difference we see is it will increase the volume of cut‐through traffic. 8.  You think there will be a benefit of reduced traffic with apartments instead of commercial?  Office would create significantly more traffic than the existing use, for instance a 5‐story buildings would generate approximately 10,000 daily trips compared to the approximately 2,812 daily trips for the proposed residential use (if the existing building were fully occupied it would create approximately 2,938 daily trips). Same response as LAND USE #2: The reference to a 5‐story office complex is not relevant.  The property is zoned P (PROFESSIONAL), which limits the building to 3‐stories.  The applicant makes the point that Santa Ana is one of the most overcrowded/dense cities in terms of people to housing ratios.  This is our point as well, Santa Ana does not need more housing, it needs more jobs and places for high quality jobs.   9.  What is a trip? The movement of one car in or out. No comment 10.  How many trips anticipated for project? You have to assume 90% of people will leave in the morning and come home at same time in evening.  Based on the traffic engineer’s study, the proposed project would generate 2,812 trips per day, whereas the existing building if fully used would generate 2,938 trips per day. I don’t believe it. 11.  How many parking stalls are currently on site?  There are 441 stalls on site. Count again.  12.  The number of parking spaces on site don’t correlate to traffic. Business uses highlight cars coming in and out all day, in addition, they have visitors and services that create trips throughout the day. Employees also contribute to the trip count with multiple daily trips. It is also only on given days, not 24/7. 13.  Look at current traffic now. Please keep in mind that the proposed project will result in less daily trips than the current structure would if fully leased and operational. We respectfully disagree. 14.  People park on our streets on Spurgeon now, it will get worse. We are providing ample parking, it will exceed the parking needs of the project. In fact, we would be open to discussion of providing guest parking for the Park Santiago community. Guest parking, handicap parking should be considered for any multi‐family living project.  We can’t believe the applicant would mention guest parking for the community when they talk about 1.52 spots per unit (1.52 is a made‐up number) for the Park Santiago community.  Rebuttal to Developers View on Sunshine Meeting  Sunshine Meeting Report ‐ Neighborhood Rebuttal‐Table View  Page 10 of 14 2018‐11‐13 Traffic and Parking:   COMMENT   QUESTION REPORTED TO DEVELOPER  DEVELOPER RESPONSE: NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE: 15.  Where will Discovery Science Center park? the Discovery Science Center has plans for a new garage on their rocket lot. Discovery Science Center fully supports our project. Has Discovery Science Center publicly made this endorsement? Can someone look into this? 16.  Take into consideration, Park Santiago only has three access points, traffic at Edgewood and Main is already impacted. Our main egress will be off of Main Street. Residents leaving the project on Edgewood can only turn right out to Main. In addition, we are open to exploring other means to help any existing issues with cut‐thrus. Exactly.  Edgewood would be choked off. 17.  More traffic will result in more accidents. As stated previously, the current use produces more daily trips than the proposed use. Does nothing to address the accidents at the intersection that currently exists without the building being occupied. 18.  There should be no entrance to the project on Edgewood, keep project traffic on Main. Our main egress will be off of Main Street. Residents leaving the project on Edgewood can only turn right out to Main. In addition, we are open to exploring other means to help any existing issues with cut‐thrus. Edgewood egress/ingress is unacceptable.   19.  Parking on neighborhood streets is already a problem. 2525 N. Main is not in Park Santiago. Residents will be provided with ample parking on site. The logistics of parking blocks away from their homes makes little sense. Again, the community will be over‐parked, not under‐parked. Unless it is a minimum of 2 spaces per unit it is not enough.  Does not even address guest/handicap parking/electric vehicle stations. 20.  Can we see the traffic study? The City will review the traffic analysis and it will be a part of the environmental document, which will be an EIR, which the community will be able to review and comment on as a part of the City review process Looking forward to reviewing the full EIR.    Rebuttal to Developers View on Sunshine Meeting  Sunshine Meeting Report ‐ Neighborhood Rebuttal‐Table View  Page 11 of 14 2018‐11‐13 Affordable Housing:   COMMENT   QUESTION REPORTED TO DEVELOPER  DEVELOPER RESPONSE: NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE: 1.  What is a market rate unit? It is housing that is either sold or leased at the price the market bears. No comment 2.  Would you save money including inclusionary housing? No. No comment 3.  Will there be inclusionary housing, the application says there will be low and very low units included? When the application was submitted on site inclusionary was considered, but the project will propose to pay in‐lieu fees and not include on site. Application has inclusionary housing.  Proposing to pay in‐lieu fees does not sound legally binding. 4.  Have you made any promises to groups about affordable housing? No, in our business we meet with affordable housing developers to see what projects are planned, This project will require payment of a fee in excess of $6,500,00 in order to subsidize much needed affordable housing throughout the City. Again, this does not seem legally binding. 5.  No affordable units on site It is not our current plan to provide any affordable units on site. Not the current plan, but it could be in future plans according to filing..   Rebuttal to Developers View on Sunshine Meeting  Sunshine Meeting Report ‐ Neighborhood Rebuttal‐Table View  Page 12 of 14 2018‐11‐13 Crime:   COMMENT   QUESTION REPORTED TO DEVELOPER  DEVELOPER RESPONSE: NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE: 1.  Is there security on site? Currently there are workers on site during the day, after dusk and until dawn we have on site security. No comment 2.  Is the property as is bringing crime to the neighborhood? Yes, we have had significant vandalism and theft of copper pipes, copper wire and fixtures. The damage is in excess of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Currently there are dozens of vagrants camping/living in the riverbed and under the overpass from Main Street. If the applicant currently has workers on site during the day, and site security after dusk and until dawn, why the significant vandalism and theft of copper pipes, copper wire and fixtures?  Did they wait until they had a problem to address it?  It seems so.  Not the pro‐active group that I would want to do business with. 3.  Increasing the population won’t decrease crime. Crime is simply a reality of a urban location. We believe putting residents at this location will result in a nighttime presence, especially in the park, thereby deterring crime. In addition, we will have 24 hour security that will patrol the park and Park Santiago (if the community would like this benefit provided). Crime was not a problem until the applicant took control of the property.  Enough said. 4.  1.2 million a year to the General Fund will provide 3 police officers that is nothing. This amount of revenue will provide significantly more than 3 officers. Importantly, the City, like most City’s needs to find more sources of revenue to provide much needed services. The proposed project, unlike others, is a budget surplus for the City, it is a wonderful opportunity to bring much needed professional housing to the City and additional revenue. Money, money, MONEY! 5.  Putting single family on the site will solve the crime issue. We believe the more people the greater, in deterring crime in the area. Responsible landlords will help deter crime. 6.  We have one of the first neighborhood watch groups, why haven’t you come to talk to us? We have reached out to the community group and to date they were not available to meet. Neighborhood watch is different than neighborhood association. 7.  It is insulting that you talk about crime in our neighborhood. We are hopeful that crime will be mitigated in the future. Hope, without hope all is lost.  Being a responsible landlord will help deter crime. 8.  Was there vandalism when the building was used as a call center? We do not have a crime report for the area, we have made a request for any such reports. No comment.  Added November 13, 2018:  One year later and still no data.   Rebuttal to Developers View on Sunshine Meeting  Sunshine Meeting Report ‐ Neighborhood Rebuttal‐Table View  Page 13 of 14 2018‐11‐13 Environmental:   COMMENT   QUESTION REPORTED TO DEVELOPER  DEVELOPER RESPONSE: NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE: 1.  How many persons will the project bring? Approximately 850 people. What control can you possible but in place to stop multiple families from living in one unit? 2.  We have a drought where will water come from? Currently we are not in a drought, but we are aware historically there has been an issue. We have verified that there is more than enough water for this and many other projects. In addition, this question will be addressed in the environmental review. At some point in time, after every single‐family home is converted into a multi‐family residence we will be without water.  Sarcastic, yes.  The point is there is a breaking point and no one knows what it is. 3.  Look at all surrounding projects, will they be considered? Existing and proposed development will be addressed in the environmental review. EIR! 4.  What is the impact on current water supply? This will be addressed in the environmental review. EIR!  Other:   COMMENT   QUESTION REPORTED TO DEVELOPER  DEVELOPER RESPONSE: NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE: 1.  Are you on the Next Door site? No. No comment. 2.  Have you made any contributions to City Council persons, have you been promised anything? The project entity has not and nothing has been promised. No comment 3.  Don’t care if project brings money for Santa Ana, we shop in Orange. We hope and suspect it is not the sentiment of the majority of the homeowners in Park Santiago. We want to make the community better than we found it and we are confident we will do that. Keep in mind that current Park Santiago residents will have access to all the onsite amenities, that includes pools, spas, full size gym, rock climbing wall, lounge, roof top pool and much more. I think it is the sentiment of homeowners in Park Santiago.  Access to grocery stores, Home Depot, auto repairs is far easier traffic wise than heading south.  Rebuttal to Developers View on Sunshine Meeting  Sunshine Meeting Report ‐ Neighborhood Rebuttal‐Table View  Page 14 of 14 2018‐11‐13 Other:   COMMENT   QUESTION REPORTED TO DEVELOPER  DEVELOPER RESPONSE: NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE: 4.  How many developments has Vineyard been involved in that required zone changes, were they successful? Did they back up to residential neighborhoods? The ownership group has been involved in dozens of like projects, and many of these involved successfully rezoning. Many were adjacent to single family homes and in our experience, this type of zoning is most compatible with single family homes (not an office building). Most cities are planned with single family next to multi‐family, then retail and commercial uses (typically there is a mixed‐sue area with multi‐family and commercial). This is why more than 3 years ago the City targeted this site for multi‐family housing and this use would be most beneficial to the City. A recent project was approved at Dyer and Red Hill in an industrial area. “Many were adjacent to single family homes and in our experience, this type of zoning is most compatible with single family homes (not an office building).”  It is not compatible, and it does not agree with the City of Santa Ana General Plan.  It’s all a smoke screen. 5.  Is the powerpoint available to the Park Santiago HOA? We will shortly launch a website with all the information that we attempted to present at the Sunshine meeting. Can’t wait! 6.  Why didn’t you meet with us before you submitted the application? We tried to meet but the meeting agenda had already been set, we are trying to set a meeting soon. When? 7.  Will you meet with the HOA? Yes. When? 8.  We don’t need this project for Santiago Park to be restored, we have paid taxes and City owes us the park restoration. It is our understanding the City does not have funding and certainly has not committed funds to rehab the park. The project will pay significant taxes that go directly to the City’s general fund. Councilmember Solorio provided the community the status of the “GAS HOUSE AREA DEVELOPMENT AT SANTIAGO PARK” at his meeting in August.   From:Mitre-Ramirez, Norma To:Bernal, Sarah Subject:FW: 2525 Main Street Proposal Date:Monday, November 19, 2018 7:58:56 AM -----Original Message----- From: Andrea Schartz <avschartz@roadrunner.com> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 11:44 AM To: eComment <eComment@santa-ana.org> Subject: 2525 Main Street Proposal Dear Chairman McLoughlin and Planning Commission Members, I would like to address my concerns with the process of reviewing the EIR for the 2525 Main Street proposal. First, I am a resident of the Park Santiago neighborhood, and support the many comments made by my fellow residents at the October 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting. Following review of the video of the October 22, 2018 Planning Commission meeting I have two chief concerns: the first, it appears that the office of Planning and Building is purposely trying to speed the process up without regard to the time needed to address issues in the 2525 Main EIR and in direct opposition to the will of the citizens most effected by this plan, and against the expressed advice of the Chair, Mr. McLoughlin. Second, it would seem that Mr. Minh Thai is purposefully miscommunicating and/or waiting until the last minute when time for discussion has ended, to insert his will with regards to the proposal so that the board and public cannot properly address an issue. My hope is that the Planning Commission will consider extending the time for consideration of the 2525 Main EIR so that our newly elected city council members will be able to address issues that they will be held to account for in the future. I thank you for you service to our city and appreciate your time and consideration. Respectfully, Andrea Schartz 809 E. 21st Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 From:Mitre-Ramirez, Norma To:Bernal, Sarah; Magalona, Jocelyn; Gutierrez, Fatima Cc:Huizar, Maria; Orozco, Norma; Rojano, Michael; Garcia, Stephanie Subject:FW: 2525 Main Street Project Date:Tuesday, November 20, 2018 1:40:31 PM Good Afternoon, The following communication pertaining to an item on tonight’s Planning Commission meeting, has been received for your review and consideration. Kind Regards, Norma Mitre Assistant Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana | Clerk of the Council Office 20 Civic Center Plaza | Santa Ana, CA 92701 714-647-5237 | nmitre@santa-ana.org This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. From: Roberts, Dana <Dana.Roberts@camoves.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 12:57 PM To: eComment <eComment@santa-ana.org> Subject: 2525 Main Street Project Hello, The proposed apartment complex is going to ruin what we all love about North Santa Ana, the historic neighborhoods. There are too many apartments in close proximity as it is. Putting up this type of development next to a historic neighborhood is like putting a strip joint next to an elementary school. Listen to the people of the city, the law abiding tax paying citizens and not your greedy wallets. Sincerely, Dana Roberts Realtor BRE# 01777972 949.433.6694 Dana.Roberts@camoves.com Please excuse any typos. Sent from my iPhone. *Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. From:Karyn Igar To:eComment Subject:Planning Commission Date:Sunday, November 25, 2018 10:02:08 PM Dear Planning Commissioners- thank you for changing the 2525 N. Main Street development EIR to a work-study item rather than an action item in the November 26, 2018 agenda. The minimum 10 days to review the proposed Final EIR from release to the meeting date was a ridiculous expectation of you and for the affected residents, especially over the Thanksgiving holiday. During the work-study session, I sincerely hope you discuss the proposed project density of 84 dwelling units per acre adjacent to Park Santiago, a single-family residential neighborhood of 7 dwelling units per acre with unique homes built before the tract-house era started. Park Santiago is a real gem of a neighborhood with many homes on the historic register. It makes no sense to have an adjacent development that is 12 times as dense, with five-story housing buildings and a nine-story parking structure. There is no precedent anywhere else in Santa Ana to build such a dense housing project adjacent to a single-family residential neighborhood. Please ask staff to provide density comparisons for new multifamily housing adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods with historic homes, and set a reasonable limit for density that will preserve the character of Santa Ana's older, unique neighborhoods. In addition to the density issue, the Final EIR still seems to include "Option C" which is access to the 2525 N. Main parking garage from Edgewood, the north entrance to the Park Santiago neighborhood. If OPtion C access from Edgewood is allowed, this would certainly increase through traffic is the neighborhood and threaten the safety of the residents. The City has already had to close Santiago Boulevard at the park to prevent through-traffic, and add speed bumps in Santiago to keep existing traffic at reasonable residential speeds. This is a real issue that the City and the residents of Park Santiago are already experiencing, even before hundreds of apartments are constructed. Safety, previous traffic mitigations, and common sense call for deleting Option C from the Final EIR. Thank you for your consideration, Karyn Igar Resident of Santa Ana and Park Santiago From:Lewis Wood To:eComment Cc:Kelaher, Selena Subject:Planning Commission Date:Sunday, November 25, 2018 7:06:12 PM RE: Final EIR for 2525 North Main Street, Multi-family Residential Project (State Clearinghouse Number 2018021031) To the Planning Commission We encourage an approval of this development. For many years now Main Street from Main Place to MacArthur Blvd. in Santa Ana has been in need of enrichment that would support businesses and add needed density to the street. Main Street should be a show-case street for the City with vibrant businesses and restaurants and entertainment. The kind of activities that bring new life to a city. This development is good for all of Santa Ana residents and buisnesses. It will bring needed housing and support the businesses in the area and encourage new businesses and employment growth. Santa Ana should continue this kind of growth to stay abreast with our neighboring cities. We have seen this kind of development enrich our neighboring cities such as Irvine and Anaheim. Santa Ana has been behind our neighbors at enriching a main corridor such as Main Street. We want to be proud of our City’s growth and whole-heartily recommend this development. Sincerely Lewis and Jeanette Wood Park Santiago Neighborhood 2522 N Poinsettia Street Santa Ana 92706 From:Mitre-Ramirez, Norma To:Bernal, Sarah; Magalona, Jocelyn; Gutierrez, Fatima Cc:Huizar, Maria; Orozco, Norma; Rojano, Michael; Garcia, Stephanie Subject:FW: 2525 North Main Street Public Hearing Date:Wednesday, November 21, 2018 4:41:18 PM Importance:High The following communication pertaining to an item on Monday’s Planning Commission meeting, has been received for your review and consideration. Kind Regards, Norma Mitre Assistant Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana | Clerk of the Council Office 20 Civic Center Plaza | Santa Ana, CA 92701 714-647-5237 | nmitre@santa-ana.org This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. From: Ali Zadeh <ali@expertwindowcoverings.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 3:26 PM To: eComment <eComment@santa-ana.org> Subject: 2525 North Main Street Public Hearing Importance: High Dear Planning Commission: Opposition to proposed density and parking ratios for the apartment project at 2525 North Main Street (Public Hearing No. 2) As a business owner and homeowner in Santa Ana, we urge you to require a higher parking ratio and a lower density for the proposed housing development. Our communities are highly impacted by parking shortage and with the City’s recommendation to increase the number of two and three bedroom apartments, a higher parking demand is inevitable. The recently constructed apartment building in the vicinity of the project are very dense and do not complement the nearby residential and live/work development at the City Place. While housing is much needed in Orange County, the types of apartments and densities proposed will only provide housing for singles and professional and not family housing. In addition, the height of the parking structure is unprecedented in the area. We urge you to require a lower density and higher parking ratio. Concerned resident and business owner Minoo and Ali Ghotbzadeh 137 City Place Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 Ali@Expertwindowcoverings.com Via Email and Hand Delivery November 26, 2018 Planning Commission c/o Selena Kelaher, AICP City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency | M20 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 skelaher@santa-ana.org Minh Thai, Executive Director City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency | M20 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 mthai@santa-ana.org Raul Godinez, City Manager City of Santa Ana City Manager’s Office 20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor Santa Ana, CA 92701 rgodinez@santa-ana.org Re: Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report, 2525 N. Main Street Multi-Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017-34 Honorable Members of the Planning Commission, Ms. Thai, Mr. Godinez and Ms. Kelaher: I am writing on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union No. 652 and its members living in and near the City of Santa Ana (“LIUNA”), regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) and Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) prepared for the Project known as 2525 N. Main Street Multi-Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017-34, including all actions related or referring to the proposed project that would demolish the existing 81,172 square foot vacant two- story office building and 442 space surface parking lot to redevelop the 5.93-acre November 26, 2018 Comment on Environmental Impact Report, 2525 N. Main Street Multi-Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017-34 page 2 site with 405,290 square feet of residential buildings that would provide 496 market- rate multi-family residential units located at 2525 North (N.) Main Street, in the northern portion of the City of Santa Ana approximately 500 feet east of Interstate 5 (I-5) (“Project”). After reviewing the DEIR and FEIR (collectively, “EIR”), we conclude that the EIR fails as an informational document and fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impacts. Commenters request that the Planning and Building Agency address these shortcomings in a revised draft environmental impact report (“RDEIR”) and recirculate the RDEIR prior to considering approvals for the Project. We reserve the right to supplement these comments during review of the Final EIR for the Project and at public hearings concerning the Project. Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project would demolish the existing 81,172 square foot vacant two-story office building and 442 space surface parking lot to redevelop the 5.93-acre site with 405,290 square feet of residential buildings that would provide 496 multi-family rental residential units. The Project would provide only market-rate housing, with no units designated for low or moderate income residents. Of the units, 77 percent would be studios or one-bedroom units, 18 percent would be two-bedroom units, and 6 percent would be three-bedroom units. The residences would be provided within 5-story buildings topped with mezzanines that would be approximately 65-feet in height along the western and central portion of the site; and would tier down to 2- story, approximately 20-foot high structures on the eastern portion of the site. The residential units would be wrapped around a central parking structure that would have 8-levels of parking above ground, and 1 level of underground parking. The parking structure would be located in the west central portion of the project site and would provide direct access to the leasing office and walkways to residential units. The proposed project would require the following discretionary approvals from the City of Santa Ana:  General Plan Amendment (GPA) Land Use Change from PAO (Professional & Administration Office) to a District Center (DC) designation  Amendment Application (AA) for a zone change from Professional (P) to a Specific Development (SD) designation  Development Agreement November 26, 2018 Comment on Environmental Impact Report, 2525 N. Main Street Multi-Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017-34 page 3 LEGAL STANDARD CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an environmental impact report (“EIR”) (except in certain limited circumstances). See, e.g., Pub. Res. Code § 21100. The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Dunn-Edwards v. BAAQMD (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652. “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” Comms. for a Better Env’t v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 109. CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1). “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.’” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810. Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when “feasible” by requiring “environmentally superior” alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3); see also Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines §15002(a)(2). If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.” Pub.Res.Code (“PRC”) § 21081; CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A) & (B). The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Dunn-Edwards v. BAAQMD (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652. CEQA requires that a lead agency analyze all potentially significant environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an EIR. PRC § November 26, 2018 Comment on Environmental Impact Report, 2525 N. Main Street Multi-Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017-34 page 4 21100(b)(1); CEQA Guidelines § 15126(a); Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354. The EIR must not only identify the impacts, but must also provide “information about how adverse the impacts will be.” Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 831. The lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant only if it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692. “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” Communities for a Better Env’t v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109. While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1355 (emphasis added), quoting, Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391 409, fn. 12. A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.” San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 713, 722]; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1117; County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 931, 946. The lead agency must evaluate comments on the draft EIR and prepare written responses in the final EIR (“FEIR”). (PRC §21091(d)) The FEIR must include a “detailed” written response to all “significant environmental issues” raised by commenters. As the court stated in City of Long Beach v. LA USD (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 904: The requirement of a detailed written response to comments helps to ensure that the lead agency will fully consider the environmental consequences of a decision before it is made, that the decision is well informed and open to public scrutiny, and that public participation in the environmental review process is meaningful. The FEIR’s responses to comments must be detailed and must provide a reasoned, good faith analysis. (14 CCR §15088(c )) Failure to provide a substantive response to comment render the EIR legally inadequate. (Rural Land Owners Assoc. v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020) November 26, 2018 Comment on Environmental Impact Report, 2525 N. Main Street Multi-Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017-34 page 5 The responses to comments on a draft EIR must state reasons for rejecting suggested mitigation measures and comments on significant environmental issues. “Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information” are not an adequate response. (14 CCR §15088(b, c); Cleary v. County of Stanislaus (1981) 118 Cal.App.3rd 348) The need for substantive, detailed response is particularly appropriate when comments have been raised by experts or other agencies. (Berkeley Keep Jets v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1367; People v. Kern (1976) 72 Cal.app.3d 761) A reasoned analysis of the issue and references to supporting evidence are required for substantive comments raised. (Calif. Oak Found. v. Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1219) The FEIR abjectly fails to meet these legal standards, as it is riddled with conclusory statements lacking any factual support or analysis. DISCUSSION 1. The EIR Fails to Analyze Indoor Air Quality Impacts. We submit herewith the comments of indoor air quality expert, Francis Offermann, PE, CIH. (Exhibit A). Mr. Offermann, a Certified Industrial Hygienist, concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose future residents to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions for the cancer- causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is one of the world’s leading experts on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products typically used in modern home construction contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. He states, “The primary source formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea- formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board. These materials are commonly used in residential building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that there is a fair argument that residents of the Project will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 180 per million. This is far above the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Even if the Project uses modern “CARB-compliant” materials, Mr. Offermann concludes that formaldehyde will create a cancer risk of 126 per million, which is November 26, 2018 Comment on Environmental Impact Report, 2525 N. Main Street Multi-Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017-34 page 6 more than ten times above the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold. Mr. Offermann concludes that this significant environmental impact should be analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. When a Project exceeds a duly adopted CEQA significance threshold, as here, this alone establishes a fair argument that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact and an EIR is required. Indeed, in many instances, such air quality thresholds are the only criteria reviewed and treated as dispositive in evaluating the significance of a project’s air quality impacts. See, e.g. Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 (County applies BAAQMD’s “published CEQA quantitative criteria” and “threshold level of cumulative significance”). See also Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110-111 (“A ‘threshold of significance’ for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant”). The California Supreme Court made clear the substantial importance that an air district significance threshold plays in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse impact. Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 327 (“As the [South Coast Air Quality Management] District’s established significance threshold for NOx is 55 pounds per day, these estimates [of NOx emissions of 201 to 456 pounds per day] constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact”). Since expert evidence demonstrates that the Project will exceed the BAAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold, there is a fair argument that the Project will have significant adverse and an EIR is required. Mr. Offermann suggests several feasible mitigation measures, such as requiring the use of no-added-formaldehyde composite wood products, which are readily available. Mr. Offermann also suggests requiring air ventilation systems which would reduce formaldehyde levels. Since the EIR does not analyze this impact at all, none of these or other mitigation measures are considered. 2. The EIR Fails to Address or Adequately Mitigate Significant Soil Contamination Impacts. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) has submitted a comment letter pointing out deficiencies in the EIR related to soil and groundwater contamination at the Project site. DTSC points out that soil and groundwater at the Project site contains levels of the cancer-causing and toxic chemicals, benene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene and methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) above residential standards. DTSC commented that the EIR failed to November 26, 2018 Comment on Environmental Impact Report, 2525 N. Main Street Multi-Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017-34 page 7 analyze the possibility of soil-vapor intrusion – a process by which toxic vapors enter the building constructed on the contaminated soil. DTSC also pointed out that the soil on the Project site is contaminated with arsenic – a known human carcinogen. In both cases, the EIR dismissed DTSC’s comments, failed to conduct additional analysis and failed to adopt adequate mitigation measures. This is a patently inadequate response to expert comments from a State Agency. A Revised DEIR is required to analyze these impacts and to respond to DTSC’s comments. In response to DTSC’s comments, the FEIR merely states that a soil mitigation plan will be developed at a later time. CEQA does not allow such deferral of mitigation. Mitigation measures must be set forth in the EIR, so that the public can analyze the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The EIR fails to comply with this requirement. Feasible mitigation measures for significant environmental effects must be set forth in an EIR for consideration by the lead agency's decision makers and the public before certification of the EIR and approval of a project. The formulation of mitigation measures generally cannot be deferred until after certification of the EIR and approval of a project. Guidelines, section 15126.4(a)(1)(B) states: "Formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time. However, measures may specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way." "A study conducted after approval of a project will inevitably have a diminished influence on decisionmaking. Even if the study is subject to administrative approval, it is analogous to the sort of post hoc rationalization of agency actions that has been repeatedly condemned in decisions construing CEQA." (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.) "[R]eliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA's goals of full disclosure and informed decisionmaking; and[,] consequently, these mitigation plans have been overturned on judicial review as constituting improper deferral of environmental assessment." (Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 92.) LIUNA is very concerned about the soil contamination identified by DTSC. Construction workers, such as LIUNA members, will be exposed to higher levels of soil and groundwater contamination than anyone else since they will be involved in direct excavation of potentially contaminated soil and groundwater. It is critical to LIUNA that adequate mitigation measures be identified prior to Project construction, not after contaminated soil is discovered. November 26, 2018 Comment on Environmental Impact Report, 2525 N. Main Street Multi-Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017-34 page 8 3. The EIR Fails to Adequately Mitigate the Project’s Significant Traffic Impacts. CalTrans has submitted at least two comment letters concluding that the EIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant traffic impacts. In particular, CalTrans expressed concern over the Project’s impacts on nearby I-5 and SR22. In CalTrans’ second comment letter, the agency concluded that the FEIR failed to adequately respond to CalTrans’ initial comments. The FEIR’s dismissive response to an expert agency’s comments itself renders the EIR legally inadequate. Furthermore, the EIR improperly abrogates responsibility for mitigating the Project’s traffic impacts. The EIR states that CalTrans has authority to adopt certain mitigation measures, and as a result, the City of Santa Ana would not adopt or impose mitigation. CEQA does not allow the lead agency to abrogate its responsibility to mitigate significant impacts, even if those impacts are within the jurisdiction of another agency. The lead agency is responsible for ensuring that impacts are mitigated, even if it is necessary to cooperate with other responsible agencies. In Lexington Hills v. State of Calif. (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 415, the court held that a CEQA lead agency cannot delegate responsibility to develop mitigation measures to a responsible agency, even if the responsible agency has more expertise in a particular area. The lead agency must use its authority to analyze the entire project and to devise mitigation measures. Id. at 433-435. See also, Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 443 (Lead agency cannot refrain from considering means of exercising its own regulatory power simply because another agency has general authority over the impacted natural resource. City could not delegate mitigation measure development for project impacts to wetlands to US Army Corps of Engineers). 4. The Project Lacks Affordable Housing in Conflict with the General Plan. The Project does not include any affordable housing units, in complete disregard of the applicable General Plan policies. All of the rental units will be market-rate, and none will be designated or deed-restricted for low or moderate income residents. This is of particular concern to LIUNA members who are increasingly priced out of the area. November 26, 2018 Comment on Environmental Impact Report, 2525 N. Main Street Multi-Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017-34 page 9 The General Plan Housing Element Policy 2.3 requires housing for all income levels. Yet, the Project includes only market-rate housing, with not a single unit set aside for low or moderate income residents. This is unacceptable given the area’s extreme shortage of affordable housing. Furthermore, the EIR does not analyze whether it is feasible to include income-restricted housing, as has been done throughout the State. The Final EIR rejects comments made concerning affordable housing, arguing that the issue is socio-economic and not environmental, and therefore not within the scope of CEQA. This is mistaken. It is well-established that urban decay is a CEQA issue. The lack of affordable housing has led to an increase in homelessness, which is a prime contributor to urban decay. In Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) (124 Cal.App.4th 1184) (Bakersfield Citizens), the court expressly held that an EIR must analyze a project’s potential to cause urban decay if there is substantial evidence showing that the project may lead to such impacts. The court pointed out that CEQA requires the project proponent to discuss the project’s economic and social impacts where “[a]n EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision on a project through anticipated economic or social changes resulting from the project to physical changes caused in turn by the economic and social changes.” (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15131(a) and 15064(f).) Where a local or regional policy of general applicability, such as an ordinance, is adopted in order to avoid or mitigate environmental effects, a conflict with that policy in itself indicates a potentially significant impact on the environment. (Pocket Protectors v. Sacramento (2005) 124 Cal.App.4th 903.) Indeed, any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable plans must be discussed in an EIR. (14 CCR § 15125(d); City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unif. School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal. App. 4th 889, 918; Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal. App. 4th 859, 874 (EIR inadequate when Lead Agency failed to identify relationship of project to relevant local plans).) A Project’s inconsistencies with local plans and policies constitute significant impacts under CEQA. (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 783-4, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 177; see also, County of El Dorado v. Dept. of Transp. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1376 (fact that a project may be consistent with a plan, such as an air plan, does not necessarily mean that it does not have significant impacts).) November 26, 2018 Comment on Environmental Impact Report, 2525 N. Main Street Multi-Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017-34 page 10 A Recirculated Draft EIR should be prepared to analyze the impacts of the Project’s lack of affordable housing and the impact on urban decay. It should propose feasible mitigation measures, such as requiring more affordable housing in the Project, contributions to low-income housing funding, etc. 5. The EIR Fails to Adequately Analyze or Mitigate the Project’ Significant Air Quality Impacts. The expert consulting firm, Soil, Water, Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE), demonstrates that the EIR improperly calculates air quality impacts. SWAPE calculates that the Project will have highly significant airborne cancer risk impacts, far above CEQA significance thresholds. SWAPE calculates that the Project will create an airborne cancer risk from construction and operation of the Project of 220 per million – far above the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold of 10 per million. Most of this cancer risk is created by diesel engine exhaust associated with construction and operation of the Project. SWAPE states: As demonstrated above, the excess cancer risk to adults, children, infants, and 3rd trimester gestations at a sensitive receptor located approximately 25 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, are approximately 10, 92, 110, and 5.5 in one million, respectively. Furthermore, the excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 220 in one million. Consistent with OEHHA guidance, exposure was assumed to begin in the 3rd trimester stage of pregnancy to provide the most conservative estimates of air quality hazards. The infantile, child, adult, and lifetime cancer risks all exceed the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the DEIR or FEIR. The EIR also conducts a different health risk assessment that allegedly shows a cancer risk less than 10 per million. However, the HRA used in the EIR fails to comply with the recent California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) methodology. The lead agency is required to use the November 26, 2018 Comment on Environmental Impact Report, 2525 N. Main Street Multi-Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017-34 page 11 agency-approved methodology, not some other obsolete methodology. Endangered Habitats League v. Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777. Since the Project will create significant airborne cancer risks, a Revised Draft EIR is required to analyze this risk and propose all feasible mitigation measures. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons set forth by other commenters (which are incorporated herein by reference), the EIR for the Project is legally inadequate. A revised draft EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the proposed Project’s significant impacts. Sincerely, Richard Drury     EXHIBIT A  INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700 E-mail: offermann@IEE-SF.com http://www.iee-sf.com Date: November 21, 2018 To: Richard T. Drury Lozeau | Drury LLP 410 12th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, California 94607 From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Magnolia at the Park - Santa Ana IEE File Reference: P-4198 Pages: 10 Indoor Air Quality Impacts Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well- recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments. The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants. Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68. Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. Assuming this project will be built using typical materials and construction methods used in California, there is a fair argument that future residents will experience a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 180 per million. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015). There is a fair argument that this project will expose future residents to a significant airborne cancer risk of 180 per million, which is 18 times above the CEQA significance threshold. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR. 3 Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3. The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board. These materials are commonly used in residential building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines. A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016-2018 (Chan et. al., 2018), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 25 µg/m3 as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 30% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 125 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products which is more than 12 times the NSRL 10 in a million cancer risk. Assuming that the residential dwelling units for this project are constructed with CARB 4 Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and are ventilated with the minimum code required amounts of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials (Chan et. al., 2018), which is a median of 25 µg/m3. For the occupants of these residential dwelling units, they will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year) and assuming inhalation of 20 m3 of indoor air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 500 µg/day. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 125 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated air contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 ach, with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations. The Magnolia at the Park project in Santa Ana is a multi-family residential project and is located close to roads with high traffic (e.g. I-5 and SR-55), and as a result has been 5 determined to be a sound impacted site according to Noise Impact Analysis in Appendix H of the Draft EIR (Urban Crossroads, 2018). As a result of the high traffic related outdoor noise levels, the current project will require the need for mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation air to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within residential interiors. This applies to both the residential and commercial portions of this development. PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the increased outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. The Health Risk Assessment Report for this project (Stantec, 2016), states in Table 6 that the cancer risk from traffic is 21.1 per million, which exceeds the SCAQMD threshold of 10 per million. San Francisco is a leader in issuing regulations to remove PM2.5 from impacted areas. The San Francisco Department of Public Health, 2014. Article 38, Enhanced Ventilation Required for Urban Infill Sensitive Use Developments, requires that air filtration, with a minimum efficiency of MERV 13 be installed to remove PM2.5 from mechanically supplied outdoor air in all PM2.5 impacted areas. All areas within 500 feet of any freeway or high- traffic road way (defined as urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day), unless air dispersion modeling shows total (traffic and ambient) outdoor concentrations of less than an annual average of 10 µg/m3 PM2.5, are defined as PM2.5 impacted areas. Santa Ana is an EPA non-attainment area for PM2.5., with exceedences of both the EPA maximum annual average concentration of 12 µg/ m3 and the EPA maximum 24-hour average of 35 µg/m3. It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise level, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will be substantially higher than 10 µg/m3, and warrant installation 6 of MERV 13 air filters in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems. This applies to both the residential and commercial portions of this development. Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality: - indoor formaldehyde concentrations - outdoor air ventilation - PM2.5 outdoor air concentrations Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra- low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins (CARB, 2009). Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor air flow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants (residential and commercial), that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system. PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with a minimum efficiency of MERV 13 to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply system. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the 7 occupants (residential and commercial). Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement. 8 References California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce  Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental  Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.  https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro‐final.pdf  California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1,  Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001  California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA. California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building  Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx. California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf Chan, W., Kim, Y., and Singer, B. 2018. Indoor Air Quality in New California Homes with Mechanical Ventilation, Proceedings of Indoor Air 2018, Philadelphia, PA. EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors. Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242. 9 OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC‐500‐2009‐085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson (2011). Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011). June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX USA. Price, Phillip P., Max Sherman, Robert H. Lee, and Thomas Piazza. 2007. Study of Ventilation Practices and Household Characteristics in New California Homes. California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03- 326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf. San Francisco Department of Public Health, 2014. Article 38, Enhanced Ventilation Required for Urban Infill Sensitive Use Developments. https://www.sfdph.org/dph/EH/Air/Article38.asp South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental  Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District,  Diamond Bar, CA,http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis- handbook  10 Stantec Consulting Services. 2016. Health Risk Assessment Report AMG Development Project, City of Santa Ana, CA. Urban Crossroads. 2018. Magnolia at the Park Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Ana. Draft EIR, Appendix H. USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4     EXHIBIT B    1    2656 29th Street, Suite 201  Santa Monica, CA 90405    Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.     (949) 887‐9013  November 20, 2018  Richard Drury  Lozeau Drury LLP  410 12th Street, Suite 250  Oakland, CA 94607  Subject:  Comments on the Magnolia at the Park Multi‐Family Residential Project   Dear Mr. Drury,  We have reviewed the August 2018 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and November 2018 Final  Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Magnolia at the Park Multi‐Family Residential Project  (“Project”) located in the City of Santa Ana (“City”). The Project proposes to demolish an existing 81,172  square foot office building and a 442‐space parking lot. The Project also proposes to construct 405,290  square feet of residential buildings consisting of 496 multi‐family units, as well as a 9‐level parking  structure on the 5.93‐acres site.  Our review concludes that the DEIR and FEIR fail to adequately evaluate and mitigate the Project’s Air  Quality impacts. As a result, health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the  proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. A revised EIR should be prepared to  adequately assess and mitigate the potential health risk impacts the Project may have on surrounding  receptors.   Air Quality Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The DEIR concludes that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on the health of  sensitive receptors without conducting a quantitative health risk assessment (HRA) for construction or  operation of the proposed Project. The DEIR fails to conduct a quantified HRA for nearby existing  sensitive receptors and instead solely relies upon an HRA which evaluates cancer risk posed new on‐site  receptors. Based on the HRA for new, on‐site receptors, the DEIR concludes that the Project would have  a less than significant health risk impact (p. 4.2‐18). The DEIR justifies this analysis by stating,  “Because the proposed project is located within an urban community within 500‐feet of I‐5 that  has a substantial daily vehicle and truck volume, the contaminants generated from the roadway  were identified by the HRA prepared for the proposed  project to provide risk estimates related  to air contaminants from I‐5 that are reflective of anticipated exposures experienced at the    2    project site. The modeling conducted by the HRA includes freeway volumes from Caltrans,  spatial distribution of mobile source activity traversing the freeway in relation to the proposed  site and was prepared pursuant to SCAQMD methodology” (p. 4.2‐17 – 4.2‐18).  The DEIR goes on to conclude,  “The HRA calculations determined that the cancer risk from exposure to diesel and gasoline fuel  emissions to the maximum exposed residential receptor totaled 7.57 in one million, which  would not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. Overall, impacts  related to exposures associated with both toxic and criteria pollutants would be less than  significant” (p. 4.2‐18).   This significance determination is incorrect, as the Project Applicant cannot claim that the Project would  result in a less than significant health risk impact without properly assessing the risk posed to existing  sensitive receptors as a result of diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions that will be emitted during  Project activities. As a result, until the construction and operational health risk impacts posed to nearby  existing sensitive receptors resulting specifically from the proposed Project are adequately quantified  and compared to applicable thresholds, the DEIR cannot make any conclusions with regards to the  Project’s health risk impacts.  By failing to prepare a construction or an operational HRA for existing sensitive receptors, the DEIR is  inconsistent with recommendations set forth by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment  (OEHHA), the organization responsible for providing recommendations for health risk assessments in  California.  In February of 2015, OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance  Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015.1  This  guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of a health risk  assessment. Construction of the Project will produce emissions of DPM, a human carcinogen, through  the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a construction period of 18 months (p. 3‐18). The  OEHHA document recommends that all short‐term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for  cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors.2 Therefore, per OEHHA guidelines, health risk impacts from  Project construction should have been evaluated by the DEIR. Furthermore, once construction of the  Project is complete, the Project will operate for a long period of time. During operation, the Project will  generate vehicle trips, which will generate additional exhaust emissions, thus continuing to expose  nearby sensitive receptors to emissions. The OEHHA document recommends that exposure from  projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project, and  recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the  maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR).3 Even though we were not provided with the expected                                                               1 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February  2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/hotspots2015.html   2 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February  2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf, p. 8‐18  3 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February  2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf, p. 8‐6, 8‐15     3    lifetime of the Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if  not more. Therefore, health risks from Project operation should have also been evaluated by the DEIR,  as a 30‐year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 2‐month and 6‐month requirements set forth by  OEHHA. These recommendations reflect the most recent health risk policy, and as such, an updated  assessment of health risks to nearby sensitive receptors from construction and operation should be  included in a revised California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluation for the Project.  In an effort to demonstrate the potential risk posed by the Project to nearby sensitive receptors, we  prepared a simple screening‐level HRA. The results of our assessment, as described below, demonstrate  that construction and operational DPM emissions may result in a potentially significant health risk  impact that was not previously identified or evaluated in either the DEIR or FEIR.   In order to conduct our screening level risk assessment, we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a  screening‐level air quality dispersion model. 4 The model replaced SCREEN3, which is included in OEHHA5  and CAPCOA6 guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening  assessments (“HRSAs”).  A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site‐specific information to generate  maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors  may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a  more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project.  We prepared a preliminary health risk screening assessment of the Project's construction and  operational impacts to sensitive receptors using the estimates from the DEIR’s air models for  construction and operation The DEIR states that the closest sensitive receptors to the Project site are  single‐family residences near the Project site (p. 4.2‐11). Thus, a receptor distance of 25 meters was  used in our analysis. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we used a residential  exposure duration of 30 years, starting from the third trimester of pregnancy. We also assumed that  construction and operation of the Project would occur consecutively, with no gaps between each Project  phase. Our calculated annual emissions indicate that construction activities will generate approximately  378 pounds7 of DPM over a 536‐day construction period. The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous  average emissions rate to simulate maximum downwind concentrations from point, area, and volume  emissions sources. To account for the variability in construction equipment usage over the many phases  of Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate for construction by the following  equation.                                                               4 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” USEPA, April 11, 2011, available at:  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf   5 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February  2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf  6 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects,” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:  http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8‐6‐09.pdf   7 The DEIR fails to provide CalEEMod output files containing the annual emissions estimates for the Project’s  construction air model. Therefore, we used the maximum daily DPM emissions estimates from the DEIR’s  construction air model summer output file, provided in the Magnolia at the Park Air Quality Impact Analysis, to  then calculate an annual DPM emissions estimate (Appendix I, pp. 577).    4    𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 ቀ 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑ቁൌ 377.6 𝑙𝑏𝑠 536 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 ൈ 453.6 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠 𝑙𝑏 ൈ 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦 24 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 ൈ 1 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 3,600 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑠 ൎ 𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟑𝟔𝟗𝟖 𝒈𝒔ൗ   Subtracting the 536‐day construction duration from the total residential exposure duration of 30 years,  we assumed that after Project construction, the MEIR would be exposed to the Project’s operational  DPM emissions for an additional 28.5 years approximately (10,414 days). The operational CalEEMod  model’s annual emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 161 pounds of  DPM per year. Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM emission rate, we  estimated the following emission rate for Project operation.   𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 ቀ 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑ቁൌ 161 𝑙𝑏𝑠 365 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 ൈ 453.6 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠 𝑙𝑏 ൈ 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦 24 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 ൈ 1 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 3,600 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑠 ൎ 𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟐𝟑𝟏𝟔 𝒈𝒔ൗ   Construction and operational activity was simulated as a 5.95‐acre rectangular area source in  AERSCREEN, with dimensions of 172 meters by 140 meters. A release height of three meters was  selected to represent the height of exhaust stacks on construction equipment and other heavy‐duty  vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous  plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model‐default inputs  for wind speed and direction distribution.   The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single‐hour DPM concentrations  from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average  concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single‐hour concentration by 10%.8  There are residences located approximately 25 meters away from the Project boundary. The single‐hour  concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 4.047 µg/m3 DPM at  approximately 25 meters downwind. Multiplying this single‐hour concentration by 10%, we get an  annualized average concentration of 0.4047 µg/m3 for construction. For Project operation, the single‐ hour concentration in AERSCREEN is approximately 2.534 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 25 meters  downwind. Again, multiplying this single‐hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average  concentration of 0.2534 µg/m3 for operation.    We calculated the excess cancer risk to the residential receptors located closest to the Project site using  applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA and the South Coast Air Quality Management  District (SCAQMD). Consistent with the construction schedule proposed by the DEIR, the annualized  average concentration for construction was used for the entire 3rd trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years),  and the first 1.22 years of the infantile stage of life (0‐2 years). The annualized average concentration for  operation was used for the remainder of the 30‐year exposure period, which makes up the remainder of  the infantile stage of life, the entirety of the child stage of life (2 to 16 years), and the entirety of the  adult stage of life (16 to 30 years). Consistent with OEHHA guidance, we used Age Sensitivity Factors  (ASFs) to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air                                                               8 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA‐454R‐92‐019_OCR.pdf     5    pollution.9 According to the updated guidance, quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of  ten during the third trimester of pregnancy and the first two years of life (infant) and should be  multiplied by a factor of three during the child stage of life (2 to 16 years). Furthermore, in accordance  with guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used 95th percentile breathing rates for infants.10 Finally,  according to SCAQMD guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home (FAH) Value of 1 for the 3rd  trimester, infant, and child receptors and we used a FAH Value of 0.73 for the adult receptors.11 We  used a cancer potency factor of 1.1 (mg/kg‐day)‐1 and an averaging time of 25,550 days. The results of  our calculations are shown below.    The Maximum Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor (MEIR)  Activity Duration  (years)  Concentration  (µg/m3)  Breathing Rate  (L/kg‐day) ASF Cancer Risk  Construction 0.25 0.4047 361 10 5.5E‐06  3rd Trimester Duration 0.25     3rd Trimester Exposure 5.5E‐06  Construction 1.22 0.4047 1090 10 8.1E‐05  Operation 0.78 0.2534 1090 10 3.2E‐05  Infant Exposure Duration 2.00     Infant Exposure 1.1E‐04  Operation 14.00  0.2534 572 3 9.2E‐05  Child Exposure Duration 14.00     Child Exposure 9.2E‐05  Operation 14.00  0.2534 261 1 1.0E‐05  Adult Exposure Duration 14.00     Adult Exposure 1.02E‐05  Lifetime Exposure Duration 30.00     Lifetime Exposure 2.2E‐04    As demonstrated above, the excess cancer risk to adults, children, infants, and 3rd trimester gestations  at a sensitive receptor located approximately 25 meters away, over the course of Project construction  and operation, are approximately 10, 92, 110, and 5.5 in one million, respectively. Furthermore, the  excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 220 in one million.  Consistent with OEHHA guidance, exposure was assumed to begin in the 3rd trimester stage of  pregnancy to provide the most conservative estimates of air quality hazards. The infantile, child, adult,  and lifetime cancer risks all exceed the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a  potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the DEIR or FEIR.                                                               9 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February  2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf   10 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and  Assessment Act,” June 5, 2015, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/planning/risk‐ assessment/ab2588‐risk‐assessment‐guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 19  “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February  2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf  11 “Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at:  http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/rule‐book/Proposed‐ Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf, p. 7    6    It should be noted that our analysis represents a screening‐level HRA, which is known to be more  conservative, and tends to err on the side of health protection.12 The purpose of a screening‐level HRA,  however, is to determine if a more refined HRA needs to be conducted.  If the results of a screening‐ level health risk are above applicable thresholds, then the Project needs to conduct a more refined HRA  that is more representative of site‐specific concentrations. Our screening‐level HRA demonstrates that  construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact,  when correct exposure assumptions and up‐to‐date, applicable guidance are used. As a result, refined  construction and operational HRAs must be prepared to examine air quality impacts generated by  Project construction and operation using site‐specific meteorology. An updated EIR should be prepared  to adequately evaluate the Project’s health risk impact and should include additional mitigation  measures to reduce these impacts to a less‐than‐significant level.  Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Our HRA demonstrates that the Project’s construction‐related DPM emissions could result in significant  health risk impacts. Therefore, additional mitigation measures must be identified and incorporated into  an updated EIR to reduce these emissions to a less than significant level. Additional mitigation measures  can be found in CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, which attempt to reduce  Greenhouse Gas (GHG) levels, as well as reduce Criteria Air Pollutants such as particulate matter.13 DPM  is a byproduct of diesel fuel combustion, and is emitted by on‐road vehicles and by off‐road construction  equipment. Mitigation for DPM emissions should include consideration of the following measures in an  effort to reduce construction emissions.   Require Implementation of Diesel Control Measures The Northeast Diesel Collaborative (NEDC) is a regionally coordinated initiative to reduce diesel  emissions, improve public health, and promote clean diesel technology. The NEDC recommends that  contracts for all construction projects require the following diesel control measures:14   All diesel onroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days must have either (1) engines that  meet EPA 2007 onroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA15  or the California Air Resources Board (CARB)16 to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85  percent.   All diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days must be equipped with emission control  technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85 percent.                                                               12 http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf p. 1‐5  13http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf  14 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available  at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015‐09/documents/nedc‐model‐contract‐sepcification.pdf  15 For EPA’s list of verified technology: http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/verification/verif‐list.htm  16 For CARB’s list of verified technology: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm    7     All diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra‐low  sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend17 approved by the original engine manufacturer  with sulfur content of 15 parts per million (ppm) or less.    Repower or Replace Older Construction Equipment Engines The NEDC recognizes that availability of equipment that meets the EPA’s newer standards is limited.18  Due to this limitation, the NEDC proposes actions that can be taken to reduce emissions from existing  equipment in the Best Practices for Clean Diesel Construction report.19 These actions include but are not  limited to:        Replacement of older equipment with equipment meeting the latest emission standards.  Engine replacement can include substituting a cleaner highway engine for a nonroad engine. Diesel  equipment may also be replaced with other technologies or fuels. Examples include hybrid switcher  locomotives, electric cranes, LNG, CNG, LPG or propane yard tractors, forklifts or loaders.  Replacements using natural gas may require changes to fueling infrastructure.20 Replacements often  require some re‐engineering work due to differences in size and configuration. Typically, there are  benefits in fuel efficiency, reliability, warranty, and maintenance costs.21    Install Retrofit Devices on Existing Construction Equipment PM emissions from alternatively‐fueled construction equipment can be further reduced by installing  retrofit devices on existing and/or new equipment. The most common retrofit technologies are retrofit  devices for engine exhaust after‐treatment. These devices are installed in the exhaust system to reduce  emissions and should not impact engine or vehicle operation. 22  It should be noted that actual emissions  reductions and costs will depend on specific manufacturers, technologies and applications. Should the  Applicant be unable to obtain Tier 4 Interim or Tier 4 Final off‐road equipment engines for all pieces of  equipment with 50 hp or greater, the Applicant should consider use of engines that meet Tier 3 off‐road  emission standards and engines that are retrofitted with an ARB Level 2 or Level 3 Verified Diesel  Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS).                                                                   17 Biodiesel lends are only to be used in conjunction with the technologies which have been verified for use with  biodiesel blends and are subject to the following requirements:  http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/reg/biodieselcompliance.pdf  18http://northeastdiesel.org/pdf/BestPractices4CleanDieselConstructionAug2012.pdf  19http://northeastdiesel.org/pdf/BestPractices4CleanDieselConstructionAug2012.pdf  20 Alternative Fuel Conversion, EPA, available at: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/alternative‐vehicle‐fuels   21 Cleaner Fuels, EPA, available at: https://www.epa.gov/verified‐diesel‐tech/verified‐technologies‐list‐clean‐diesel    22 Retrofit Technologies, EPA, available at:  https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016‐ 03/documents/420f10027.pdf     8    Use Electric and Hybrid Construction Equipment CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures23 report also proposes the use of electric  and/or hybrid construction equipment as a way to mitigate DPM emissions. When construction  equipment is powered by grid electricity rather than fossil fuel, direct emissions from fuel combustion  are replaced with indirect emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment.  Furthermore, when construction equipment is powered by hybrid‐electric drives, emissions from fuel  combustion are also greatly reduced. Electric construction equipment is available commercially from  companies such as Peterson Pacific Corporation,24 which specialize in the mechanical processing  equipment like grinders and shredders. Construction equipment powered by hybrid‐electric drives is  also commercially available from companies such as Caterpillar25. For example, Caterpillar reports that  during an 8‐hour shift, its D7E hybrid dozer burns 19.5 percent fewer gallons of fuel than a conventional  dozer while achieving a 10.3 percent increase in productivity. The D7E model burns 6.2 gallons per hour  compared to a conventional dozer which burns 7.7 gallons per hour.26  Fuel usage and savings are  dependent on the make and model of the construction equipment used. The Project Applicant should  calculate project‐specific savings and provide manufacturer specifications indicating fuel burned per  hour.   Implement a Construction Vehicle Inventory Tracking System CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures27 report recommends that the Project  Applicant provide a detailed plan that discusses a construction vehicle inventory tracking system to  ensure compliances with construction mitigation measures. The system should include strategies such  as requiring engine run time meters on equipment, documenting the serial number, horsepower,  manufacture age, fuel, etc. of all onsite equipment and daily logging of the operating hours of the  equipment. Specifically, for each onroad construction vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or  generator, the contractor should submit to the developer’s representative a report prior to bringing said  equipment on site that includes:28   Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer,  engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number.   The type of emission control technology installed, serial number, make, model, manufacturer,  and EPA/CARB verification number/level.                                                               23http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf  24 Peterson Electric Grinders Brochure, available at:http://www.petersoncorp.com/wp‐ content/uploads/peterson_electric_grinders1.pdf  25 Electric Power Products, available at:http://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/power‐systems/electric‐power‐ generation.html  26http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf  27http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf  28 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available at:  http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015‐09/documents/nedc‐model‐contract‐sepcification.pdf    9     The Certification Statement29 signed and printed on the contractor’s letterhead.    Furthermore, the contractor should submit to the developer’s representative a monthly report that, for  each onroad construction vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes: 30   Hour‐meter readings on arrival on‐site, the first and last day of every month, and on off‐site  date.   Any problems with the equipment or emission controls.   Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:  o Source of supply  o Quantity of fuel  o Quality of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight).  In addition to these measures, we also recommend that the Applicant implement the following  mitigation measures, called “Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices,”31 that are recommended by the  Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD):  1. The project representative shall submit to the lead agency a comprehensive inventory of all off‐ road construction equipment, equal to or greater than 50 horsepower, that will be used an  aggregate of 40 or more hours during any portion of the construction project.   The inventory shall include the horsepower rating, engine model year, and projected  hours of use for each piece of equipment.    The project representative shall provide the anticipated construction timeline including  start date, and name and phone number of the project manager and on‐site foreman.    This information shall be submitted at least 4 business days prior to the use of subject  heavy‐duty off‐road equipment.   The inventory shall be updated and submitted monthly throughout the duration of the  project, except that an inventory shall not be required for any 30‐day period in which no  construction activity occurs.   2. The project representative shall provide a plan for approval by the lead agency demonstrating  that the heavy‐duty off‐road vehicles (50 horsepower or more) to be used in the construction  project, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet‐ average 45% particulate reduction and 20% NOX reduction compared to the most recent  California Air Resources Board (ARB) fleet average.   This plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the equipment inventory.                                                               29 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available  at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015‐09/documents/nedc‐model‐contract‐sepcification.pdf The  NEDC Model Certification Statement can be found in Appendix A.  30 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available  at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015‐09/documents/nedc‐model‐contract‐sepcification.pdf  31http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/Ch3EnhancedExhaustControl_10‐2013.pdf    10     Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low‐ emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after‐treatment  products, and/or other options as they become available.   The District’s Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to identify an equipment  fleet that achieves this reduction.  3. The project representative shall ensure that emissions from all off‐road diesel‐powered  equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40% opacity for more than three minutes in  any one hour.   Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be  repaired immediately. Non‐compliant equipment will be documented and a summary  provided to the lead agency monthly.   A visual survey of all in‐operation equipment shall be made at least weekly.   A monthly summary of the visual survey results shall be submitted throughout the  duration of the project, except that the monthly summary shall not be required for any  30‐day period in which no construction activity occurs. The monthly summary shall  include the quantity and type of vehicles surveyed as well as the dates of each survey.  4. The District and/or other officials may conduct periodic site inspections to determine  compliance. Nothing in this mitigation shall supersede other District, state or federal rules or  regulations.  These measures offer a cost‐effective, feasible way to incorporate lower‐emitting design features into  the proposed Project, which subsequently reduces emissions released during Project construction. An  updated EIR must be prepared to include DPM‐related mitigation measures, as well as include an  updated air quality analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to  reduce construction emissions and reduce health risk impacts to a less than significant level.  Furthermore, the Project Applicant needs to demonstrate commitment to the implementation of these  measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s emissions are reduced to the maximum  extent possible.  Sincerely,       Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.    Hadley Nolan    1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa Santa Monica, California 90401 Tel: (949) 887‐9013 Email: mhagemann@swape.com Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Industrial Stormwater Compliance Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques. Positions Matt has held include: •Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); •Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014; •Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); • Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. • Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 2 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 3 • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. 4 • Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 Geology: With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: • Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests. • Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: • At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. • Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. 6 Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. 7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐ 2011. 9 HADLEY KATHRYN NOLAN SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Mobile: (678) 551-0836 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: hadley@swape.com EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES B.S. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES & ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS AND SOCIETY JUNE 2016 PROJECT EXPERIENCE SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE SANTA MONICA, CA AIR QUALITY SPECIALIST SENIOR PROJECT ANALYST: CEQA ANALYSIS & MODELING • Modeled construction and operational activities for proposed land use projects using CalEEMod to quantify criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. • Organized presentations containing figures and tables that compare results of criteria air pollutant analyses to thresholds. • Quantified ambient air concentrations at sensitive receptor locations using AERSCREEN, a U.S. EPA recommended screening level dispersion model. • Conducted construction and operational health risk assessments for residential, worker, and school children sensitive receptors. • Prepared reports that discuss adequacy of air quality and health risk analyses conducted for proposed land use developments subject to CEQA review by verifying compliance with local, state, and regional regulations. SENIOR PROJECT ANALYST: GREENHOUSE GAS MODELING AND DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE • Evaluated environmental impact reports for proposed projects to identify discrepancies with the methods used to quantify and assess GHG impacts. • Quantified GHG emissions for proposed projects using CalEEMod to produce reports, tables, and figures that compare emissions to applicable CEQA thresholds and reduction targets. • Determined compliance of proposed land use developments with AB 32 GHG reduction targets, with GHG significance thresholds recommended by Air Quality Management Districts in California, and with guidelines set forth by CEQA. PROJECT ANALYST: ASSESSMENT OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED DIRECT TRANSFER FACILITY • Assessed air quality impacts resulting from implementation of a proposed Collection Service Agreement for Exclusive Residential and Commercial Garbage, Recyclable Materials, and Organic Waste Collection Services for a community. • Organized tables and maps to demonstrate potential air quality impacts resulting from proposed hauling trip routes. • Conducted air quality analyses that compared quantified criteria air pollutant emissions released during construction of direct transfer facility to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) significance thresholds. • Prepared final analytical report to demonstrate local and regional air quality impacts, as well as GHG impacts. PROJECT ANALYST: EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT OF LEAD PRODUCTS FOR PROPOSITION 65 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION • Calculated human exposure and lifetime health risk for over 300 lead products undergoing Proposition 65 compliance review. • Compiled and analyzed laboratory testing data and produced tables, charts, and graphs to exhibit emission levels. • Compared finalized testing data to Proposition 65 Maximum Allowable Dose Levels (MADLs) to determine level of compliance. • Prepared final analytical lead exposure Certificate of Merit (COM) reports and organized supporting data for use in environmental enforcement statute Proposition 65 cases. ACCOMPLISHMENTS • Academic Honoree, Dean’s List, University of California, Los Angeles MAR 2013, MAR 2014, JAN 2015, JAN 2016 From:Mitre-Ramirez, Norma To:Bernal, Sarah; Magalona, Jocelyn; Gutierrez, Fatima Cc:Huizar, Maria; Garcia, Stephanie; Orozco, Norma; Rojano, Michael Subject:FW: 2525 N. Main Street Date:Monday, November 26, 2018 12:38:35 PM Good Afternoon, The following communication pertaining to an item on tonight’s Planning Commission meeting, has been received for your review and consideration. Kind Regards, Norma Mitre Assistant Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana | Clerk of the Council Office 20 Civic Center Plaza | Santa Ana, CA 92701 714-647-5237| nmitre@santa-ana.org This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. From: bobi keenan <fosca94@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 11:43 AM To: eComment <eComment@santa-ana.org> Subject: 2525 N. Main Street bi keenan 919 Louise Street Santa Ana, CA 92703 fosca94@gmail.com November 26, 2018 Planning Commission City of Santa Ana Dear Members of the Planning Commission, I am writing for two reasons, relative to the proposal for development at 2525 Main Street. I cannot attend the meeting tonight and I understand that you will not be voting on this issue at this meeting. I want you to know that there is a rumor that people from a local church have been paid $100 by the developer to attend this or other Planning Commission Meetings and express support for the project. I think it is imperative that you look into this allegation, perhaps referring it to the District Attorney and/or the Police Department to determine the truth. I would like to express my strong opinion against the proposed project at this site. I believe that the Santa Ana Neighborhoods with well kept and often restored homes have a historic character that is of great value to the City. My neighborhood of Washington Square is one of them. I believe these neighborhoods should be protected from any development that would compromise the quality of life of the owners and residents of these neighborhoods, by adding significantly increased traffic, noise, and buildings which are tall enough and/or close enough to neighboring properties as to spoil the view for people living there. I am against any development that would decrease the property values of the homes in these neighborhoods and make them less attractive to people who wish to purchase homes and move into them. The Park Santiago Neighborhood is among the Crown Jewels of Santa Ana neighborhoods with a historic character. People have made significant investments in their homes to keep them beautiful and to preserve their architecture. The proposed development at 2525 N. Main Street would severely impact the Park Santiago Neighborhood in all the negative ways listed above. No one who lives along the property line could ever have imagined a multi-story apartment house and parking structure looming over their backyards! It would be a terrible, irrevocable intrusion into their daily lives. The current zoning for “Professional Use” is appropriate for this parcel and in keeping with the other buildings along that stretch of Main Street. We all realize the need for additional housing units, but a development of this size and density on this lot is just WRONG! We hope that you will act to prevent this project from becoming a reality and permanently harming one of our BEST Santa Ana neighborhoods. Sincerely yours, bobi keenan bobi k. From:Mitre-Ramirez, Norma To:Bernal, Sarah; Magalona, Jocelyn; Gutierrez, Fatima Cc:Huizar, Maria; Garcia, Stephanie; Orozco, Norma; Rojano, Michael Subject:FW: Planning commission Date:Monday, November 26, 2018 12:46:11 PM Attachments:Persons per household.pdf The following communication pertaining to an item on tonight’s Planning Commission meeting, has been received for your review and consideration. Kind Regards, Norma Mitre Assistant Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana | Clerk of the Council Office 20 Civic Center Plaza | Santa Ana, CA 92701 714-647-5237| nmitre@santa-ana.org This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. From: Karyn Igar <karyn.igar@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 12:45 PM To: eComment <eComment@santa-ana.org> Subject: Planning commission Dear Planning Commission- for the 2525 N. Main Street work- study session tonight (11/26/18), it would be helpful to get further clarification on the Persons per Household study (attached). These are the very last pages of the Final EIR document, with my questions and notations. It appears that the study area skips all of Santa Ana, while including sparsely populated areas like Villa Park and the wilderness park areas east of Tustin. This doesn't make any sense. Worth a discussion at tonight's meeting. Thank you, Karyn Igar From:Bernal, Sarah Bcc:Beatriz Mendoza; Cynthia Contreras-Leo; Eric Alderete; Kenneth Nguyen; Lynnette Verino; Mark McLoughlin; Roman Reyna Subject:COMMENT - 2525 N Main_JOHNSON Date:Monday, November 26, 2018 2:56:58 PM Commissioners;   Please see below comment for your review and consideration.   Sarah Bernal Phone: 714-667-2732 City of Santa Ana, Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92702   City Hall is closed every other Friday. Click here for dates.   P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you   From: Mitre-Ramirez, Norma  Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 2:51 PM To: Bernal, Sarah <SBernal@santa-ana.org>; Magalona, Jocelyn <JMagalona@santa-ana.org>; Gutierrez, Fatima <fgutierrez10@santa-ana.org> Cc: Huizar, Maria <MHuizar@santa-ana.org>; Garcia, Stephanie <SGarcia5@santa-ana.org>; Orozco, Norma <NOrozco@santa-ana.org>; Rojano, Michael <MRojano@santa-ana.org> Subject: FW: 2525 N Main- Planning Commission Item The following communication pertaining to an item on tonight’s Planning Commission meeting, has been received for your review and consideration.     From: Tim Johnson <tjohnsoncpa65@gmail.com>  Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 2:52 PM To: eComment <eComment@santa-ana.org>; Martinez, Michele <MiMartinez@santa-ana.org>; Benavides, David <DBenavides@santa-ana.org>; Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>; Solorio, Jose <JSolorio@santa-ana.org>; Tinajero, Sal <STinajero@santa-ana.org>; Villegas, Juan <JVillegas@santa-ana.org>; Sarmiento, Vicente <VSarmiento@santa-ana.org>; Kelaher, Selena <skelaher@santa-ana.org>; Neal, Candida <cneal@santa-ana.org>; Thai, Minh <mthai@santa- ana.org> Subject: 2525 N Main- Planning Commission Item Dear Planning Commission through ecomments, Councilmembers, Mayor, Selena Kelaher, Candida Neal and Minh Neal…I am writing you this email to express my thoughts on the 2525 N. Main development.  I am unable to attend the Planning Commission's meeting on November 26th but I am hopeful that you will have an opportunity to read this email and consider it as part of your planning session tonight.  I also hope that you closely consider the thoughts, needs, and desires of the surrounding community, EIR, the Planning Department Staff, and the Developer as well as the needs of the City of Santa Ana as whole.   As you know, there is a fair amount of public opposition to this project.  I for one was previously very opposed to this project.  However, the more that I learn about it and also the needs of our city, the more I become in favor it.  I am not alone in this thought process.  Even though the most vocal crowd will be opposed, rest assured that there are a fair number of residents in the area who are in favor of this type of development for a variety of reasons.  There are some that are even afraid to speak up because they do not want to be viewed as not being neighborly or they once opposed it and now are neutral or even in support of it when weighing the alternatives.  The North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance (NSAPA) does not speak for everyone in our end of town.   I would like to address what I believe to be the main opposition:   The Developer Is Not Listening to Us! You will likely hear folks say that the Developer is not listening to NSAPA.  This is simply not true.  Yes, it is still a residential development, which they are opposed to, however the Developer has made significant changes to the project based upon community feedback during council meetings, neighborhood meetings, direct discussions, etc…  Some of these changes may be considered minor while others are quite extensive and likely changed the economics of the project for the Developer.  For example: · There is no longer an egress on Edgewood which will significantly reduce cut through traffic.  This looks to have been in response to the community concern about cut through traffic in PS.  Now for a resident of 2525 to leave through PS, it will not be an easy way to go but requiring at least one U-Turn and a left turn and the traffic lights associated with such. · They increased the set back against the back wall.  This is not required by code by the way.  This was in response to the community being concerned about the project being too close to residential back yards. · They are doing a "stair step" on the levels in the back of the project- from 3 to 4 to 5 stories.  Again, this appears to have been in response to the community being concerned about the project looking into their backyards. · They changed the look of the project.  This was in response to folks not liking the original concept drawings.  They also offered to meet with NSAPA members if the current look of the project was not acceptable.  It is my belief that this type of meeting did not take place. · They have reduced the density.  · They have increased the parking ratio above industry norms and increased the ratio as they have decreased density.  They have also removed general pedestrian access on Edgewood I believe.  These are in direct response to concerns of overflow parking into PS especially the no pedestrian access.  Most folks will not want to park in PS because of the distance they will need to walk to get to their apartment because there is no access on Edgewood. · They are providing security patrol for PSNA.  This appears to have been in response to concerns about crime in the area. · They are trying to be a good neighbor by sharing.  They are providing an Amazon Locker area solely for PSNA.  They are also allowing PS residents to utilize the amenities of the project.  · They are providing significant funding to the park (Park Santiago)…this is huge in my opinion.  It is something that   Building Usage Unfortunately, I think that a lot of folks do not realize that the project site is currently zoned for a 3 story office project with 3 stories of parking (likely 4 with one sub-terranean). The reality of the situation is that the site should not remain underutilized.  It will not remain a small footprint 2 story building with a massive amount of surface parking- that is not feasible nor should the city want it.  I personally believe that a 3-story building, which likely will be around 387K square feet, can have even more of a detrimental effect when compared to the current alternative for 2525.   I believe that most folks who are opposed to the development and using items such as traffic, parking, visual look, etc…as reasons to be opposed are comparing it to the existing state for that parcel which is a small underutilized (or even unutilized) office space with a vast amount of surface parking.  It is not good for the fiscal impact to the city.  It is not good for the surrounding businesses and it very well may not be the best for the surrounding residents.    The No Project/No Build alternative in the EIR, although an alternative, simply is not a realistic alternative and it will also deprive the city of some benefits.  By not developing the property to its highest and best use, the city will lose out on valuable property taxes.  The amount of money that this project could provide to the city will be substantial in both recurring property taxes and also one-time fees.  The funds will not only help with annual general fund obligations but also with our housing crisis in the city- both low income and market rate.  The low income fees that they will have to pay is tremendous and can certainly be put to good use by the city.   Although the project cannot and should not be viewed in an economic bubble, the revenue side certainly has to be of high importance especially considering the fiscal crisis we are in at a time when the economy is supposedly doing relatively well.  The amount of money that a developer would need to invest in rehabbing the current property simply is not a realistic use of their capital when compared to the annual cash flow potentially provided.  A reasonable investor will strive to increase cash flow and the current building would not provide that return.   The North end of Santa Ana is a great community.  We desire strong businesses to be located here.  We desire to have a nice grocery store like a Trader Joe's.  If we desire those things, unfortunately, it can be said that additional high income residents will strengthen the case for a grocery store like a Trader Joe's to consider the area.  I personally would not like it at that location simply because of the traffic generation but there certainly are other areas that could possibly support it.   Key Comparisons- 2525 vs Current Zoning When comparing the current proposed housing development versus the existing zoning of a 3-story office building, it is important to consider the following: · Traffic- An office building of this size will produce more traffic than the 2525 proposal.  If traffic is a concern of the opposition, then they should not be in favor of the current zoning but instead be in favor of something else.  A 3-story office building as allowed under the current zoning simply has the potential to be much worse for our community traffic-wise as compared to a residential alternative.  Certainly, the residential proposal may generate more traffic during off-peak times such as late night and weekends but that is not when traffic is bad/worst on Main Street…it is bad during peak commute times which is where a residential development has a better traffic impact as compared to the existing office use. · Traffic Flow- An office building will not have just one entrance on Main.  Instead, it will have its entrance on Edgewood as is currently provided for. They may be able to add a secondary entrance on Main, however since the entrance is already on Edgewood, a developer of the property as an office building can keep it there.  This appears to be worse for the Park Santiago neighborhood and the resulting cut through traffic.  Not to mention that those travelling North on I-5 will simply exit 17th Street and cut all the way through Park Santiago making a morning commute even worse with cut through traffic.  With the current Main Street only exit/entrance, the cut through traffic, although likely not eliminated, should be significantly less than the existing proposal. · Parking- An office building of this size will likely provide enough parking for tenants and guests.  However, this size of a building will also often have paid parking.  This means that some guests and even some tenants may be tempted to save the parking fees and park in the residential area.  Overflow parking is a concern of the neighbors but it should also be a concern under the existing allowed zoning.  With the residential usage, there seems to be ample parking with the new proposal (2 spots per unit) whereas with an office usage there will be an economic advantage by parking in the Park Santiago streets because they will be able to save parking money. · Green Space- We all love green space.  I believe that the current housing development proposal would provide for more overall green space.  Now, it will not necessarily be public greenspace, but it will be good for the environment and since the Park Santiago residents may be able to use it, it may also be good for them in certain instances.  Currently, the property is a dilapidated and underutilized office building and a surface parking lot- a lot of asphalt.  A new development will certainly bring more greenspace to the corner lot. · Low Income Housing Fees- We have a lot of concern about housing the homeless and otherwise our city's homeless problems in our area town.  An office redevelopment will not provide the in-lieu of fees associated with a multi-family residential development.  These fees, which likely will exceed $6M, will help our city with our affordable housing crisis. · Visual Appearance- 2525 will be situated next to a very charming and historic neighborhood and in close proximity to others.  Looks are important to neighbors.  The develop has expressed his availability to discuss the visual appearance of the project, however I do not believe that anyone from NSAPA took him up on this offer.  Additionally, will a 3 story, 387 square foot office building provide all that much of a better visual experience as you enter Park Santiago?  We also must consider that even though the setback against Spurgeon may be larger in an office usage, they will likely have 3 stories at that setback line as opposed to the proposed 2-story building under the 2525 proposal · Availability of Housing- Yes, the prices of these apartments will be high.  They may be the highest in Santa Ana.  They are also in an area of town that has the highest single family residence values in the city.  Our city is in need of housing.  Our city is need of all types of housing.  By having more supply of housing, even premium priced housing, we should see some relief of housing stock.  Plus, it will help due to the low income housing fees paid by the developer to provide even more housing.  · Population Density- Sure, an office building will not bring additional housing to Santa Ana on that site.  We will hear folks say that Santa Ana is already so very densely populated.  Well, our end of town is an outlier in Santa Ana.  The Park Santiago neighborhood has a density of 7.19K per square mile, West Floral Park is at 6.21K per square mile while Floral Park is at 5.85K per mile (all according to this research site: https://statisticalatlas.com/place/California/Santa-Ana/Population) .  The average for Santa Ana is 12.29K per square mile.  Some neighborhoods have population density of in escess of 40K per mile (Cornerstone Village at 63.13K, 41.96K for Willard, etc…our end of town is definitely an outlier and much less densely populated than the majority of Santa Ana.   If we cannot have additional housing in our part of town, how do we justify it in other parts of town that are much more densely populated?  Whether we want to admit it or not, when our vacancy rates are as low as they are right now, which is essentially just vacant turn over time, we have a housing issue to deal with.  The entire city has a housing issue to consider.  Even the areas of town that are less densely populated should be considering how we can be part of the solution.   We need to consider that if this project is stopped, which I don't think they should, that the next one may be worse for all parties (including the city due to residential development fees) and due to the current zoning on that property, we may be stuck with what we can get.  We have an opportunity right now to be sure that any positive changes to the project that can be made, are considered.   Residential Property Values There is a lot of concern about what a high density development will do for our property values.  Sure, there may be a short term decrease as those who are so opposed to living next to apartments decide to sell their homes despite the residents of 2525 quite possibly paying more per month for their rent than our cost of ownership.  However, I believe that the residents of 2525 will be the future home buyers of our houses when we are ready to move on.  If they are willing to pay the prices proposed, they will soon be trying to buy a home- and hopefully in our great neighborhoods.    Additionally, if folks do move, which I hope that they do not, they likely will be replaced by new buyers who will pay higher property taxes due to Prop 13 value resets to fair value.  This is not a reason to approve the project but just a silver lining in case folks do intend to move because of this project.   Conclusion There are positives that can come about from this project if we keep an open mind when comparing it to the existing 3-story building zoning…less traffic, more city revenue, more low income housing availability through development fees, etc….  Yes, there are negatives such as a possible lack of fit with the Park Santiago neighborhood and also a change from the current status quo of a vacant building and these need to be weighed and considered when viewing this project.    Please consider all voices and not just those that speak the loudest or in the most numbers, but also consider the entire city.  We cannot look at this in a bubble but must look at what is best for the whole city.  As a resident of North Santa Ana, I want the best not only for my current neighbors, but my fellow residents who live in a completely different part of town and also future neighbors who do not even know they will be moving into Santa Ana in the future.  I trust you will also and as such, please consider all aspects of this project when determining the best course of action.   Thanks for your consideration.   Tim Johnson