Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - EIR18-01;DA18-01; GPA18-06; AA 18-10_2525 N. Main Streets2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-10 2-11 2-12 2-13 2-14 2-15 2-16 2-17 2-18 2-19 2-20 2-21 2-22 2-23 2-24 2-25 This page left blank intentionally. 2-26 EXHIBIT 1 2-27 This page left blank intentionally. 2-28 LS 1.14.19 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA: (1) ADOPT ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, (2) CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2018021031), (3) ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT, (4) ADOPT THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND (5) APPROVE THE PROPOSED MAGNOLIA AT THE PARK MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET WHEREAS, AC 2525 Main, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks to develop the Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project (“proposed Project”) a 496-unit multi-family project on a 5.93- acre site at 2525 North Main Street in Santa Ana, California (“Project Site”); WHEREAS, the proposed Project entails, among other things, (1) demolition of the existing 81,172 square foot vacant two-story office building and 442-space surface parking lot on the Project Site; (2) redevelopment of the 5.93-acre site with 930,705 square feet of total development, including 405,290 square feet of residential buildings that would provide 496 for-rent multi-family residential units and a 358,630 square foot central parking/fitness center/club room structure; (3) approval of Development Agreement No. 2018-01 between the City of Santa Ana (“City”) and Applicant; (4) approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, which would change the Project Site’s existing land use designation of Professional & Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC); and (5) approval of Amendment Application No. 2018-10, which seeks a zone change for the Project Site from Professional (P) to Specific Development No. 93 (SD-93) designation; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project has been submitted and requires review and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (the “EIR”) (SCH# 2018021031) (Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01), and approval of Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10; and WHEREAS, the Project Site is located at the northeast corner of North Main Street and Edgewood Road and the properties immediately adjacent to the site include Santiago Park to the north, single-family residential homes to the south and east and the Discovery Science Center of Orange County is across Main Street to the west. The Project Site is located on North Main Street, an urban corridor within the City. The Project Site is also located at a main entry point to the Park Santiago Neighborhood, a EXHIBIT 1 2-29 residential neighborhood predominantly comprised of detached single-family dwellings; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City of Santa Ana is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15063, the City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the Project may have a significant effect on the environment and to evaluate whether an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) was required; and WHEREAS, after conducting the Initial Study, the City determined that an EIR should be prepared to evaluate the Project’s potential to have a significant effect on the environment in the following areas: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities; and WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City further determined that impacts to Aesthetics regarding scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; to Agriculture and Forestry Resources regarding farmland; agricultural land, forest land timberland or conversion of; to Biological Resources regarding wetlands, conflicts with a tree preservation policy or ordinance, conflicts with a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan; to Geology and Soils regarding a known earthquake fault, landslides, or soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or waste water disposal; to Hazards regarding sites listed on a hazardous materials site, an airport land use plan, private airstrip or wildland fires; to Hydrology and Water Quality regarding housing within a 100-year flood hazard area; to Land Use and Planning regarding conflicts with a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan; to Mineral Resources regarding loss of a mineral resource to the region or locally; to Noise regarding conflicts with an airport land use plan or private airstrip; Population and Housing regarding displacing existing housing necessitating replacement housing or displacing substantial number of persons necessitating construction of replacement housing; to Transportation/Traffic regarding a change in air traffic patterns; to Utilities and Service Systems regarding federal, state and local solid waste regulations would have no impact or be less than significant and thus need not be analyzed further in the EIR; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, on February 12, 2018, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) - which was also published in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation - stating that an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number #2018021031) would be prepared; and 2-30 WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Initial Study were available for review and inspection at City Hall (20 Civic Center Plaza), on the City’s website, and at the Santa Ana Public Library (26 Civic Center Plaza); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.9 and State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(c) and 15083, the City held a duly noticed Scoping Meeting on March 1, 2018, to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental review of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, 163 comment letters were received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) was prepared for the proposed Project, addressing comments received in response to the NOP and evaluating the proposed Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR concluded that the proposed Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact to Aesthetics with the implementation of mitigation measures regarding the existing visual character of the Project Site and its surroundings, as implementation of the proposed Project would result in a significant and unavoidable change in visual scale, height, and setbacks from Santiago Park, Edgewood Road, and North Bush Street; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for the following resource areas: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15085, a Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and Research on August 7, 2018; and WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(a), the City provided a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR to the public - and published the Notice of Availability in the Orange County Register - at the same time that the City sent a Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research, on August 7, 2018; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft EIR and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at City Hall (20 Civic Center Plaza), on the City’s website, and at the Santa Ana Public Library (26 Civic Center Plaza); and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, on August 27, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to receive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(i); and WHEREAS, in response to a request from Chatten-Brown & Cartens LLP, on behalf of the North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance, the City extended the Draft 2-31 Environmental Impact Report public review and comment period to October 4, 2018 to allow additional time for public review and input; and WHEREAS, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(e), the Draft EIR was circulated for a 59-day review period, from August 7, 2018 to October 4, 2018; and WHEREAS, during the 59-day public comment period, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and WHEREAS, the City received 44 written comment letters and six verbal comments on the Draft EIR at the August 27, 2018 public hearing, including a written acknowledgement from the State Clearinghouse that the City has complied with CEQA environmental review requirements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, on November 15, 2018, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies and interested organizations and parties more than ten (10) days prior to the City’s consideration of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2018, the City released the Final EIR (“Final EIR”), which consists of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft EIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, written responses to all written comment letters received and verbal comments received on the Draft EIR, revisions to the Draft EIR and technical appendices, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, on January 4, 2019, the City gave public notice of a Planning Commission public hearing for consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 (State Clearinghouse Number #2018021031) by advertising in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation, and on January 4, 2019 by mailing to owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the Project Site and posting on the Project Site; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited comments on the EIR. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR, adopt the findings, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the “EIR” consists of the Final EIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR); and 2-32 WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the EIR; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the Planning Commission has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision and recommendations on the Project; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the Planning Commission pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the Project, which are incorporated herein by this reference, and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Project’s significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, as identified in the EIR, are described in Section 7 of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Project’s environmental impacts that are less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures, as identified in the EIR, are described in Section 8 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR as less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 9 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the EIR are described in Section 9.17 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, the potential significant and irreversible environmental changes that would result from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 10 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as “Exhibit A”; and WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts resulting from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 11 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might further reduce the proposed Project’s environmental impacts are described in Section 12 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and 2-33 WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the Planning Commission has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the Project under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Project was fully considered; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has agreed to and shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the Project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 2-34 1. The Planning Commission hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. 2. The Planning Commission declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance”, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the EIR. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL: 1. Adopt the Findings of Fact, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A.” 2. Certify the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings. 3. Adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “B”, after balancing the significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts of the Project against the benefits of the Project. 4. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “C”, consistent with Public Resources Code section 21081.6; make implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a condition of approval of the Project; and find that in the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control. 5. Direct City staff to cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County of Orange Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five (5) working days of the City Council’s final Project approval. SECTION 1. EXECUTION OF RESOLUTION. The Chairperson shall sign this Resolution and the Planning Commission Recording Secretary shall attest and certify to the adoption thereof. 2-35 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of January 2019. AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: _______________________ Mark McLoughlin Chairperson APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By:________________________ Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, SARAH BERNAL, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2019-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on _______________________, 2019. Date: ________________ ____________________________________ Recording Secretary City of Santa Ana 2-36 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 1 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR CEQA FINDINGS, FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FINAL EIR FOR THE MAGNOLIA AT THE PARK MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE No: 2018021031 City of Santa Ana: DP No. 2017-34 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statutory Requirements for Findings The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that written findings be made by the lead agency in connection with certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prior to approval of the Project (Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines 1 and Section 21081 of the State of California Public Resources Code). CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 states: a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. 2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such other agency. 3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subdivision (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. 1 The CEQA Guidelines are codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing at section 15000. 2-37 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 2 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 provides that: a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits of a proposed project, against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, or a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. The City of Santa Ana, as lead agency, having received, reviewed and considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project (Project), SCH No. 2018021031, as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, hereby adopts the following Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City of Santa Ana for the development and operation of the Project. This action includes the approval of the DEIR SCH No. 2018021031. 1.2 Organization/Format of Findings These Findings have been organized into the following sections: • Section 1.0: Introduction, provides the organization and records information for these Findings. • Section 2.0: Project Location, provides a summary of the location of the Project. • Section 3.0: Project Description, provides a summary of the Project, including an overview of the discretionary actions required for Project approval and a statement of the Project objectives. • Section 4.0: Discretionary Actions, provides a list of the discretionary approvals that are required by the Project. • Section 5.0: Statement of Project Objectives, provides the statement of objective sought by the Project. 2-38 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 3 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR • Section 6.0: Environmental Review and Public Participation provides a description of the CEQA process conducted for the Project. • Section 7.0: Significant Effects that Cannot be Mitigated to a Less than Significant Level, provides the Findings for the impacts that would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of regulations that reduce impacts and project-specific mitigation measures. • Section 8.0: Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance, provides the Findings for impacts that can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of regulations that reduce impacts, Project Design Features (PDFs), and mitigation measures. • Section 9.0: Effects Determined Not to be Significant, provides the Findings regarding the environmental impacts that were determined to be less than significant as a result of the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (NOP) and/or analysis within the EIR. • Section 10.0: Significant Irreversible Environmental Change and Energy Use. • Section 11.0: Growth Inducing Effects, provides the Findings regarding the CEQA-required analysis for growth inducement. • Section 12.0: Alternatives, provides Findings regarding project alternatives. 1.3 Record of Proceedings For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: • The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project • The DEIR, including all technical studies included in the appendices for the Project • All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the pubic during the public review comment period on the DEIR • The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to Comments • All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the proposed Project • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • All documents, studies, EIRs or other materials incorporated by reference in the DEIR and FEIR • The Resolutions adopted by the City of Santa Ana in connection with the Project and all documents incorporated by reference therein • Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state and local laws and regulations • Any documents expressly cited in these Findings • Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e) • The Final EIR for the Project 2-39 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 4 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 1.4 Custodian and Location of Records The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter at 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20 Santa Ana, California, 92701. The custodian for these documents is the City of Santa Ana. Copies of these documents which constitute the record of proceedings are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the City of Santa Ana. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e). 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION The Project is located at 2525 North (N.) Main Street, in the northern portion of the City of Santa Ana approximately 500 feet east of Interstate (I)-5. The site is located on the northeast corner of N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. Regional access to the Project site is provided by I-5 and the N. Main Street exit; and local access to the Project site is provided by N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. The Project site consists of 6 contiguous parcels that include Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 003-010- 028, 003-010-01, 003-010-03, 003-010-025, 003-010-026, 003-010-030 and is located within the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) Orange County 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Residential Development The Project would redevelop the 5.9-acre Project site to provide 496 for-rent multi-family residential units. The residences would be provided within approximately 572,075 square feet of residential structures. The development would be 5 stories and be topped with mezzanines reaching approximately 65-feet 8-inches in height. The development would tier down to 2-stories (slightly over 20-feet in height) on the eastern portion of the site. The residential units would be wrapped around a 358,630 square foot central parking/fitness center/club room structure with a roofline of approximately 90 feet from the ground surface, which is the highest point of the Project. The Project would result in approximately 930,705 square feet of development and a density of 84 dwelling units per acre, and would provide a mix of studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units, as shown in Table 1. Table 1: Residential Unit Summary Unit Type Number of Units Square Footage of Units Percentage1 Studio 73 590 – 740 15% 1 Bedroom 307 610 – 1,090 62% 2 Bedroom 88 910 – 1,470 18% 3 Bedroom 28 1,360 – 1,520 6% Total 496 -- 100% 1Rounded to the nearest percentage. The residential units would be setback a minimum of 40 feet from the cement block wall that forms the eastern Project site boundary and would be separated by 4 courtyards and landscaped areas. The central parking structure would have 9 levels of parking, one of which would be underground; thus, 8 levels of parking would be above ground. The parking structure would provide direct access to the leasing office and walkways to residential units, a bicycle parking/sharing station, and 904 parking spaces, which is an 2-40 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 5 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR average of 1.8 spaces per residential unit. The parking spaces would include 122 tandem spaces, 25 electric vehicle charging stations, and 21 spaces compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The parking structure would also provide direct access to the fitness center, club room, and amenity deck located on top of the western portion of the structure. 3.2 Open Space, Recreation, and Other Amenities The Project would provide open space and recreation facilities that includes approximately 34,300 square feet of exterior open space and recreation facilities and 6,960 square feet of indoor recreation facilities that would contain: 5 recreational courtyard areas, a rooftop amenity deck and fitness center on the roof of the parking structure, community room, and a wellness center. In addition, each residential unit includes a private patio or balcony area. The open space, recreation areas, and other amenities are listed in Table 2. Table 2: Summary of Project Open Space / Recreation Amenities Open Space Approximate Square Footage Open Space Recreational Courtyards 1-5 22,900 Wellness Center 1,600 Community Room 4,700 Resident Services /Business Center 3,900 Bicycle Repair Room 280 Dog Wash Room 40 Fitness Center 5,400 Amenity Deck (not including Fitness Center) 11,400 3.3 Walls and Fencing The existing 6-foot high masonry wall along the eastern portion of the site would be raised to 8 feet in height; and the existing fence along the northern boundary of the site would be replaced with a 6-foot- high tubular steel fence, which, along with landscaping, would delineate the Project site from the Santiago Park area. In addition, the fire lane entrances would be secured with a decorative tubular steel gate with a knoxbox for emergency access. 3.4 Landscaping and Lighting Landscaped areas would be located throughout the site and additional street trees would be planted along N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. The residential building would be adjacent to landscaped courtyards. Landscaping is anticipated to be about 19 percent of the site, or about 1.14 acres. Many of the existing mature trees that line the eastern and southern Project site boundary would remain; however, trees that are located throughout the remainder of the site, within construction areas, or are in poor or declining health would be removed. The Project would provide new ornamental landscaping throughout the Project site that would include a variety of 24- through 48-inch box trees, 1 – 5-gallon shrubs, and ground covers. Additional trees ranging in size from 24- to 48-inch box trees would be added to the eastern property line to fill in gaps in the mature landscaping to screen views between the Project site and adjacent residential areas. The Project would also install 24- and 36-inch box trees and tree wells along Edgewood Road and N. Main Street. New plant species used in the landscaping would be drought-tolerant, non-invasive, and compliant with the City of Santa Ana’s landscaping requirements. Likewise, the new irrigation installed onsite would meet the City’s requirements for water efficiency (Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41- 1503; Landscape Water Use Standards). 2-41 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 6 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR New exterior lighting onsite would be provided for security and to accent the landscaping, Project signage, light walkways, and parking areas. The new lighting would be focused on the Project site, shield offsite areas, and would be compliant with the City’s lighting regulations (Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 8-210 and Section 41-611.1). 3.5 Site Access The Project would provide vehicular access via a driveway on N. Main Street that would guide vehicles to the parking structure that provides direct access to the residential units, guest parking, and the leasing office. The Project may also implement a secondary access from either Santiago Park (Option B) or Edgewood Road (Option C). The 3 access options are described below. • Option A: Access on N. Main Street Only. Access to the Project would be provided by one driveway on N. Main Street and would be restricted to right-turn ingress/right-turn egress access only. • Option B: Santiago Park-Walkie Way and N. Main Street Project Access. This option would provide access to the Project site from both Santiago Park/Walkie Way and N. Main Street. The signal at Walkie Way would allow for right-turn ingress/right-turn egress and left-turn ingress/left- turn egress and would provide secondary access to the parking structure. The portion of the park that may be used for access Option B is approximately 10,000 square feet. Various portions of Santiago Park were developed with grant funding; therefore, the park must be operated and maintained as parkland. Any changes to the parkland must be reviewed by the National Park Service and conversions require replacement of the land removed from public outdoor recreation with new parkland. Thus, should access Option B be implemented, a 10,000 square foot portion of the Project site would be dedicated to the City for parkland so that a loss of parkland would not occur. • Option C: Edgewood Road and N. Main Street Project Access. This option would provide access to the Project site from the north-leg of Bush Street/Edgewood Road and from a driveway on N. Main Street. The driveway at Edgewood Road would allow for right-turn ingress/right-turn egress and left-turn ingress/left-turn egress. Additionally, separate emergency access would be provided from Edgewood Road by knoxbox-gated entrances and onsite emergency lanes that meet the City’s Fire Code requirements. 3.6 Infrastructure The Project would connect to the existing water, sewer, and drainage infrastructure in the N. Main Street and Edgewood Road right-of-ways. • Water Infrastructure: The Project would install new water infrastructure on the Project site that would connect to the existing 16-inch water pipelines in N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. The new onsite water system would be compliant with the CalGreen Plumbing Code (Title 24) for efficient use of water. • Wastewater Infrastructure: Wastewater from the Project site currently discharges into existing City-owned 6- and 12-inch sewer lines within Edgewood Road. The Project would install a new onsite sewer system that connects to the existing sewer lines in Edgewood Road. 2-42 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 7 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR • Drainage Infrastructure: Surface runoff from the site is conveyed within onsite curb and gutters to an existing catch basin in N. Main Street and sheet flows to an existing drain inlet at the south- west corner of the parking lot. In addition, sheet flows on the north side of the building flow to the existing 10-inch storm water drain that conveys unfiltered runoff to Santiago Creek. The Project would cap this existing 10-inch storm water drain. It would remain in place but would no longer be used. All of the runoff from the site would be conveyed to infiltrating landscaping areas, catch basins, and storm water drains that would be installed as part of the Project and would be sized to meet the Project’s needs. The onsite system would connect to the existing City drain system in N. Main Street and Edgewood Road, which discharges to Santiago Creek. 3.7 Project Design Features The Project has been designed to incorporate the following Project Design Features (PDFs) that would prevent or lessen potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the Project. These PDFs will be implemented in the same manner as mitigation measures. PDF-1: The landscape plan will incorporate the existing mature trees located along the eastern Project site boundary and to the extent feasible protect and preserve the existing mature trees within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary that were identified as healthy by the Arborist Report. PDF-2: The Project will include at least 25 electric vehicle charging stations. PDF-3: The Project will include installation and maintenance of air filtration systems with efficiencies equal to or exceeding a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 16 as defined by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 52.2 within all buildings. PDF-4: Outdoor trash receptacles will be provided throughout the common areas of the site, including the dog park area, for the tenants to dispose of their refuse in a proper manner. Property maintenance will provide trash and waste material removal, including dog feces disposal bags, to maintain a trash-free property. All wastes shall be collected and properly disposed of off-site. PDF-5: The Project will include safety design features for security, such as low-intensity security lighting, key pads for building access, security cameras, and 24-hour security personnel. 3.8 Construction Activities and Schedule The Project would be developed over an 18-month period, in one construction phase that includes the following stages: (1) demolition of existing building, pavement, removal of infrastructure and some landscaping; (2) grading and excavation; (3) construction of drainage, utilities, and subgrade infrastructure; (4) building construction; and (5) paving and application of architectural coatings. No units will be leased until construction of the entire Project is completed and occupancy permits have been received from the City. Construction activities would be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and excluding Sundays and federal holidays, which would be consistent with the City’s Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 18-314; Special Provisions). However, typical construction activities 2-43 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 8 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR would occur Monday through Friday, generally 20 days a month. Initial site preparation would include demolition of the existing building and several areas of asphaltic concrete pavements. Demolition would remove all subsurface remnants, including foundations, floor slabs, and any utilities that will not be reutilized with the new development. It is anticipated that a maximum of 120 construction workers would be onsite at one time, which would occur during the building construction phase. 4.0 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS Implementation of the Project requires several actions by the City, including: • Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2018021031). Certification of the Final EIR (SCH No. 2018021031) evaluating the environmental impacts resulting from the Project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Pubic Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.). The Final EIR provides additional environmental information to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other public agencies that may be required to grant approvals and permits or coordinate with the City as part of Project implementation. • General Plan Land Use Amendment. The Project requires City approval of General Land Use Amendment, which would change the General Plan Land Use designation of the Project area from PAO (Professional & Administration Office) to District Center (DC), which allows residential uses to a maximum density of 90 dwelling units per acre. • Amendment Application for a Zone Change. The Project requires approval of an Amendment Application from the City for a zone change a c from Professional (P) to Specific Development (SD). The SD zone provides site specific development standards. • Development Agreement. To guide development and services as described in the Project Description previously pursuant to a contract between the City of Santa Ana and Project Applicant. 5.0 STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES The following objectives support the project’s underlying purpose to develop multi-family residential uses on the project site and assist with meeting the City’s housing needs: • Redevelop existing underutilized parcels to implement development of new high-quality housing. • Increase high-quality housing near existing employment centers. • Promote an improved jobs/housing balance by locating attractive new housing in proximity to employment centers. • Provide housing in close proximity to commercial areas, freeways, and transit. • Redevelop existing land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure, including: water, sewer, arterial roadways, transit, and freeways. • Implement capital investment to enhance the City’s economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan. • Provide a safe, high-quality, modern residential community with open space and various recreation amenities. 2-44 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 9 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In conformance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Project. • The City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study for a 30-day public review period, which commenced on February 12, 2018, and ended on March 13, 2018. The NOP was distributed to all public agencies, trustee agencies, and the State Office of Planning and Research; posted in the OC Register, posted at the Orange County Clerk-Recorder’s office and on the City’s website; and provided for public review at the Santa Ana Public Library and at the City’s Planning Division counter. • Based on the Initial Study and Environmental Check List Form (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G), the City staff determined that an EIR should be prepared for the Project. A scoping meeting was held during the NOP review period to allow public agencies, local residents, and interested persons an opportunity to review the Project and provide input on issues to be addressed in the EIR. The scoping meeting was held on March 1, 2018 from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at the First Congressional Church of Santa Ana, located at 2555 Santiago Street. Notice of the scoping meeting was sent to state and local agencies, cities, individuals who expressed interest in the Project and notice of the meeting was also included in the Notice of Preparation. • The scope of the DEIR was determined based on the City’s Initial Study, comments received in response to the NOP, and comments received at the scoping meeting conducted by the City. Section 2.4, Areas of Controversy of the DEIR summarizes the issues identified for analysis. • The DEIR was made available for a 45-day public review period from August 7, 2018 to September 20, 2018. The public review period was extended to 59-days (an additional 2 weeks to October 4, 2018) in response to a request from the public. The Notice of Completion was sent to all interested persons, agencies, cities and organizations and notice posted at the Orange County Clerk-Recorder’s office and in the OC Register. The Notice of Completion was also sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to additional public agencies. Copies of the DEIR were made available on the City’s website at: http://santa- ana.org/pba/planning/2525mainresidentialdevelopment.asp, and at the following locations: o City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter, 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20, Santa Ana, CA 92701 o City of Santa Ana Public Library, 26 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 • On August 27, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to receive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Notice of the meeting was posted in the OC Register and mailed to property owner and occupants within 500 feet. 7.0 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL The City hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and in this document, the following environmental impact cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore required. The following summary describes the adverse impacts of the Project that would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of standard regulatory requirements, PDFs, and mitigation measures. 2-45 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 10 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 7.1 Aesthetics 7.1.1 Visual Character Threshold: Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-16 through 4.1-26.) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the DEIR, with implementation of the Project, views of the Project site from the adjacent Santiago Park area would change from setback views of the existing 2-story office building partially screened by mature landscaping to that of forefront views of the 5-story residential building, with a landscaped tree buffer directly adjacent to the park. This would result in a significant and unavoidable change in views of the Project site from the park. The difference in scale and height, due to the Project’s location adjacent to the park, and limited visual setback buffer with the proposed landscaping, would result in a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks that is considered significant pursuant to the City’s criteria related to the visual character of the site in comparison to the park. Thus, the visual change in height, scale, and setbacks from Santiago Park would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-16 through 4.1-26.) In addition, implementation of the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable change in visual scale, height, and setbacks from Edgewood Road and N. Bush Street. The background views of urban buildings would become forefront views, and the proposed size and scale of the Project would substantially increase the overall visual density of the built environment. The difference in visual scale and height with the proposed structure adjacent to the roadway and limited of visual setback buffer, would be substantial and considered significant pursuant to the City’s criteria. Thus, the visual change related to the height, scale, and setback from Edgewood Road and N. Bush Street would be significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-21.) The Project includes the following PDF that would reduce the visual impacts of the Project: • PDF-1: The landscape plan will incorporate the existing mature trees located along the eastern Project site boundary and to the extent feasible protect and preserve the existing mature trees within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary that were identified as healthy by the Arborist Report. (DEIR, p. 3-18.) In addition, Mitigation Measure AES-1 require measures be implemented to retain and protect the trees along the eastern and southern Project site boundary and would reduce these impacts. Mitigation Measure AES-1 provides: Mitigation Measure AES-1: Construction plans and specifications shall state that the following measures shall be implemented by the construction contractor to protect the trees along the eastern Project site boundary and to the extent feasible protect and preserve the existing mature trees within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary that are planned for preservation during construction of the proposed Project pursuant to the 2018 Arborist Report: • If the wall along the eastern boundary of the Project site cannot be heightened in-place and must be replaced, it shall be reconstructed with a precast concrete fence or a wall without a continuous footing. 2-46 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 11 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR • Before finalizing construction plans, a contractor with an AirSpade or AirKnife shall explore the locations adjacent to the preserved trees to locate large lateral roots. The root locations shall be marked, and a survey provided to update the construction plans to avoid cutting any significant large roots. The cutting of small roots shall be planned for late spring or winter and made with clean cuts. No pruning paint or sealants shall be used. • Any grade changes near the preserved trees or pruning of trees to provide clearances for construction equipment shall be coordinated with a Registered Consulting Arborist before construction begins, and precautions pursuant to the arborist’s recommendations shall be taken to mitigate potential tree injuries. • Prior to construction, a one-pound soil sample shall be taken from the top 18-inches of soil in each area where trees will be preserved. The samples shall be sent to an appropriate laboratory for analysis and soil supplement recommendations. Fertilization of the preserved trees shall be completed pursuant to the laboratory analysis’ soil supplement recommendations. • Prior to construction, augur 6-inch diameter holes about 3 feet deep at a 3-foot spacing between large roots in the more compacted and crowded spaces. Avoid large visible roots, relocating the holes as needed. Start augur holes at three times the trunk diameter, i.e. 6-feet from a 24-inch tree. Back fill with amended soil, based on an agronomic lab’s testing and recommendations. • Prior to construction, mulch all exposed soil areas using a topical application of a well-composted, coarse-texture mulch, without manure or bio-solids, e.g. Aguinaga Forest Floor ½ to 1½” particle size. Apply it 2-inches deep, but not against the tree trunks. • Deep water before construction and check soil moisture monthly during construction by means of a soil test probe. Slow water with a soaker hose or water spike for 12 hours, or as long as necessary to reach 4-feet deep. • Rinse tree foliage at the end of each work week, using a strong stream of water from a high- pressure nozzle. • During construction in areas without pavement near the preserved trees, 3 or more inches of coarse mulch or tree chips under 1-inch plywood for light vehicle parking and steel plates for larger vehicles is required to prevent compaction and protect surface roots. • Protection Barrier: A protection barrier shall be installed around the trees to be preserved. The barrier shall be constructed of durable fencing material, such as chain link fencing. The barrier shall be placed as far from the base of the tree(s) as possible and shall be maintained in good repair throughout the duration of construction, and shall not be removed, relocated, or encroached upon without permission of the Project arborist. o Storage of Materials: There shall be NO storage of materials or supplies of any kind within the area of the protection barriers. Concrete and cement materials, block, stone, sand and soil shall not be placed within the drip-line of the tree. o Fuel Storage: Fuel storage shall NOT be permitted within 150 feet of any tree to be preserved. Refueling, servicing and maintenance of equipment and machinery shall NOT be permitted within 150 feet of the protected trees. o Debris and Waste Materials: Debris and waste from construction or other activities shall NOT be permitted within protected areas. Wash down of concrete or cement handling equipment, in particular, shall NOT be permitted within 150 feet of protected trees. • Any damages or injuries should be reported to the Project arborist as soon as possible. Severed roots shall be pruned cleanly to healthy tissue, using proper pruning tools. Broken branches or limbs shall be pruned according to International Society of Arboriculture Pruning Guidelines and ANSI A-300 Pruning Standards. 2-47 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 12 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR However, even with implementation of the PDF-1 and Mitigation Measure AES-1, the Project would still result in a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks that is considered significant pursuant to the City’s criteria. As a result, impacts related to existing visual character or quality of the site would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-16 through 4.1-26.) 8.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The City hereby finds that feasible Mitigation Measures have been identified in the DEIR and this Resolution that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. Compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, PDFs, and the identification of feasible mitigation measures have reduced potential impacts to a level of less than significant as determined by the City. All of the PDFs and mitigation measures will be included in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in order to ensure compliance with all conditions adopted by the City. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to PDFs or existing regulations that reduce environmental impacts, the EIR and these Findings specify how those impacts were reduced to an acceptable level. The potentially significant impacts, and the Mitigation Measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows: 8.1 Air Quality 8.1.1 Exposure of Substantial Pollutant Concentrations to Sensitive Receptors Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-17 through 4.2-18.) Facts in Support of Findings: As detailed in the DEIR, the Project has the potential to exceed the SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds for emissions of PM 10 during construction activities. Therefore, SCAQMD Rules 403(4), 1113, and 1186 to reduce particulate matter and Mitigation Measure AQ-1 requiring the construction contractor to use off-road diesel construction equipment that complies with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards, would be implemented to reduce construction emissions below a level of significance. With implementation of SCAQMD Rules 403(4), 1113, and 1186 and Mitigation Measure AQ-1 that would be confirmed through the City’s permitting process for the Project, localized construction emissions of PM 10 would be below SCAQMD thresholds and reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Construction plans and specifications shall state that the construction contractor shall use off-road diesel construction equipment that complies with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards and shall ensure that all construction equipment be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. With the implementation of the mitigation measure identified above (MM-AQ-1), the Project’s impact in Air Quality would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-17 through 4.2-18.) 2-48 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 13 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 8.2 Biological Resources 8.2.1 Movement of Fish or Wildlife Threshold: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-3 through 4.3-4.) Facts in Support of Findings: Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the DEIR identified that the Project could impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The 180 mature ornamental trees on the Project site provide potentially suitable foraging and breeding habitat for nesting migratory birds and raptor species associated with urban areas such as red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, and Cooper’s hawk. The Project includes removal of many of the existing trees on the Project site that could disrupt nesting birds and raptors if vegetation is removed or construction begins during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). Disruption of migratory nesting birds and raptors is prohibited by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is included to require a nesting bird survey to be conducted by a qualified biologist within 3 days prior any disturbance of the site during nesting season, including: vegetation removal, disking, demolition activities, and grading. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, potential impacts related to nesting birds and raptors would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Construction plans and specifications shall state that vegetation clearing during nesting season (February 1 through September 15) shall be avoided, if feasible. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall be required to conduct a nesting bird survey within 3 days prior any disturbance of the site, including disking, demolition activities, and grading. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around nests at an appropriate distance that is a minimum of 250 feet for raptors and 100 feet for non-raptors. The buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied, and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. With the implementation of the mitigation measure identified above (MM-BIO-1), the Project’s impact on Biological Resources would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-3 through 4.3-4.) 8.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 8.3.1 Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-7 through 4.6-8.) Facts in Support of Findings: Impacts related to hazards were evaluated in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the DEIR. As described, due to the existence of hazardous materials within on- site soils, ground disturbing activity has the potential to result in the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. The contaminated soils would need to be excavated and removed as 2-49 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 14 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR required by DTSC, California Integrated Waste Management Board, RWQCB, OCFA, and the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA). As a result, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 has been required to reduce the potential risks related to accidental release and exposure of people and the environment to the contaminated soils. Due to the existence of hazardous materials within on-site soils, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would be implemented to reduce the potential risks related to accidental release and exposure of people and the environment to these hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires that a qualified consultant prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to be used by construction workers to remove and dispose of the areas of arsenic impacted soil. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires excavation of contaminated soils be completed pursuant to existing DTSC and RWQCB requirements, soils sampling ensure all contaminated soils are removed, and that a certified hazardous waste hauler remove and transport all arsenic impacted soil and other potentially hazardous materials per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the state to accept hazardous materials. Excavated soil containing hazardous substances would be classified as a hazardous waste if they exhibit the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (CCR, Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 11, Article 3). The SMP would detail hazardous materials excavation and disposal methods and requirements pursuant to the regulation of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CalOSHA) and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) that regulates the removal, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste to protect human health and the environment. With implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz-1 impacts related to hazards of the onsite contaminated soils would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by a qualified hazardous materials consultant and shall detail procedures and protocols for excavation and disposal of onsite hazardous materials, including: • A certified hazardous waste hauler shall remove all potentially hazardous soils. Excavation of contaminated soils shall be to the depth of approximately 0.5 feet below the existing ground surface in areas identified as having arsenic impacted soils. In addition, sampling of soil shall be conducted during excavation to ensure that all arsenic impacted soils are removed, and that residential Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residential uses are not exceeded. Excavated materials shall be transported per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the state to accept hazardous materials. • Any subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of excavation activities. Soils suspected of contamination shall be tested for potential contamination. If contamination is found to be present per the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ESLs for residential uses, it shall be transported and disposed of per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to an appropriately permitted landfill. • A Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall be prepared for each contractor that addresses potential safety and health hazards and includes the requirements and procedures for employee protection. The HSP shall also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction. • All SMP measures shall be printed on the construction documents, contracts, and Project plans prior to issuance of grading permits. 2-50 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 15 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR With the implementation of the mitigation measure identified above (MM-HAZ-1), the Project’s potential impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-7 through 4.6-8.) 8.4 Noise 8.4.1 Noise Levels in Excess of Established Standards Threshold: Would the Project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-10 through 4.8-13.) Facts in Support of Findings: The Project would not result in generation of noise levels in excess standards established by the City’s Municipal Code. Per Section 18-314 (Special Provisions) of the City’s Municipal Code noise sources associated with construction activities are exempt from the established noise standards as long as the activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. The Project’s construction activities would occur pursuant to these regulations. Thus, the Project would be in compliance with the City’s construction related noise standards. However, the Project has the potential to result in exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of relevant standards as a result of increased traffic-related noise. As discussed in the DEIR, traffic along the roadways near the Project site would generate noise that could exceed interior noise standards within some of the Project units. Thus, some of the residential units would require upgraded windows and sliding glass doors with increased Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings to meet the interior noise standards. As described in Section 4.8, Noise, of the DEIR, the residential units along N. Main Street would require upgraded windows and sliding glass doors with minimum STC ratings of between 27 and 30 to meet the interior noise standards. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would ensure that the appropriate windows and doors are installed, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-10 through 4.8-13.) Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The Project plans and specifications shall include the following construction requirements to be implemented and verified prior to provision of occupancy permits: • Windows/Glass Doors: Residential units adjacent to N. Main Street (all floors) require upgraded windows and sliding glass doors (all windows/doors on all floors) with minimum STC ratings of 30; and all other buildings require standards windows and sliding glass doors with a minimum STC rating of 27. • Exterior Doors (Non-Glass): Exterior doors facing N. Main Street (all floors) require upgraded exterior doors with minimum STC ratings of 30 and shall be well weather-stripped; and all other residential building exterior doors shall be well weather-stripped and have minimum STC ratings of 27. Well-sealed perimeter gaps around the doors are essential to achieve the optimal STC rating. • Walls: At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts, or conduits shall be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal. 2-51 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 16 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR • Ventilation: Residential exterior vents shall be oriented away from I-5 and N. Main Street. If such an orientation cannot be avoided, then an acoustical baffle shall be placed in the attic space behind the vents. With the implementation of the mitigation measure identified above (MM-NOI-1), the Project’s potential impacts relating to noise levels would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-10 through 4.8-13.) 8.4.2 Groundborne Vibrations Threshold: Would the Project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-16 through 4.8-17.) Facts in Support of Findings: Construction activities for of the Project would generate short-term vibration levels that would exceed the distinctly perceptible vibration standard at receiver locations within 50 feet of large bulldozers usage. Therefore, Mitigation Measure NOI-2 is included to prohibit the use of large mobile equipment (greater than 80,000 pounds) and loaded trucks within 50 feet of the residences to the east of the Project site. With implementation of this measure, vibration impacts at the nearby sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The Project plans and specifications shall include the following. requirements: • Large loaded trucks and mobile equipment, such as bulldozers (greater than or equal to 80,000 pounds) shall not be used within 50 feet of the eastern boundary of the Project site. Instead, smaller, rubber-tired mobile equipment (less than 80,000 pounds) or equivalent alternative equipment shall be used within this area during Project construction. • All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site. • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receivers nearest the Project site during all construction. With the implementation of the mitigation measure identified above (MM-NOI-2), the Project’s potential impacts relating to groundborne vibration and noise levels would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.8- 16 through 4.8-17.) 8.4.3 Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise Threshold: Would the Project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-22 through 4.8-24.) The City hereby makes Finding 2 that “changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, 2-52 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 17 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.” Mitigation Measure NOI-3 has been included to minimize and/or avoid the Project’s potential impacts relating to temporary increases in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity. Facts in Support of Findings: Construction of the Project would generate short-term periodic increases in ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, noise from operation of large mobile construction equipment (greater than 80,000 pounds) and loaded trucks would be reduced; and Mitigation Measure NOI-3 is included to require installation of a temporary noise barrier that would be a minimum 11-feet high, constructed of frame- mounted materials such as vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets, and attached to the masonry wall along the eastern Project site boundary or temporary fence posts. In addition, due to the location of existing sensitive receptors, Mitigation Measures NOI-2 and NOI-3 would require a 50-foot setback for use of large mobile construction equipment and require installation of a temporary noise barrier, which would reduce the temporary and intermittent increase in noise from construction to a less than significant level With implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-2 and NOI-3 temporary and periodic construction noise level increases at receiver locations would be reduced to below the 10 dBA Leq temporary noise level increase threshold. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, impacts related to periodic temporary increases in noise would be less than significant. To ensure that the Project’s potential impacts relating to temporary increases in ambient noise levels are mitigated to a less than significant level, in addition to Mitigation Measure NOI-2, discussed above, the following mitigation measure has been identified: Mitigation Measure NOI-3: The Project plans and specifications shall include the requirement to install a minimum 11-foot high temporary construction noise barrier along the Project site eastern boundary for the duration of Project construction. The noise control barriers shall have a solid face from top to bottom and shall meet the following height and constructed requirements: • The temporary noise barrier shall provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA (Federal Highway Administration, Noise Barrier Design Handbook). The noise barrier shall be constructed using an acoustical blanket (e.g. vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or temporary fence posts. • The noise barrier shall be maintained, and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired; • The noise control barrier and associated elements shall be completely removed, and the site appropriately restored upon the conclusion of the construction activity. With the implementation of the mitigation measures identified above (MM-NOI-2 and MM-NOI-3), the Project’s potential impacts relating to temporary increases in ambient noise levels would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-16 through 4.8-17.) 2-53 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 18 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 8.5 Tribal Cultural Resources 8.5.1 Impact on Significant Tribal Cultural Resource Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.12-4 through 4.12-5.) Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site has been heavily disturbed to substantial depths in various portions of the Project site. The Project involves excavation and no substantial evidence exists that tribal cultural resources are present in the Project site. However, during the SB 18/AB 52 consultation, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation stated that the Project lies within its ancestral tribal territory within a sensitive area. Therefore, to avoid potential adverse effects to unknown tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 has been included to provide for Native American resource sensitivity training and to prescribe activities should any inadvertent discoveries of tribal cultural resources be unearthed by Project construction activities. Additionally, California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered at the Project site, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 and the existing regulations, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Inadvertent Discoveries. The Project’s grading and construction plans and specifications shall state that prior to commencement of any excavation activities, a Native American shall be contacted to conduct a Native American Indian Sensitivity Training for construction personnel. The training session includes a handout and focus on how to identify Native American resources encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures followed if resources are discovered. In the event that tribal cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work must be halted within 50 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist in cooperation with a Native American monitor to determine if the potential resource meet the CEQA definition of historical (State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(a)) and/or unique resource (Public Resources Code 21083.2(g)). Construction activities could continue in other areas. If the find is considered a “resource” the archaeologist, in cooperation with a Native American monitor shall pursue either protection in place or recovery, salvage and treatment of the deposits. Recovery, salvage and treatment protocols shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4. If unique a tribal cultural resource cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, recovery, salvage and treatment shall be required at the Project Applicant’s expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall 2-54 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 19 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation in an established accredited professional repository. With the implementation of the mitigation measure identified above (Mitigation Measure TCR-1), the Project’s potential impacts relating to temporary increases in ambient noise levels would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.12-4 through 4.12-5.) 9.0 FINDINGS REGARDING LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION Consistent with Public Resources Code section 21002.1 and section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact. Nevertheless, the City hereby finds—consistent with Chapter 4.0, Environmental Setting and Impact Analysis, of the DEIR and the Initial Study (Appendix A of the DEIR)—that the Project would either have no impact or a less than significant impact to the following resource areas: 9.1 Aesthetics 9.1.1 Scenic Vistas Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.1-9 through 4.1-16.) Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site and surrounding areas are urbanized and do not contain any sensitive scenic vistas. (DEIR, p. 4.1-3, 4.1-9.) Moreover, as described in Section 4.1, Aesthetics of the DEIR, implementation of the Project would change the character of the site to more closely align with the General Plan Scenic Corridors Element designation as a Major City Entry and the Urban Design Element identification of the site as within the Main Street Concourse node. Additionally, it would align with the Scenic Corridors Element designation of Santiago Creek as an Inter-City Corridor. Hence, the Project would result in a substantial change, but this change would not result in an adverse effect to a scenic vista, and impacts related to a scenic vista would be less than significant. 9.1.2 Scenic Resources within State Scenic Highways Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway and/or local scenic road? Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, pp. 14-15.) Facts in Support of Finding: There are no officially designated state highways or County-designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed Project. (Initial Study, pp. 14-15.) 2-55 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 20 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.1.3 Light and Glare Threshold: Would the proposed Project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Finding: Less than significant impact. (Initial Study, pp. 15-16.) Facts in Support of Finding: All outdoor lighting would be hooded, appropriately angled away from adjacent land uses, and would comply with the Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 8-210 and Section 41- 611.1 that provides specifications for shielding lighting away from adjacent uses and relate to intensity of security lighting. (Initial Study, p. 15.) Moreover, the Project would be required to comply with the City’s lighting regulations and such compliance would be verified during the permitting process. The lighting increase in light that would be generated by the Project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and would be less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 15-16.) 9.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources 9.2.1 Farmland Conversion Threshold: Would the Project result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural land use? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 18.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is developed for urban uses and located in an area that is completely developed for urban uses. The Project site and vicinity are void of agricultural uses and the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use because no important farmland exists within the Project site and the site is designated as Urban and Built-Up land. (Initial Study, p. 18.) 9.2.2 Agricultural Zoning Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 18.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site and vicinity is void of agricultural uses. No agricultural zoning is located in the vicinity of the Project area and no parcels within the Project vicinity have Williamson Act contracts. The Project would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. The Project site also does not contain any lands that are subject to Williamson Act contracts, either active or in nonrenewal. (Initial Study, p. 18.) 9.2.3 Forestland Zoning Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production? 2-56 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 21 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 18.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)) because no forest land or timberland exists within the Project site and the Project site is zoned for Professional (P) uses. (Initial Study, p. 18.) 9.2.4 Loss of Forest Land Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 18.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site and vicinity is void of forestland or timberland. (Initial Study, p. 18.) 9.2.5 Conversion Threshold: Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 18.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion forest land to non-forest use because there is no existing farmland or forest land within or adjacent to the Project site. No other changes to the existing environment would occur from implementation of the Project that could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use of forest land to non-forest use. (Initial Study, p. 18.) 9.3 Air Quality 9.3.1 Applicable Air Quality Plans Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.2-14.) Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed in the DEIR, Projects that are consistent with the regional population, housing, and employment forecasts identified by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are considered to be consistent with the AQMP. Here, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which is the applicable air quality plan for the Project, because the Project is consistent with SCAG’s population, housing, and employment forecasts. Notably, the 496 new multi-family units resulting from the Project would constitute a 0.6 percent increase in the total number of residential units in the City, and a 2 percent increase in the number of the multi-family residential units (5+ units) within the City. The Project’s multi-family units would be within the SCAG projected growth. The housing added by the 2-57 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 22 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Project would also help to meet housing demands from projected employment growth in the City while maintaining a healthy vacancy rate. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-14 through 4.2-15.) Moreover, the Santa Ana and City of Orange areas are jobs-rich. The existing jobs-housing ratio is 2.06 in Santa Ana and is projected to be 2.13 in 2040. The Project would reduce the jobs-housing ratio slightly to 2.05; and to 2.11 in 2040, as shown in Section 4.9, Population and Housing, of the DEIR. The balance of jobs and housing and the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure implemented by the Project would reduce vehicle miles traveled and the related air quality emissions, as employees could easily travel to employment opportunities within the Santa Ana and City of Orange areas. Thus, the Project would support AQMP objectives to reduce trips, promote infill development, and balance jobs and housing, and would not conflict with implementation of the AQMP. (DEIR, p. 4.2-15.) Further still, as discussed in the DEIR, the Project would not exceed any air quality standards. (DEIR, p. 4.2-15.) 9.3.2 Air Quality Standards Threshold: Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.2-15 through 4.2-16.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. As detailed in DEIR Section 4.2, Air Quality, the maximum daily construction and operational emissions would not exceed any of SCAQMD’s daily significance thresholds. Thus, the construction and operation of the Project would not result in a violation of an air quality standard or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. (DEIR, p. 4.2-15 through 4.2-16.) 9.3.3 Cumulative Increase of Criteria Pollutant Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.2-16 through 4.2-17.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (DEIR, p. 4.2-16 through 4.2-17.) SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality methodology provides that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants that exceed the SCAQMD’s daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then the project would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant(s) for which the project region is in non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As shown in the DEIR, implementation of the Project would not exceed SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds. Therefore, impacts related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.2-16 through 4.2-17.) 2-58 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 23 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.3.4 Objectionable Odors Threshold: Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 22.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The Project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which seeks to prevent odor nuisances (Initial Study, p. 22.) Moreover, odors resulting from the temporary construction of the Project are not likely to affect a substantial number of people due to the fact that construction activities do not usually emit offensive odors. Additionally, the Project would only involve residential uses, which are not land uses that are typically associated with the generation of objectionable odors such as large commercial or industrial uses. (Initial Study, p. 22.) 9.4 Biological Resources 9.4.1 Candidate, Non-listed Sensitive, or Special-Status Animal and Plant Species Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.3-4.) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in DEIR Section 4.3, Biological Resources, the Project site and adjacent Santiago Park areas consist of developed or ornamentally landscaped areas that do not contain native habitat, special-status habitat, or special-status plants and none are expected to occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. As described by the DEIR, the site could be used by one special-status wildlife species, the western mastiff bat, that has a low potential to roost in the large trees and palms. However, its typical habitat involves conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, and chaparral, which do not occur on the Project site, within Santiago Park, or in the adjacent areas. Therefore, potential impacts to the western mastiff bat from implementation of the Project would be less than significant. No other candidate, sensitive, or special status species have the potential to occur on or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, impacts from implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-4.) 9.4.2 Riparian Habitat Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: No Impact. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-4 through 4.3-5.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site and adjacent areas do not contain native habitat or special- status habitat, including riparian habitat, wetlands, or other sensitive natural community. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts related to these types of biological resources. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-4 through 4.3-5.) 2-59 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 24 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.4.3 Wetlands Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Finding: No Impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 24.) Facts in Support of Finding: Wetlands are defined under the federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally does support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands include areas such as swamps, marshes, and bogs. The Project area is developed and does not contain natural wetlands. While Santiago Creek is located approximately 130 feet to the north of the Project site, the creek area is separated from the Project site by a roadway within Santiago Park, and the Project would not extend into the park area. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts to wetlands. (Initial Study, p. 24.) 9.4.4 Local Policies and Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: No Impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 24) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Trees in the public right-of-way in Santa Ana are protected under Chapter 33, Article VII of the Municipal Code, which regulates the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees in public locations in Santa Ana. The Project would not remove any existing healthy street trees, and the additional street trees installed by the Project would be planted in compliance with the Municipal Code regulations. Moreover, the existing ornamental trees on the Project site are on private property and are not subject to the Municipal Code regulation. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with local polices or ordinances protecting trees and no impact would occur. (Initial Study, p. 24) 9.4.5 Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: No Impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 25) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not contain any lands that are subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts to biological habitat plans. 2-60 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 25 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.5 Cultural Resources 9.5.1 Historical Resources Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.4-9 through 4.4-15) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in DEIR Section 4.4, Cultural/Historic Resources, the Project would not impact any historic resources. The DEIR describes the viewsheds of the properties listed on the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties near the Project site as already significantly affected by urban and modern structures that are taller than the Project’s tallest structure, the proposed 8-level above ground parking structure. As a result, the setting has changed and no longer provides an aesthetic sense of a particular period of history. The Historic Review, referenced in the DEIR, also describes that tall trees throughout Park Santiago screen views toward the Project site, and that many of the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties in Park Santiago are not within the viewshed of the Project site. Overall, as detailed in the Historic Review referenced in the DEIR, due to the existing built environment, location of the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties, and the existing viewsheds, the integrity of the historic setting and feeling aspects of properties in Park Santiago would not be reduced by construction of the proposed Project. Accordingly, a reduction in the historic significance of the properties would not occur from implementation of the Project. (DEIR, p. 4.4-9 through 4.4-15) 9.5.2 Archaeological Resources Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, pp. 26-27.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site has been disturbed various times for different uses and developments. This includes excavation to depths for installation and removal of the previous gas station tanks, and septic tanks, and utility lines from previous developments in the southern portion of the site. In addition, the Property Condition Report referenced in the Initial Study describes that the foundation of the existing building in the northern portion of the site is developed on a 4-inch thick concrete slab on top of 24-inch diameter, 20-36-foot-deep piles. Thus, previous excavation in the area of the existing building reaches 20-36 feet deep, and excavation in other areas of the site were deep enough to provide for utilities, septic tanks, and gasoline tanks. Also, as described in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared for the site (referenced in the Initial Study), up to 5.5 feet of fill soils were observed in soil borings. Due to the extent and depth of previous ground disturbances throughout the site, the potential for archaeological resources to be on site is low. In addition, the Project is anticipated to involve grading and excavations to depths of approximately 15 feet below the ground surface, which would not extend below previous excavations into native soils. As a result, potential impacts related to archaeological resources would be less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 26-27.) 9.5.3 Paleontological Resources or Geologic Feature Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 2-61 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 26 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 27) Facts in Support of Finding: Soils beneath the subject site are mapped as Quaternary Alluvium deposited by the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. Quaternary alluvial materials in Orange County are assigned a low paleontological resource sensitivity due to their relatively recent age. As described above, the Project site has been extensively disturbed to various depths across the site, and the Project will involve grading and excavations to depths of approximately 15 feet below the ground surface, which would not extend below previous excavations into native soils. As a result, potential impacts related to paleontological resources would be less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 27). In addition, the Project site is developed with a building, parking areas, and landscaping, and no unique geologic feature exists on the Project site. 9.5.4 Human Remains Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 27) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site has been extensively disturbed, as described above, and has not been previously used as a cemetery. Thus, impacts related to human remains are less than significant. However, in the unanticipated event that human remains are found during Project construction activities, compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 will ensure that human remains will be treated with dignity and as specified by law, which will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. As specified by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are found on the Project site, the County Coroner’s office shall be immediately notified and no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC will make a determination as to the Most Likely Descendent. Ultimately, compliance with the existing California Health and Safety Code regulations will ensure impacts related to potential disturbance of human remains are less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 27) 9.6 Geology and Soils 9.6.1.1 Exposure to Potential Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death – Earthquake Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, pp. 29-30) Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of the Project would have no impact related to the exposure of people or structures to the rupture of a known earthquake fault. There are no Alquist-Priolo fault zones or other faults mapped on or adjacent to the Project site. The closest major active faults are the Elsinore Fault Zone, which is 10 miles northeast of the Project site, and the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault Zone, which is located 10 miles to the southwest. Thus, the Project will not expose people or 2-62 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 27 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR structures to potential substantial adverse effects from rupture of a known earthquake fault that is delineated on an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map or any other known fault. (Initial Study, pp. 29-30) 9.6.1.2 Exposure to Potential Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death – Seismic Ground Shaking Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 30) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is located within the seismically active region of Southern California. The principal seismic hazard that could affect the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along several major active or potentially active faults in Southern California. As discussed above, the closest active faults are the Elsinore Fault and the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault Zone that are both located approximately 10 miles from the Project site. Movement along these faults, or other regional faults, could result in seismic ground shaking on the Project site. However, structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC [California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2]), as included in the City’s Municipal Code as Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1, which regulates all building and construction Projects within the City and implements a minimum standard for building design and construction that includes specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls and site demolition. Because the Project must be constructed in compliance with the CBC and the City’s Municipal Code, which would be verified through the City’s plan check and permitting process, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to strong seismic ground shaking. 9.6.1.3 Exposure to Potential Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death – Seismic-Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, pp. 30-31) Facts in Support of Finding: Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless soil layers, located within approximately 50 feet of the ground surface, lose strength due to cyclic pore water pressure generation from seismic shaking or other large cyclic loading. During the loss of stress, the soil acquires “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soil properties and soil conditions such as type, age, texture, color, and consistency, along with historical depths to ground water are used to identify, characterize, and correlate liquefaction susceptible soils. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, and uniformly graded fine-grained sands that lie below the groundwater table within approximately 50 feet below ground surface. Lateral spreading is a form of seismic ground failure due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zones Orange Quadrangle map shows the Project site is within a liquefaction zone. However, exploratory borings at the Project site identified groundwater at approximately 110 feet below the ground surface, and borings on the Project site did not encounter groundwater to the maximum depth of 85 feet that was explored. Likewise, the groundwater wells that are located near the Project site identify 2-63 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 28 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR groundwater levels at 110 feet below the ground surface and 143 feet below the ground surface. In addition, borings on the Project site in 2017 identified that soils consist of silty fine to medium sands with local layers of fine to coarse sands with gravel size rock and some larger rock fragments, which are not the uniform fine-grained sand that typically liquefies. In addition, the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (Geo 2017) prepared for the Project site conducted liquefaction analysis and determined that thin layers of onsite soils have the potential for liquefaction; however, these soils are confined by less permeable soils that would prevent the manifestation of liquefaction. Thus, because the groundwater level is far below 50 feet below the ground surface and soils are not uniformly graded fine-grained, the potential for liquefaction and related lateral spreading or ground failure to occur on the Project site is low. In addition, as described above, the proposed Project would be required to be constructed in compliance with the CBC and the City’s Municipal Code, as detailed in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (Geo 2017) prepared for the Project site, which would be verified through the City’s permitting process. (Initial Study, pp. 30-31) For the aforementioned reasons, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to liquefaction, lateral spreading, and ground failure. (Initial Study, pp. 30-31) 9.6.1.4 Exposure to Potential Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death – Landslides Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 31) Facts in Support of Finding: Landslides and other slope failures are secondary seismic effects that are common during or soon after earthquakes. Areas that are most susceptible to earthquake induced landslides are steep slopes underlain by loose, weak soils, and areas on or adjacent to existing landslide deposits. As described above, the Project site is located in a seismically active region subject to strong ground shaking. However, the Project site is not located within or adjacent to an earthquake-induced landslide area. (Initial Study, p. 31.) In addition, the Project site is located in a flat developed urban area that does not contain or is adjacent to large slopes, and the Project would not generate large slopes. Furthermore, as stated in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared for the Project site, the Project site is not at risk for earthquake induced landslides. For the foregoing reasons, implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects involving landslides, and impacts related to landslides would not occur. (Initial Study, p. 31.) 9.6.2 Soil Erosion Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, pp. 31-32.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is largely impervious, as it is generally covered by pavement or the building structure. However, small areas of landscaping exist within the parking area, along the site boundary, and adjacent to the existing building. The Project would redevelop the site for multi-family residential uses, which would include areas of landscaping that would surround the proposed structures and be located along the site boundary, similar to the areas of landscaping that currently exist. The new paved areas and landscaping from the Project would not result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. In addition, Section 18-156 of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code states that all significant 2-64 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 29 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR redevelopment within the City, such as the Project, shall be undertaken in accordance with the County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). The DAMP requires construction sites to implement control practices that address erosion and sedimentation (DAMP Section 8.0). Additionally, the Statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for General Construction Activity requires implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. The SWPPP is required to be consistent with the County DAMP, address site-specific conditions related to sources of sediment, and implement erosion control and sediment control Best Management Practices to reduce or eliminate sediment during construction. The Project is required to adhere to a City approved SWPPP, which would be verified prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit; this will ensure that potential erosion associated with construction activities would constitute a less than significant impact. (Initial Study, pp. 31-32.) 9.6.3 Soil Stability Threshold: Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 32.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not contain unstable soils or unstable geologic units. As discussed above, the Project site is located in a flat, developed urban area that does not contain, and is not adjacent to, large slopes; moreover, the Project would not generate large slopes. Accordingly, impacts related to landslides would not occur as a result of the Project. Also, as discussed above, the depth to groundwater and the types of soils onsite result in a low potential for liquefaction and related lateral spreading or ground failure. In addition, as further discussed above, the Project would be required to have building foundations and pavement areas and must be constructed in compliance with the CBC and the City’s Municipal Code, which requires appropriate back fill, compaction of soils, and foundation design to ensure stable soils. For the aforementioned reasons, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to unstable soil or geologic units. In addition, the Project is not located on a geological unit or soil that would become unstable as a result of subsidence. Subsidence is a general lowering of the ground surface over a large area that is generally attributed to lowering of the groundwater levels within a groundwater basin. Subsidence or settlement of the ground can occur as a result of earthquake motion in an area where groundwater in a basin is lowered. Because the Project does not involve groundwater pumping, impacts related to subsidence will not occur as a result of the Project. (Initial Study, p. 32.) 9.6.4 Soil Expansion Threshold: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, pp. 32-33.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not be located on expansive soil. Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or swell as the moisture content changes. As described above, the Project site soils consist of silty fine to medium sands with local layers of fine to coarse sands with gravel size rock and some larger rock fragments, which have a low expansion potential. (Initial Study, p. 2-65 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 30 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 32.) In addition, as noted above, the Project would be required to have building foundations and pavement areas constructed in compliance with the CBC and the City’s Municipal Code, which requires appropriate back fill, compaction of soils, and foundation design to ensure stable soils. Thus, the Project’s impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 33.) 9.6.5 Septic Tanks Threshold: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 33.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is currently connected to the City’s sewer system, and the Project would also connect to existing sewers and would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. As a result, impacts related to septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems would not occur from implementation of the Project. 9.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 9.7.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Threshold: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.5-9 through 4.5-10.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not generate significant amounts of GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment. As further detailed in the DEIR, construction and operation of the Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions that are below the SCAQMD’s threshold for greenhouse gas emissions. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-9 through 4.5-10.) In particular, as detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s total net annual GHG emissions would be approximately 4.30 metric tons per year per service population, which would be less than the SCAQMD Tier 4 Option 3 threshold of 4.80 metric tons per year per service population. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-9 through 4.5-10.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 9.7.2 Conflict with Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.5-10 through 4.5-13.) Facts in Support of Finding: As detailed in the DEIR, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Indeed, the Project is consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan, SB 375, and the Santa Ana Climate Action Plan. Moreover, the Project would comply with state and federal programs that are designed to improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions, including the California Title 24, California Energy Code, and the CALGreen Code. In complying with these measures and standards (including Title 24 standards relating to insulation, use of energy-efficient heating, ventilation and air condition equipment, solar-reflective 2-66 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 31 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR roofing materials, energy-efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems, reclamation of heat rejection from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water, among other things), the Project would be implementing regulations that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Also, Project Design Feature PDF-2 would provide a minimum of 25 electric vehicle charging stations to promote usage of electric vehicles. For these reasons, and as further detailed in the DEIR, the Project would be consistent with existing plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (DEIR, p. 4.5-10 through 4.5-13.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 9.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 9.8.1 Hazardous Materials Sites Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 36.) Facts in Support of Finding: Operation of the Project includes activities related to the multi-family residential uses of the Project, which involve use of hazardous materials including solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, fertilizers, and aerosol cans. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous and would only be used and stored in limited quantities within the Project area. The normal routine use of these hazardous materials products pursuant to existing regulations set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that include Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 261.4) would not result in a significant hazard to people or the environment in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste, and impacts would be less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 36.) 9.8.2 Hazards within One-Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School Threshold: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 36.) Facts in Support of Finding: The closest existing school to the Project site is the Hoover Elementary School, which is located approximately 0.5 miles away from the Project site at 408 East Santa Clara Avenue. Thus, the Project site is not within one-quarter mile of a school and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 36.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 9.8.3 Site Location Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 2-67 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 32 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, pp. 36-37.) Facts in Support of Finding: Neither the Project site nor any adjacent properties are included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, pp. 36-37.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 9.8.4 Public Airports Threshold: For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 37.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an airport. The closest airport to the Project site is John Wayne Airport, which is located over 6 miles to the south of the Project site. In addition, the Fullerton Municipal Airport is located approximately 9.35 miles to the northwest of the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. (Initial Study, p. 37.) 9.8.5 Private Airstrips Threshold: For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 37.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not result in safety hazards related to an airstrip. (Initial Study, p. 37.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 9.8.6 Emergency Response Plans Threshold: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 37.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Direct access to the Project site is, and will continue to be, provided from N. Main Street (to the south) and Edgewood Road (to the east), which are adjacent to the Project site. In addition, fire lanes are proposed for the northern and western boundaries of the Project site. Construction activities would occur within the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. In addition, travel along surrounding roadways would remain open and would not interfere with emergency access in the site vicinity. Moreover, the Project must comply with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9) and the City of Santa Ana Fire Code included as Municipal Code Chapter 14. As such, for the reasons discussed herein and in the Initial Study, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically 2-68 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 33 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 37.) 9.8.7 Wildland Fires Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 38.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is located within an urban developed area and is not located within an identified wildland fire hazard area and is not an area where residences are intermixed with wildlands. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 38.) 9.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 9.9.1 Water Quality Standards Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 40.) Facts in Support of Finding: Section 18-156 of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code states that all new development and significant redevelopment within the City shall be undertaken in accordance with the County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Accordingly, both construction and operational Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be required to be implemented as part of permitting of the Project. Adherence to a City-approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that includes Low Impact Development (LID) features, which would be verified prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit, would ensure that potential water quality degradation associated with construction and operational activities would be minimized to a level of less than significance. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 40-41.) 9.9.2 Groundwater Supplies Threshold: Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 41.) 2-69 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 34 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table level. The Project site does not currently provide for groundwater recharge. Moreover, the Project will not result in a substantial increase in impervious surfaces, and thus groundwater recharge would not be affected. Furthermore, groundwater within the Project region is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). To ensure the Basin is not overdrawn, OCWD monitors water levels and recharges the Basin with local and imported water. Continued management of the groundwater basin by OCWD will ensure that substantial depletion of groundwater supplies would not occur. (Initial Study, p. 41.) For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 41.) 9.9.3 Drainage Pattern Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 41.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not include a stream, river, creek, or other water body, and will not alter the course of any such body of water in a manner that would result in erosion or siltation. The closest body of water is the Santiago Creek, which is located approximately 130 feet to the north of the site within Santiago Park; Santiago Park would not be disturbed by the Project. Moreover, the Project would not substantially alter the drainage pattern onsite. The Project would cap the existing drain to the creek and provide infiltration basins in the northern portion of the Project area. The remainder of the site would have the same type of onsite drainage that currently exists. The Project thus would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on the site or in the area. Moreover, as to construction activities that would involve excavation and grading of soils, Section 18-156 of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code states that all significant redevelopment within the City, such as the Project, shall be undertaken in accordance with the DAMP, which requires construction sites implement control practices that address erosion and sedimentation. Additionally, the Statewide NPDES Permit for General Construction Activity requires implementation of a SWPP that is required to be consistent with the DAMP and implement erosion control and sediment control BMPs to reduce or eliminate erosion during construction. Adherence to a City approved SWPPP, which would be verified prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit, would ensure that potential erosion associated with construction activities would be minimized. (Initial Study, pp. 41-42.) For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 41-42.) 9.9.4 Flooding Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? 2-70 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 35 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 42.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not include a stream, river, creek, or other water body. The closest water body is the Santiago Creek, which is located approximately 130 feet to the north of the site within Santiago Park, and would not be disturbed by the Project. The Project site is largely impervious, as it is generally covered by pavement or the building structure. Redevelopment of the site would provide for a similar amount of impervious surface; thus, the rate or amount of surface runoff would not substantially increase with implementation of the Project. In addition, the Project includes redevelopment of the existing onsite drainage system to provide infiltration basins, storm drains, and catch basins that would retain and filter runoff prior to discharge into the existing storm drains in N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. Thus, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on the site or in the area, or substantially increase the rate or amount of runoff that could result in flooding. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 41-42.) 9.9.5 Water Runoff Threshold: Would the Project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, pp. 42-43.) Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed above, the Project site is largely impervious, and redevelopment of the site would not substantially increase impervious areas, such that an increase in runoff would occur. In addition, the Project would redevelop the existing onsite storm water drainage system, which would convey runoff from buildings and paved areas to infiltration basins, storm drains, and catch basins that would retain and filter storm water prior to discharge into the existing storm drains in N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. Overall, redevelopment of the Project site would not result in an increase in runoff that would exceed the capacity of the existing City storm drain system. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 41-42.) 9.9.6 Degradation of Water Quality Threshold: Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, pp. 40-43.) Facts in Support of Finding: For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, the Project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. (Initial Study, pp. 41-42.) 9.9.7 Flood Hazard Area Zones Threshold: Would the Project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 2-71 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 36 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 43.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the Project site and vicinity (FEMA FIRM number 06059C0163) shows that the site is shown adjacent to, but not part of, a 100-year flood zone associated with Santiago Creek (Zone AE21). The Project site is identified on the FEMA map as “Zone X” and is not depicted within a 100- or 500- year flood zone. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 43.) 9.9.8 Structures That Impede or Redirect Flows Threshold: Would the Project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 43.) Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed above, the Project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area, and it will not place any structure within a 100-year flood hazard area. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 43.) 9.9.9 Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death as a Result of Flooding Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 43.) Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a dam. As shown in the General Plan Public Safety Element, Exhibit 4, the Project site is not located within the dam inundation area. Moreover, the site is located 130-feet up-gradient from Santiago Creek, which is generally dry, unless conveying storm flows. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 43.) 9.9.10 Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow Threshold: Would the Project have significant effects relating to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 43.) 2-72 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 37 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Facts in Support of Finding: A seiche—a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken by earthquake activity—is not likely to impact the Project area. The Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared for the Project site provides that no bodies of water are close enough to the Project site to result in a sieche impact. Therefore, no seiche impacts would occur. (Initial Study, p. 43.) A tsunami is not likely to impact the Project area since the Project area is approximately 11.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean, outside of the Tsunami Hazard Zone identified by the California Emergency Management Agency. Therefore, impacts related to tsunamis would not occur. (Initial Study, p. 43.) A mudflow is a landslide composed of saturated rock debris and soil with a consistency of wet cement. The Project area is flat and not near any hillsides that could be susceptible to mudflow. Thus, no mudflow impacts would occur. (Initial Study, p. 43.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 43.) 9.10 Land Use and Planning 9.10.1 Divide a Community Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 44.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is developed with a vacant two-story office building that was used by the Wells Fargo bank. The site is adjacent to the south and the east by a single-family residential community, the north by a park, and by a museum and motel to the west across N. Main Street. Implementation of the proposed Project would change the site from an office building to multi-family residential uses, which would extend the residential uses in the community. The existing residential community would not be physically divided by the Project. Rather, the Project would be located at the edge of the residential community and would extend the community. In addition, the Project would redevelop only the Project site and would not change roadways or areas outside of the Project site. Thus, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to physical division of an established community. (Initial Study, p. 44.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 44.) 9.10.2 Conflict with Plans Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, pp. 4.7-16 through 4.7-34.) Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed in Section 4.7, Land Use and Planning, of the DEIR, the 2-73 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 38 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project would be consistent with the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Notably, the Project would implement many of the SCAG policies related to high-density, infill development, improvement of the job/housing balance, and use of green building measures, such as water efficiency and Low Impact Development features. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in conflict with SCAG policies, and impacts would not occur. Regarding General Plan designations, the Project would require a General Plan Land Use Amendment to change the land use designation from PAO (Professional & Administration Office) to District Center (DC) to allow for the proposed multi-family uses. The General Plan Land Use Element states that DC designation includes the major activity areas in the City and that District Centers are to be developed with an urban character. The proposed DC designation is consistent with the existing DC land uses to the north of Santiago Park and to the southwest across the I-5 freeway. The General Plan also designates the site as the Main Street Concourse node. The proposed DC land use designation and the Project would implement the Main Street Concourse node designation by providing an architecturally cohesive development with a maximum structure height of 90 feet from the ground surface (height intensive) within a regional activity center. The General Plan identifies that the Project is within the Main Street at I-5 Freeway Gateway (Figure 10 of the Urban Design Element) and provides that gateways are located at the City’s entry points to help define boundaries and enhance the City’s identity, while reinforcing a sense of place. The proposed DC land use designation, along with the proposed height, architecture, and landscaping of the development Project would provide distinctive features that reinforce the sense of place already provided by the Discovery Cube and numerous other urban structures along N. Main Street. Thus, the Project would align with the General Plan’s intent for the Main Street at I-5 Freeway Gateway. In addition, although the development under the proposed DC designation would result in a different type and higher intensity of residential units than the adjacent LR-7 designated Park Santiago neighborhood area, the Project provides a transition through wall heights, landscaping, building plan, and an eastern setback, such that the taller multi-family structures, vehicle parking, and circulation are not sited adjacent to single-story single-family residences. Also, designating lands for multi-family residential uses would be more consistent with the adjacent single-family residential uses, than the existing office uses because high density residential land uses adjacent to low density residential land uses have more similar and consistent activities than office building uses adjacent to low density residential. Furthermore, the proposed land use designation change from PAO to DC would not conflict with a policy or plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project would also be consistent with the relevant goals, policies, and objectives of the City’s General Plan that avoid or mitigate environmental impacts, and impacts related to conflict with a General Plan policy related to an environmental effect would be less than significant. The Project includes a zone change that would change the existing zoning designation change from P (Professional) to a Specific Development (SD) to implement the proposed multi-family residential project. As required by the Zoning Code, the Project’s development plans would be reviewed by the City to ensure consistency with development standards. Furthermore, the SD zoning designation would be consistent 2-74 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 39 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR with the existing SD zoned areas to the north beyond Santiago Park and to the west across N. Main Street. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in an impact related to conflict with a plan or policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp. 4.7-16 through 4.7-34.) 9.10.3 Habitat Conservation Plans Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 46.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is developed and located within an urban and developed area. The project site is not subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Thus, impacts related to such a plan would not occur from the Project. (Initial Study, p. 46.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 46.) 9.11 Mineral Resources 9.11.1 Known and Locally Important Resources Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 47.) Facts in Support of Finding: No active mining operations exist in the City of Santa Ana. The mapping by the California Geological Survey does not indicate that any significant mineral deposits are present within the City. The Project area is developed with urban office uses and has no history of mining. Implementation of the Project would not cause the loss of availability of mineral resources valuable to the region or state. Moreover, the Project site and its surrounding vicinity is not in or near a mining site identified by the City of Santa Ana General Plan. (Initial Study, p. 47.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 47.) 2-75 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 40 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.12.0 Noise 9.12.1 Long Term Noise Threshold: Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.8.17 through 4.8-22.) Facts in Support of Finding: While the Project’s operation would generate some traffic-related noise, such noise would not constitute a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Pursuant to the Noise Impact Analysis (Exhibit H to the DEIR), the Project would generate an increase of less than one dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments, which is less than the relevant threshold. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.8.17 through 4.8-22.) 9.12.2 Public Airports Threshold: For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? Finding: No Impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, pp. 49-50.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an airport. The closest airport to the Project site is John Wayne Airport, which is located over 6 miles to the south of the Project site. In addition, the Fullerton Municipal Airport is located approximately 9.35 miles to the northwest of the airport. Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels related to airports. (Initial Study, pp. 49-50,) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 49-50.) 9.12.3 Private Airstrips Threshold: For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? Finding: No Impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 50.) Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels related to an airstrip. (Initial Study, p. 50.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 50.) 2-76 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 41 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.13 Population and Housing 9.13.1 Population Growth Threshold: Would the Project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.9-7 through 4.9-10.) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in Section 4.9, Population and Housing, of the DEIR, the Project would not induce substantial population growth. SCAG anticipates a population increase of 8.4 percent by 2040 or an average annual increase of 0.4 percent throughout the County. The anticipated population that would result from the Project would be 0.28 percent of the City’s population, and thus, within the projected population growth. Similarly, SCAG anticipates the number of housing units would increase 6.3 percent or an average annual increase of 0.3 percent through 2040. Thus, the 496 new multi- family units would also be within the SCAG projected growth. Furthermore, the infrastructure improvements needed to serve the Project would be sized to specifically serve the development and excess capacity would not be developed that could generate additional growth. Thus, impacts related to growth would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.9-7 through 4.9-10.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.9-7 through 4.9-10.) 9.13.2 Displacement of Housing Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 51.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is currently developed for office uses and is void of any existing residential development. As such, the Project would not displace any existing housing and would not result in the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 51.) 9.13.3 Displacement of Persons Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 51.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project is currently developed for office uses and does not include any residential uses. The Project would replace the existing office building with multi-family residential uses. The Project would not displace any residents and would not result in the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 2-77 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 42 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Moreover, the Project’s portion of the cumulative increase in residential units is 9.9 percent, and the remainder of the cumulative projects would generate over 90 percent of the cumulative increase. Thus, the Project’s contribution to the cumulative growth in housing is limited. Furthermore, the total cumulative housing growth from all of the cumulative projects identified in the DEIR would equal 7.4 percent, which is consistent with SCAG growth estimates that anticipate an 8.4 percent increase. Thus, cumulative impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant. The cumulative addition of housing within the Santa Ana and City of Orange N. Main Street corridor area would have a favorable effect on the jobs-housing balance, which could reduce environmental effects of long commute trips, such as air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 51.) 9.14 Public Services As described in Section 4.10, Public Services, of the DEIR, the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered service facilities. 9.14.1 Fire Protection Services Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.10-4 through 4.10-5.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is within 2.5 miles of 4 existing fire stations and the Project would not result in the need to construct a new fire station or expand an existing station. In addition, Chapter 8-46 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires a fire facilities fee be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of buildings exceeding 2 stories in height, such as the Project. The purpose of the fire facilities fee is to improve fire stations in the City and provide revenue for equipment needed to fight fires in buildings over 2 stories in height. The Project would be required to provide funding to assist in improvement of existing fire facilities and provision of needed equipment. Implementation of the Project would not require new or physically altered fire department facilities. (DEIR, p. 4.10-4 through 4.10-5.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.10-4 through 4.10-5.) 9.14.2 Police Services Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order 2-78 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 43 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.10-8 through 4.10-9.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would result in an incremental increase in demands on law enforcement services but would not be significant when compared to the current demand levels. The residential population of the Project would be approximately 0.27 percent of the City’s population and based on the Police Department’s 2016 staffing of 1.04 officers per thousand population, the Project would require less than one additional officer. In addition, the Police Department headquarters are 2.5 miles from the Project and within response distance. Furthermore, typical police operations within the Department’s Northeast District deploys coverage to be able to respond to calls from services throughout the area. The addition of one officer on patrol would not require the construction or expansion of the City’s existing policing facilities. Therefore, the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.10-8 through 4.10-9.) 9.14.3 Education Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8; Initial Study, p. 54.) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in the Initial Study, the Project is required to pay fees for the provision of school services pursuant to state law AB 2926. This fee would contribute to a fund that would pay for new or expanded buildings, faculty, or equipment. Under state law, payment of school impact fees constitutes mitigation for school facility impacts of projects and such payments are deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation. (Initial Study, p. 54.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 54.) 9.14.4 Parks Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.10-12 through 4.10-13.) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project includes 34,300 square feet of onsite exterior open space and recreation facilities that includes 5 recreation courtyard areas that total 22,900 square feet and an 11,400-square foot amenity deck on the roof of the 2-79 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 44 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR parking structure. In addition, interior recreation facilities include a 5,397-square foot fitness center and a 1,566 square foot wellness pavilion. These onsite amenities are anticipated to meet many of the park and recreation needs of Project residents. The new residential population that would be generated from the Project is also anticipated to utilize existing off-site park and recreation facilities. There is currently 93.8 acres of Santa Ana parkland within 3-miles of the Project site. Based on the existing amount of park and recreation facilities in the vicinity of the Project site, the recreation facilities that would be provided as part of the Project, and the number of residents at full capacity of the Project, the Project is not anticipated to require the provision of new or physically altered park facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios. In addition, the Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 35-108 requires that residential development fees be paid for the acquisition, construction, and renovation of park and recreation facilities to preserve an appropriate balance between the demand by residents for use of park and recreational facilities and the availability of such facilities. Thus, by payment of the required park fees, the Project would provide funding to offset any increased usage at other park and recreation facilities. Overall, the Project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of park and recreation facilities. (DEIR, p. 4.10-12 through 4.10-13.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.10-12 through 4.10-13.) 9.14.5 Existing Recreational Facilities Threshold: Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.10-13 through 4.10-14.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would provide onsite open space and recreational facilities for residents, which is anticipated to reduce the Project’s impact on off-site recreational facilities. Moreover, based on the existing amount of park and recreational facilities in the Project site’s vicinity, the recreational facilities that would be provided as part of the Project, and the anticipated number of residents at the Project, the Project is not anticipated to increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated. In addition, the Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 35-108 requires that residential development fees be paid for the acquisition, construction, and renovation of park and recreation facilities to preserve an appropriate balance between the demand by residents for use of park and recreational facilities and the availability of such facilities. Thus, by payment of the required park fees, the Project would provide funding to offset any increased usage at other park and recreation facilities. Overall, the Project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of park and recreation facilities For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.10-13 through 4.10-14.) 2-80 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 45 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.14.6 New Recreational Facilities Threshold: Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.10-14.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project includes recreational facilities that would be constructed and operated as part of the proposed Project. In addition, access Option B includes repaving the Walkie Way entrance to Santiago Park and the addition of landscaping that includes trees and ground cover in the park and Project site entrance. The impacts of development of the recreational amenities and access options are considered part of the impacts of the Project as a while and are analyzed throughout the various sections of the DEIR. Moreover, the Project would not require the construction or expansion of other recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.10-14,) 9.14.7 Other Public Facilities Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8; Initial Study, pp. 54-55.) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in the Initial Study, other public facilities include libraries. The City of Santa Ana Public Library includes two branches within 5 miles of the site. Library service needs are changing with increasing resources being available online and the availability of high-speed internet services and the new residences on the Project site do not necessarily result in an incremental need for library facilities. A majority of the residential units would be equipped with internet access, which provides access to many of the same resources provided by the library and would limit the increased need for library services and resources. (Initial Study, pp. 54-55.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 54-55.) 9.15 Transportation and Traffic 9.15.1 Conflict with Applicable Circulation Plan or with Applicable Congestion Management Program Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation 2-81 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 46 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.11-12 through 4.11-32.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, including the Orange County Congestion Management Program, Caltrans Measures of Effectiveness, City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element, and the City of Orange General Plan Circulation Element. Based on the thresholds identified in these plans, the Project would result in a less than significant impact, as further explained in the DEIR. Notably, the vehicular trips that would be generated by the Project would not cause an exceedance of any traffic level of service threshold at any intersection or roadway segment. (DEIR, p. 4.11-12 through 4.11-32.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.11-12 through 4.11-32.) 9.15.2 Air Traffic Patterns Threshold: Would the Project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8, Initial Study, p. 58.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project does not propose any uses that would affect air traffic patterns or air traffic levels. No portion of the Project would change air traffic patterns by extending into airspace. The closest operating airport is over 6 miles south of the Project site. The Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. (DEIR, p. 2-8, Initial Study, p. 58.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 2-8, Initial Study, p. 58.) 9.15.3 Design Feature Hazards Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, pp. 4.11-33.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not result in hazards related to a design feature or incompatible use. The Project driveways include direct access to the parking structure, and access from N. Main Street would be restricted to right-turn ingress/right-turn egress to provide for safe and effective circulation. As noted in the Traffic Impact Analysis referenced in the DEIR, motorists entering and exiting the Project site would be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion. Moreover, and as noted by the Traffic Impact Analysis, the neighborhood intersections and roadway have adequate capacity to support the Project. (DEIR, pp. 4.11-33.) 2-82 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 47 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp. 4.11-33.) 9.15.4 Emergency Access Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8; Initial Study, pp. 58-59.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Direct access to the Project site is, and will continue to be, provided from N. Main Street and Edgewood Road, which are adjacent to the Project site. In addition, fire lanes for emergency access are proposed for the northern and western boundaries of the Project site. Construction activities would occur within the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. In addition, travel along surrounding roadways would remain open and would not interfere with emergency access in the site vicinity. Moreover, the Project is required to design and construct internal access to conform to OCFA standards to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9) and the City of Santa Ana Fire Code included as Municipal Code Chapter 14. (Initial Study, pp. 58-59.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 58-59.) 9.15.5 Alternative Transportation Threshold: Would the Project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8; Initial Study, pp. 58-59.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project and would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting public transit, bicycle, pedestrian or other alternative transportation systems. Notably, the Project would not conflict with existing bus routes or sidewalks, and it would implement new onsite sidewalks to connect to offsite sidewalks and onsite bicycle facilities. (Initial Study, p. 59.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 59.) 9.16.1 Utilities and Service Systems 9.16.1 Wastewater Treatment Requirements Threshold: Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8; Initial Study, pp. 63-64.) 2-83 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 48 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Facts in Support of Finding: The multi-family residential land uses proposed by the Project are not anticipated to discharge wastewater that contains harmful levels of toxins that are regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and all effluent would comply with the wastewater treatment standards of the RWQCB. (Initial Study, pp. 63-64.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 63-64.) 9.16.2 New Infrastructure and Adequate Capacity Threshold: Would the Project result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.13-6 through 4.13-7.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. As discussed in Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, of the DEIR, the Project would receive water supplies through the existing 16-inch water lines located within the N. Main Street and Edgewood Road rights-of-way that have the capacity to provide the increased water supplies needed to serve the Project; no extensions or expansions to the water pipelines that convey water to the Project site would be required. Redevelopment of the existing onsite water distribution lines would only serve the Project and would not provide water to any off-site areas. (DEIR, p. 4.13-6 through 4.13-7.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.13-6 through 4.13-7.) 9.16.3 Storm Water Drainage Requirements Threshold: Would the Project result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8; Initial Study, p. 64.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is largely impervious, as it is generally covered by pavement or the building structure, and small areas of landscaping surround the development. The Project would redevelop the site for multi-family residential uses, which would include areas of landscaping that would surround the proposed structures and be located along the site boundary, similar to the areas of landscaping that currently exist. Redevelopment of the site would provide for a similar amount of impervious surface; thus, the rate or amount of surface runoff would not substantially increase with implementation of the Project. In addition, the Project includes redevelopment of the existing onsite drainage system that would accommodate runoff with infiltration basins, storm drains, and catch basins that would retain and filter runoff prior to discharge into the existing storm drains in N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. Thus, the Project would not increase the rate or amount of runoff that could result in the need for new or expanded offsite drainage facilities. (Initial Study, p. 64.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 64.) 2-84 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 49 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.16.4 Water Supply Threshold: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.13-7 through 4.13-8.) Facts in Support of Finding: The City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) anticipates a supply and demand increase of 8.2 percent (3,028 acre feet per year) relating to water. The Project would result in an increase in demand for water supplies that is between just 2.7 and 4.2 percent of the UWMP’s anticipated increase. Accordingly, the City would have water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements. (DEIR, p. 4.13-7 through 4.13-8.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.13-7 through 4.13-8.) 9.16.5 Wastewater Treatment Capacity Threshold: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.13-11.) Facts in Support of Finding: Based on results of the sewer flow monitoring and the City’s Design Criteria wastewater generation rates, the Sewer Study identified that the existing sewer lines that serve the Project site would be able to adequately handle the additional wastewater flows from the Project. Additionally, the existing wastewater treatment facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the increase in wastewater flow from full occupancy of the Project. As a result, implementation of the Project would not result in inadequate capacity of the wastewater treatment plant to serve the Project’s demand in addition to existing service commitments. (DEIR, p. 4.13-11.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.13-11.) 9.16.6 Solid Waste Facilities Threshold: Would the Project be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8; Initial Study, p. 65.) Facts in Support of Finding: The existing landfills that serve the project region have sufficient capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste needs. (Initial Study, p. 65.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 65.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 65.) 2-85 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 50 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.16 Energy Resources As discussed in Section 4.14, Energy, of the DEIR, the Project would not result in an increase in overall or per capita energy consumption, or in a wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy, or require or result in the construction of new sources of energy supplies or additional energy infrastructure capacity, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, or conflict with applicable energy efficiency policies or standards. The Project would be developed pursuant to the California Green Building Standards Code (24 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Part 11 [CALGreen Code]), which would provide for sustainable construction and operational practices, including energy efficiency. (DEIR, pp. 4.14-5 through 4.14-7.) The City’s administration of the Title 24 requirements and the City’s Climate Action Plan includes review of design components and energy conservation measures ensures that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energy-efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); solar-reflective roofing materials; energy-efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; reclamation of heat rejection from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water; and incorporation of skylights, etc. In complying with the Title 24 standards, impacts to peak energy usage periods would be minimized, and impacts on statewide and regional energy needs would be reduced. In addition, the Project would represent an urban infill development because it would occur on a currently developed site, and would be located near existing off-site employment, commercial, residential, and retail destinations and in proximity to existing public bus stops and freeways, which would result in reduced vehicle trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in comparison to a project of similar size and land without close access to employment, service, and retail, destinations; in addition to public transit and freeways. The land use characteristics of the Project are consistent with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) guidance related to a reduction of vehicle trip distances that would achieve a reduction in associated transportation-related fuel demand. Also, the Project site is within an area where existing infrastructure would provide for efficient delivery of electricity and natural gas to the Project and the Project would not inhibit the development of other alternative energy sources. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp. 4.14-5 through 4.14-7.) 9.17 Findings Regarding Cumulative Environmental Impacts Consistent with CEQA’s requirements, the EIR for the Project includes an analysis of cumulative impacts. As discussed throughout Chapter 4.0, Environmental Setting and Impact Analysis, of the DEIR, the DEIR’s cumulative evaluation focuses on whether the impacts of the Project are cumulatively considerable within the context of impacts caused by other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. As described, different types of cumulative impacts occur for different environmental resources that affect different geographic areas. The geographic scope of the cumulative air quality analysis, where cumulative impacts occur over a large area, is different from the geographic scope considered for cumulative analysis of aesthetic resources, for which cumulative impacts are limited to specific viewsheds. Thus, in assessing aesthetic resources impacts, only development within and immediately adjacent to the Project area that would contribute to a cumulative visual effect is analyzed, whereas cumulative traffic impacts are based upon all development within the traffic study area of roadways and intersections. Therefore, the DEIR describes the cumulative geographic scope, and the potential cumulative impacts 2-86 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 51 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR included in the geographic scope. As detailed in Section 4.0, Environmental Setting and Impact Analysis, of the DEIR, the cumulative evaluation in the DEIR determined that the cumulatively considerable impacts from implementation of the Project would be less than significant with implementation of the PDFs and mitigation measures that would reduce the potential of project level impacts to become cumulatively significant. Overall, cumulative impacts from implementation of the Project would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.14-7 through 4.14-8.) Specifically, the City hereby finds as follows: 9.17.1 Aesthetics The closest cumulative project is the 2700 North Main Street residential development that is located 0.2 miles north of the Project site and is visible from the site because it is currently developed with an 11- story office building. This related project involves development of multi-family residences on the site, which would be similar to the character to the proposed Project. The two projects would provide similar multi-family development and would not combine to result in cumulatively considerable impacts. The other cumulative projects are similar to the proposed Project, providing multi-family residential uses that would be consistent with the existing urban, developed character of the viewshed area. As a result, cumulative impacts related to scenic views and visual character and site quality would be less than significant. Cumulative impacts related to shade and shadow would occur when development projects are sufficiently close that shadows from individual buildings combine to create areas of consecutive shading of shadow- sensitive areas. The DEIR details that shadows of the Project do not combine with shadows of other projects to create consecutive shading of any shadow-sensitive areas. Thus, the shading from the Project would not cumulatively combine with other projects, and cumulative impacts related to shade and shadow would be less than cumulatively significant. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative aesthetic effects would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-26 through 4.1-27.) 9.17.2 Air Quality SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality methodology provides that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants that exceed the SCAQMD’s daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then the project would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant(s). As shown in the DEIR, implementation of the Project would not exceed SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds. Therefore, impacts related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. For these reasons, also discussed previously in Section 9.3.3 of these Findings, and in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects on air quality would not be cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-7.) 2-87 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 52 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.17.3 Biological Resources The Project site is developed and located within an urban area of the City. The site provides limited areas for natural habitat and wildlife species; but does include mature trees that could be used by birds that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) for nesting. Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would provide for nesting bird surveys that would reduce the potential of the Proposed Project to impact nesting migratory birds or raptors, which would also avoid the potential of the Project to contribute to cumulative effects. As detailed in the DEIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts to all other candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Therefore, therefore with Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the proposed Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts that could potentially occur from other development projects. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects on biological resources would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-5.) 9.17.4 Cultural Resources As detailed in DEIR Section 4.4, Cultural/Historic Resources, due to the existing built environment, location of the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties of properties in Park Santiago, and the existing viewsheds, impacts related to the setting and feeling aspects of integrity of historic properties would not be reduced by implementation of the proposed Project; and the Project would not materially alter any physical characteristics of a historic resource that convey its historical significance. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts that could potentially occur from other development projects throughout the region, and a cumulatively considerable impact would not occur. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects on cultural resources would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.4-15.) 9.17.5 Geology, Soils and Seismicity Geologic and soils related impacts occur in a local or site-specific context, such as immediately adjacent cumulative development. Thus, the scope of analysis for cumulative impacts associated with geology and soils encompasses the Project vicinity. The closest cumulative project is the 2700 North Main Street residential development that is located 0.2 miles north of the Project site. The Project would be required to comply with CBC building codes, which reduces impacts to a less than significant level. All other projects are also subject to the same CBC building codes to reduce potential effects related to seismic events. As a result, cumulative impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant. Also, as discussed in the Initial Study, the Project is not located on a site with potential for significant effects related to geology, soils, or seismicity. (Initial Study, pp. 29-33.) Accordingly, the Project will not have cumulative effects on geology, soils, and seismicity, even when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. 2-88 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 53 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.17.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions All GHG emissions are assessed in a cumulative context because no single project can cause a discernible change to climate. AB 32 recognizes the significance of the statewide cumulative impact of GHG emissions from sources throughout the state and sets a performance standard for mitigation of that cumulative impact. Therefore, analysis of GHG emission impacts under CEQA contained in the EIR effectively constitutes an analysis of a project’s contribution to the significant cumulative impact of GHG emissions. As described in DEIR Section 4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the estimated GHG emissions from construction and operation of the proposed Project would be lower than the AQMD Tier 4 Option 3 threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e per year per service population. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. For these reasons discussed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects on greenhouse gas emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-13.) 9.17.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hazard related impacts typically occur in a local or site-specific context versus a cumulative context combined with other development projects; although it is possible for combined effects of hazards to occur by adjacent cumulative development that involves hazardous risks. The closest cumulative project is the 2700 North Main Street residential development that is located 0.2 miles north of the Project site. Due to this distance, the potential from hazards to cumulatively increase is limited. In addition, compliance with the relevant federal, state, and local regulations during the construction and operation of related projects would ensure that cumulative impacts from hazardous materials would be less than significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, implementation of the Project would not result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment; and therefore, would not result in a cumulative contribution to a hazardous materials impact. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant. In addition, the nearby projects provide residential and commercial uses, that would use the same type of limited hazardous materials as the proposed Project. With regular use and storage of these commonly used household products, such as would occur on the Project site, cumulative impacts would not occur. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to hazards and hazardous materials would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-8 through 4.6-9.) 9.17.8 Hydrology and Water Quality The Initial Study (DEIR Appendix A) details that Section 18-156 of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code requires all new development and significant redevelopment within the City be undertaken in accordance with the County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), including but not limited to the development project guidance; and any conditions and requirements established by City agencies related to the reduction or elimination of pollutants in storm water runoff from the Project site, which are verified prior to the issuance by the City of a grading permit or building permit. The DAMP requires implementation of site design, source control and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs). 2-89 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 54 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR In addition, because the proposed Project is a priority project as it would replace more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface on an already developed site, it would be required to implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that includes Low Impact Development (LID) features and BMPs to limit the potential for pollutants to enter surface water, such as storm water runoff. With implementation of these requirements, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to hydrology and water quality. In addition, all of the cumulative projects would be required to adhere to these State and County regulations, which would reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. Also, as discussed in the Initial Study, the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to hydrology and water quality. (Initial Study, pp. 39-44.) Accordingly, the Project will not have cumulative effects relating to hydrology and water quality, even when considered with past, current, and future probable projects, and cumulative effects would be less than cumulatively considerable. 9.17.9 Land Use and Planning A large portion of the cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Project consist of multi-family residential development. In addition, the cumulative projects include mixed-uses, retail commercial, hotel, and services. These related projects are similar, consistent, and complementary to the proposed SD zone and multi-family residential development. DEIR Section 4.7, Land Use and Planning, describes that the Project would not result in conflicts with existing land use or zoning designations and would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project, which has the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including applicable regulations, policies, and standards of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the SCAG RTP/SCS. Thus, the Project would not cumulatively contribute to such an impact that could occur from related projects. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to land use and planning would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.7-34.) 9.17.10 Noise Construction noise is localized in nature and decreases substantially with distance. Consequently, in order to achieve a substantial cumulative increase in construction noise levels, more than one source emitting high levels of construction noise would need to be in close proximity to the proposed Project. The nearest related project to the Project site is the 2700 North Main Street residential development project is located 0.2 miles north of the Project site and is in the site plan review stage of development approval. Thus, it is likely that these projects would not be constructed simultaneously. In addition, should construction of the projects overlap, the distance between the sites and the numerous intervening structures located between the sites that would serve to reduce construction-related noise levels, a substantial increase in combined construction noise levels would not occur. Therefore, cumulative noise impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant. Cumulative construction could also result in the exposure of people to or the generation of excessive groundborne vibration. As described above, the nearest related project to the proposed Project is 0.2 miles north of the project site. Due to this distance, and the rapid attenuation of groundborne vibration, the proposed Project and this related project are not in close enough proximity to each other such that vibration levels generated during construction could potentially affect the same sensitive receptor should 2-90 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 55 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR construction of this related project occur at the same time as the proposed Project. Only receptors located in the immediate vicinity of each construction site would be potentially impacted by each development. As such, cumulative impacts associated with groundborne vibration from construction activities would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. Additionally, cumulative traffic-generated noise impacts have been assessed based on the contribution of the proposed Project in the Project opening year (2020) and the year 2040 cumulative base traffic volumes on the roadway segments in the Project vicinity. The noise levels associated with these traffic volumes with the proposed Project would increase local noise levels by a maximum of 0.3 dBA CNEL, which is lower than 5 dBA, cumulative impact threshold for traffic noise. For the reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to noise would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-24 through 4.8-25.) 9.17.11 Population and Housing The Project’s portion of the cumulative increase in residential units is 9.9 percent, and the remainder of the cumulative projects would generate over 90 percent of the cumulative increase. Thus, the Project’s contribution to the cumulative growth in housing is limited. Additionally, the total cumulative housing growth from all of the cumulative projects identified in the DEIR would equal 7.4 percent, which is consistent with SCAG growth estimates that anticipate an 8.4 percent increase. Thus, cumulative impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant. Furthermore, the cumulative addition of housing within the Santa Ana and City of Orange N. Main Street corridor area would have a favorable effect on the jobs-housing balance, which could reduce environmental effects of long commute trips, such as air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. For these reasons that are detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to population and housing would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.9-10.) 9.17.12 Public Services and Recreation Fire Protection Fire protection service is provided by Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) staffed Fire Stations that are owned by the City of Santa Ana. There are several proposed projects within Santa Ana in the Project vicinity that would combine to generate additional demands for OCFA services. Like the proposed Project, the related projects would be reviewed by City and OCFA staff prior to permit approval and would be required to implement fire protection design features per California building and fire code regulations that would reduce potential fire hazards. Cumulative increased demands for services would also be offset by the City of Santa Ana fire facilities fee that is required for each development project. As detailed in DEIR Section 4.11, Transportation and Traffic, the Project would not result in cumulative traffic impacts in both years 2020 and 2040. The roadway segments and intersections near the Project site and Fire Stations 70 and 71 would continue to operate at satisfactory LOS. Therefore, the vehicular trips generated by operation of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in emergency 2-91 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 56 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR response times that could cumulatively combine with other development projects in the City, and impacts related to emergency response times from Fire Stations 70 and 71 would be less than cumulatively considerable. Because 4 of the City’s 10 existing fire stations exist within 2.5 miles of the Project site, and related projects would be subject to the same impact fees that provide funding for additional equipment and staffing, and fire safe construction requirements, impacts related to fire services from the proposed Project would not combine with other related projects to result in a cumulative impact related to the need for new or physically altered fire service facilities. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to fire protection services would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.10-5.) Police Services The Project would result in an incremental increase in demands on law enforcement services and based on the Police Department’s 2016 staffing of 1.04 officers per thousand population, the proposed Project would require one additional officer for the Department’s Northeast District that serves all areas of the City north of First Street and East of Flower Street. In addition, the DEIR estimates that the cumulative projects would require an additional 3 officers to maintain the City’s existing officers to population ratio. The addition of less than 1 officer from the proposed Project and 2 officers from the other projects within the Police Department’s Northeast District would not require the need for, new or physically altered police protection facilities. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to police services would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.10-8 through 4.10-9.) Parks and Recreation The proposed Project would provide onsite recreational facilities for residents that would meet many recreation and park needs of Project residents. In addition, the Project would be required to pay park fees to offset usage of existing park and recreation facilities. The cumulative projects within the City of Santa Ana would also be required to provide park and recreational facilities and/or pay in-lieu fees as required by each city, which are implemented to preserve an appropriate balance between the demand by residents for use of park and recreational facilities, and as a result reduce cumulative effects of each project. Thus, because the proposed Project would provide the open space and recreation facilities and would provide payment of the required park fees, the Project’s impact would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts related to park and recreation facilities would be less than significant. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to parks and recreation would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.10-14.) 2-92 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 57 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.17.13 Transportation and Traffic As detailed in DEIR Section 4.11, Transportation and Traffic, the proposed Project would not result in impacts in the cumulative 2020 and 2040 conditions pursuant to the Caltrans, City of Santa Ana, and City or Orange thresholds and methodology. (DEIR, pp. 4.11-10 and 4.11-11.) As detailed in DEIR T ables 4.11-9 through 4.11-36, the proposed Project would not conflict with or result in an exceedance of a threshold by any of the following: the Orange County Congestion Management Program, Caltrans Measures of Effectiveness, City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element, and the City of Orange General Plan Circulation Element. In addition, the Traffic Impact Analysis details that the capacities of the Park Santiago neighborhood intersections and roadways are substantially higher than the daily trip generation of the proposed Project. As such, cumulative impacts related to neighborhood traffic would be less than cumulatively significant. Also, the DEIR details that Project access locations and circulation around the Project site would be adequate, and cumulative impacts related to queuing would be less than cumulatively considerable. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to transportation and traffic would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.11-41.) 9.17.14 Utilities and Service Systems Water The Project would install new water lines to serve the proposed buildings and connect to the existing system that is adjacent to the Project site. The water system has been designed the proposed Project and would be served by existing infrastructure. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in the requirement for new or expanded off-site water infrastructure that could combine with other water infrastructure needs to result in an environmental impact. Thus, potential cumulative impacts from off-site water system expansions would not occur from the proposed Project. The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) that was prepared for the Project describes that the 2015 MWD UWMP details the ability to meet the demands of its member agencies, including the City of Santa Ana, through 2040. In addition, the City of Santa Ana 2015 UWMP confirmed the ability of the local supplies and the OC Basin to meet the growing demands of the City in multiple climate scenarios. Also, as described previously the increased water demand from the proposed Project would be between 2.7 and 4.3 percent of the 2015 UWMP anticipated increase. Thus, the City would have water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements, and cumulative water supply needs would be able to be met as detailed by the MWD and City’s UWMPs. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in water supply demands that would require new or expanded entitlements. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to water supplies would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.13-8.) Wastewater DEIR Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, the existing sewer system has sufficient capacity to handle the increased flows resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. Additionally, the 2-93 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 58 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR OCSD reclamation facilities have an average flow of 184 mgd and a treatment capacity of 462 mgd (OCSD, 2017). Due to this volume of excess capacity that is designed by OCSD to accommodate future regional growth, the increase in wastewater flow from the proposed Project that would require 0.04 percent of this remaining capacity would not significantly impact the OCSD reclamation facilities. As a result, impacts related to cumulative projects wastewater treatment and conveyance capacity would be less than significant. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to wastewater treatment and conveyance would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.13-12.) Drainage and Water Quality All projects in the watershed are required to implement measures to comply with the LID, MS4 Permit, DAMP requirements for implementation of SWPPPs and WQMPs. These requirements were developed to reduce the cumulative impacts to water quality, and to ensure that the incremental effects of individual projects do not cause a substantial cumulative impact related to water quality. Implementation of the proposed Project would include compliance with all required laws, permits, and plans, through implementation of a SWPPP and WQMP that would be approved by the City prior to construction and operational permits and have been designed to reduce impacts associated with drainage and water quality. The proposed Project would result in a decrease in impervious surfaces due to the increase in landscape and open space areas. Additionally, the DAMP required runoff volume would be filtered through the detention and drywell systems prior to discharge off-site to manage stormwater drainage and protect water quality. The detention and drywell treatment systems have high removal effectiveness for all storm water pollutants of concern. Thus, the runoff volume that would result from the proposed Project would not increase, and the proposed treatment systems would remove pollutants from onsite runoff. Therefore, the proposed Project would not generate volumes of stormwater flows or polluted runoff that could combine with other projects to be cumulatively considerable. As a result, cumulative impacts from implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. For the reasons discussed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to drainage and water quality would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.13-19.) 10.0 FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES AND ENERGY USE The CEQA Guidelines require that EIRs reveal the significant environmental changes that would occur as a result of a proposed Project. CEQA also requires decision makers to balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve a project. This section addresses non-renewable resources, the commitment of future generations to the proposed uses, and irreversible impacts associated with the Project. The Project would result in or contribute to the following irreversible environmental changes: 2-94 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 59 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR • Lands in the Project area that are currently developed with office uses would be committed to multi-family residential uses once the proposed buildings are constructed. Secondary effects associated with this irreversible commitment of land resources include: o Changes in views associated with construction of the new buildings and associated development (see Section 4.1 of the DEIR, Aesthetics). o Increased traffic on area roadways (see Section 4.11 of the DEIR, Transportation and Traffic). o Emissions of air pollutants associated with Project construction and operation (see Section 4.2 of the DEIR, Air Quality). o Consumption of non-renewable energy associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project due to the use of automobiles, lighting, heating and cooling systems, appliances, and the like (see Section 4.14 of the DEIR, Energy). o Increased ambient noise associated with an increase in activities and traffic from operation of the Project (see Section 4.8, Noise). • Construction of the Project as described in Section 3.0 of the DEIR, Project Description, would require the use of energy produced from non-renewable resources and construction materials. In regard to energy usage from the proposed Project, the Project would not involve wasteful or unjustifiable use of non-renewable resources, and conservation efforts would be enforced during construction and operation of proposed development. The proposed development would incorporate energy-generating and conserving project design features, including those required by the California Building Code, California Energy Code Title 24, which specify green building standards for new developments. In addition, the Project includes project design features that result in additional energy- efficiency. (DEIR, p. 5-4.) 11.0 GROWTH INDUCING EFFECTS Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of a proposed project’s potential to foster economic or population growth, including ways in which a project could remove an obstacle to growth. Growth does not necessarily create significant physical changes to the environment. However, depending upon the type, magnitude, and location of growth, it can result in significant adverse environmental effects if it requires new development or infrastructure to support it. The Project's growth effects would be considered significant if they could result in significant physical effects in one or more environmental issue areas. As discussed in Section 5.0, Mandatory Findings of Significance, of the DEIR, the limited number of jobs generated by the Project would represent a small portion of the estimated job growth that would be within, and not exceed, SCAG’s population forecast. As such, the Project would result in direct employment growth at a level that is already anticipated in regional projections; and thus, would be less than significant. The Project would not remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the Project area, or by expansion of public services in the Project area. The infrastructure needed to serve the Project would be sized to specifically serve the site and excess capacity would not be developed that could generate additional growth; and the Project would not create a demand for public services beyond what is already contemplated. Additionally, as described in Section 5.0, Mandatory Findings of Significance, of the DEIR, SCAG 2-95 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 60 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR projections show that the jobs – housing ratio is anticipated to increase to 1.65 by 2040; and that the Project would reduce the jobs-housing ratio slightly to 2.05; and to 2.11 in 2040. This would be a beneficial effect of providing multi-family housing on the Project site, where employees can easily travel to employment opportunities within the Santa Ana and City of Orange areas, which are jobs-rich. Thus, the Project would provide additional housing to support the regionally forecasted increase in economic activities. In addition, the provision of housing on the Project site would not result in economic activity that would cause the need for additional off-site housing. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, growth inducing impacts from implementation of the Project would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-1 through 5-3.) 12.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES 12.1 Background Where significant impacts are identified, section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions. Subsection (a) states: (a) An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis: (b) Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. In subsection 15126.6(c), the State CEQA Guidelines describe the selection process for a range of reasonable alternatives: (c) The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were 2-96 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 61 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. The range of alternatives required is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed Project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project. However, when a project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, the lead agency has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives to lessen or avoid environmental impacts, even if the alternative would reduce the impact to a greater degree than the proposed Project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403.) Here, a range of feasible alternatives to the proposed Project was developed to provide additional information and flexibility to the decision-makers when considering the proposed Project. (DEIR, pp. 6- 1 through 6-26.) 12.2 Project Objectives The following Project objectives support the Project’s underlying purpose to develop multi-family residential uses on the Project site and assist with meeting the City’s housing needs: • Redevelop existing underutilized parcels to implement development of new high-quality housing. • Increase high-quality housing near existing employment centers. • Promote an improved jobs/housing balance by locating attractive new housing in proximity to employment centers. • Provide housing in close proximity to commercial areas, freeway, and transit. • Redevelop existing land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure, including: water, sewer, arterial roadways, transit, and freeways. • Implement capital investment to enhance the City’s economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan. • Provide residents with a safe, high-quality, modern residential community with open space and various recreational amenities. (DEIR, pp. 6-2 through 6-3.) 12.3 Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping/Project Planning Process An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The lead agency may 2-97 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 62 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR make an initial determination as to which alternatives are potentially feasible, meet most of the project objectives, and avoid significant environmental effects that would occur from the project, and therefore, merit in-depth consideration. Alternatives that are remote or speculative, are infeasible, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be considered (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), (f)(3)). The following alternatives were considered but rejected as part of the environmental analysis for the Project. Alternative Site Alternative An alternative site was considered but eliminated from further consideration. CEQA specifies that the key question regarding alternative site consideration is “whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project at another location.” In addition, an alternative site need not be considered when implementation is “remote and speculative,” such as when the alternative site is beyond the control of a project applicant. The Project Applicant is the owner of the Project site, and the Project site building is vacant, and the site is underutilized in the existing condition. The Project objectives are to redevelop an existing underutilized parcel and implement new high-quality multi-family housing near employment centers to promote an improved jobs/housing balance, provide housing near existing transportation, and utilize existing infrastructure, all of which are consistent with the opportunities provided by the Project site. In addition, due to the urban and built out nature of the City, development of 496 multi-family residential units on another 5.9-acre site at a different location would likely require demolition of existing structures, require similar mitigation, and have similar impacts as the Project. CEQA specifies that the key question regarding alternative site consideration is “whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project at another location.” Given the size and nature of the Project and the Project objectives, it would be infeasible to develop and operate the Project on an available alternative site with fewer environmental impacts. Therefore, the Alternative Site Alternative was rejected from further consideration. No Project/Vacant Building Alternative An alternative where the building would remain vacant and underutilized was eliminated from further consideration. Because the Project site is located within a completely developed and highly used urban corridor, near freeways and transit, and contains an existing useable structure, it is not reasonable due to the need for new residential and employment space in the area or financially feasible for the existing site owner for the site to remain vacant and underutilized in the long-term. Therefore, the No Project/Vacant Building Alternative would be remote and infeasible. In addition, this alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives. As described previously, alternatives that are remote, infeasible, and do not meet Project objectives, do not need to be considered. Thus, the No Project/Vacant Building Alternative was rejected from further consideration. 12.4 Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, “An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project . . .” including the “No Project” alternative. The following alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives to supplement the access alternatives presented in the DEIR. The alternatives presented have been determined to be physically feasible and have the potential to avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of the Project. The 2-98 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 63 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Alternatives include: • Alternative 1: No Project/No Build • Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative • Alternative 3: Build Out of the Existing Zoning Alternative 12.5 Evaluation of Alternatives Selected for Analysis Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Description: Pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR is required to “discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.” Therefore, under this alternative, no development would occur on the Project site and it would remain in its existing condition. However, as described in Section 6.4 of the DEIR, the Project site is located within a completely developed and highly used urban corridor, near freeways and transit, and contains an existing useable structure, and it is not reasonable to assume that the Project site would remain vacant and underutilized in the long-term. In the No Project/No Build condition, it is reasonably expected that the existing 81,172 square foot office building would be re-occupied. Hence, this alternative compares impacts of the Project with re-occupation at full capacity of the existing office building. (DEIR, p. 6-4.) Environmental Effects: The No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable aesthetic impact that would result from the Project and all of the potential construction impacts. Additionally, operational impacts would be reduced and the mitigation measures that are identified in Chapter 4.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of the Final EIR—which include measures related to aesthetics, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise and vibration, and tribal cultural resources—would not be required. (DEIR, pp. 6-6 through 6-11.) However, the environmental benefits of the Project would also not be realized, such as improvements to storm water quality, removal of contaminated soils, improvements to the jobs/housing balance, and the potential to reduce vehicle miles traveled. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not install storm water filtration features in accordance with DAMP and LID design guidelines that would filter and slow the volume and rate of runoff; the arsenic contaminated soils would remain onsite; and this alternative would provide for the projected employment growth but would not improve the jobs to housing balance within the region and could generate more vehicle miles traveled. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project/No Build Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives. (DEIR, p. 6-11.) The site would not be redeveloped into new high-quality housing near existing employment centers, commercial areas, freeways, and transit. Capital investment related to the Project site to enhance the City’s economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan would not occur, and a safe, high-quality, modern residential community with open space and various recreation amenities would not be implemented by this alternative. Overall, this alternative would not meet any of the objectives of the Project. (DEIR, p. 6-11.) Finding: The No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts and would avoid the need for mitigation to ensure impacts to various environmental resources 2-99 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 64 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR would not occur. Additionally, this alternative would not require a General Plan amendment or zone change. However, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not achieve the Project objectives and the environmental benefits of the Project would not be realized. Therefore, the City hereby rejects the No Project/No Build Alternative. Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative Description: Under this alternative, described in further detail in the DEIR (DEIR, p. 6-12), a 30 percent reduction in the number of residential units would be built, which would result in increased setbacks and reduced building heights. Like the Project, 77 percent of the units would be studio or one-bedroom units, 18 percent would be 2-bedroom units, and 6 percent would be 3-bedroom units. This alternative would develop and operate 347 multi-family residential units on the 5.9-acre site, which would result in 59 dwelling units per acre, which is a 149-unit (and 25 unit per acre) reduction compared to the Project. Reducing these units from the Project would eliminate 51 units along the eastern portion of the Project site to provide a 90-foot building setback from the eastern boundary of the site; and the 5th floor residential units along the eastern side would be eliminated to provide a maximum of 4-stories adjacent to the 90- foot setback. Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the development would be 3-stories in height along Santiago Park and Edgewood Road, and would be 5 stories in height along N, Main Street and adjacent to the parking structure. To support the 347 multi-family residential units under this alternative 625 parking spaces (an average of 1.8 spaces per unit consistent with the Project) would be provided within a 6-level parking structure, that would have 5 levels above ground and one level underground. Like the Project, the residential units would be wrapped around the parking structure. Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the Wellness Room and Community Rooms would not be developed (as they are planned to be located within the 90-foot setback) and the recreation amenities would also be reduced by 30 percent. Thus, approximately 4,870 of indoor recreation facilities would be provided by this alternative. However, the 90-foot setback would create a large open space area (approximately 54,000 square feet) along the eastern side of the Project site that could be used for open space recreation. Like the Project, this alternative would require a General Plan Amendment from the existing land use designation of PAO (Professional and Administrative Office) to District Center (DC), and a Zone change from P (Professional) to a Specific Development (SD) designation. Environmental Effects: As further discussed in the DEIR (DEIR, pp. 6-12 through 6-17), the Reduced Project Alternative would result in a 90-foot building setback from the eastern boundary of the site resulting in an open space area that could be used for recreation. In addition, views of the Project site would be visually less dense and structure heights would be lower from several viewpoints. Also, the shade and shadow generated from the Reduced Project Alternative would be less than the Project and would extend into fewer off-site areas. However, the same mitigation to protect the trees to remain onsite would be necessary to ensure views of the Project site are screened, and (although less) this alternative would also result in a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks in comparison to the existing views of the site that is considered significant pursuant to the City’s aesthetics criteria. This alternative would also require the same types of construction activities and related mitigation 2-100 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 65 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR measures as the proposed Project. Therefore, although the Reduced Project Alternative would be lower in height, scale, and mass, generate fewer greenhouse gas and air quality emissions, require fewer services, result in less traffic trips, and create a large open space area on the eastern portion of the Project site, it would not reduce the need for mitigation or the level of impact significance compared to the Project. Furthermore, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in a reduced beneficial effect. Providing fewer multi-family housing on the Project site would result in fewer opportunities to improve the City’s 3.2 percent vacancy rate, fewer residents traveling to local employment opportunities, a reduced improvement to the jobs-housing balance and is not as reflective of the General Plan Major City Entry and Main Street Concourse node designations as the Project. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Reduced Project Alternative would meet the Project objectives, but not to the same extent as the Project. The site would be redeveloped for new high-quality housing near existing employment centers, commercial areas, freeways, and transit; however, fewer residential units would be provided and a reduced improvement to the jobs-housing balance would occur. Additionally, fewer residents would be accommodated by the safe, high-quality, modern residential community with open space and various recreation amenities on the Project site. Overall, this alternative would meet the objectives of the Project, but not to the same extent as the Project. (DEIR, pp. 6-17 through 6-18.) Finding: The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce impacts in comparison to the proposed Project; however, the alternative would not reduce significant unavoidable aesthetic impacts to a less than significant level and would continue to require the same mitigation measures that would be implemented for the Project. In addition, the Reduced Project Alternative result in a reduced beneficial effect by providing fewer units to meet the City’s housing need and jobs-housing balance. Further, this alternative would not meet the Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project. Therefore, the City hereby rejects the Reduced Project Alternative. (DEIR, p. 6-18.) Alternative 3: Build Out of the Existing Zoning Alternative Description: Under this alternative described in further detail in the DEIR (DEIR, pp. 6-18 through 6- 24), the Project site would be redeveloped for new professional office uses as allowed by the City’s Zoning Code Sections 41-312 through 41-323. The Project site has a Zoning designation of P (Professional), which allows buildings up to 3-stories or 35-feet in height. The building setbacks required in the P zone include a 15-foot setback from the front and side property lines, and a 50-foot rear setback when the site backs to residential areas. The maximum office building structure that could be developed under the existing zoning code requirements would be 3-stories high and 387,465 square feet (floor area ratio of 1.5), which would require 1,161 parking spaces (per the P zone requirement of 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet). The office building would be surrounded by drought tolerant ornamental landscaping. Under this alternative, the existing onsite development would be demolished, removed, and replaced to provide a new building structure that would be developed pursuant to current building requirements, such as energy efficient power systems, drought tolerant landscaping, storm water filtration, and other Low Impact Development (LID) requirements. This alternative would be consistent with the existing land use designation, which is PAO (Professional and Administrative Office) and P zoning designation. (DEIR, p. 6-18.) Environmental Effects: The Build Out of the Existing Zoning Alternative would result in a lower building height than the Project, and a 10-foot larger setback from the eastern boundary of the site; but 2-101 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 66 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR would be 4.77 times larger than the existing 81,172 square foot 2-story building, and like the Project, this alternative would substantially change the scale, height, and setbacks in comparison to existing views of the Project site, which would result in a significant impact pursuant to the City’s aesthetics criteria. Furthermore, the character of the office building under this alternative would be less visually consistent with the adjacent single-family residential than the proposed multi-family residential. (DEIR, p. 6-23.) The Build Out Under the Existing Zoning Alternative would result in approximately 1,275 employees at full capacity and generate approximately 3,774 vehicle trips per day, which is 40 percent more daily trips than the proposed Project. As a result, impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas, traffic noise, and traffic congestion would be increased in comparison to the Project. Similarly, construction of this alternative would require the same construction related mitigation measures that are required for the Project. Overall, the Build Out Under the Existing Zoning Alternative would result in greater impacts than the Project. (DEIR, p. 6-23.) Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Build Out of the Existing Zoning Alternative would not meet a majority of the Project objectives. The site would not be redeveloped into new high-quality housing near existing employment centers, commercial areas, freeways, and transit. It would not promote an improved jobs/housing balance, and would not provide residents with a safe, high-quality, modern residential community with open space and various recreation amenities. Although the Project would meet the objectives of redeveloping land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure and would implement capital investment related to the Project site to enhance the City’s economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan, a majority (5 out of 7) of the Project objectives would not be met. (DEIR, pp. 6-23 through 6-24.) Finding: The Build Out of the Existing Zoning Alternative would continue to result in a significant unavoidable aesthetic impact, would continue to require the same mitigation measures that would be implemented for the Project, and would result in greater impacts to other environmental topics than the Project. In addition, the Existing Zoning Alternative would not meet a majority of the Project objectives. Therefore, the City hereby rejects the Existing Zoning Alternative. 12.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative The Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Project is the No Project/No Build Alternative. The No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact of the Project and all of the potential construction impacts, reduce many of the operational impacts, and would not be required to implement the mitigation measures that are identified in Chapter 4.0 of this EIR that are related to: aesthetics, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise and vibration, and tribal cultural resources. However, this alternative would not improve the storm water runoff quality that runs directly into Santiago Creek, not remove the contaminated soils from the site, not improve the jobs/housing balance and the related reduction in vehicle miles traveled. (DEIR, pp. 6-24 through 6-25.) CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(3)(1) states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives is Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative, which would develop 30 fewer units than the Project. (DEIR, p. 6-24.) The potential impacts 2-102 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 67 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR from this alternative are less than the Project because the residential structure under this alternative would be lower in height, at a lower density, and be sited at least 90-feet from the eastern property line resulting in a large open space area that could be used for recreation. However, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in a significant and unavoidable aesthetics impact related to a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks in comparison to the existing views of the site and the alternative would not reduce the need for mitigation compared to the proposed Project. (DEIR, p. 6-24.) Furthermore, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in a reduced beneficial effect; providing fewer multi-family housing units on the Project site that would result in a reduced improvement to the City’s 3.2 percent vacancy rate, fewer residents traveling to local employment opportunities, a reduced improvement to the jobs-housing balance, and is not as reflective of the General Plan Major City Entry and Main Street Concourse node designations as the Project. In addition, the Reduced Project Alternative would not meet the Project objectives to the same extent as the Project. The site would be redeveloped for new high- quality housing near existing employment centers, commercial areas, freeways, and transit; however, fewer residential units would be provided and a reduced improvement to the jobs-housing balance would occur. Additionally, fewer residents would be accommodated by the safe, high-quality, modern residential community with open space and various recreation amenities on the Project site. (DEIR, pp. 6-24 through 6-25.) CEQA does not require the City to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, explain the considerations that led it to conclude that those alternatives were infeasible from a policy standpoint, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweighed the harm. 2-103 EXHIBIT B Statement of Overriding Considerations Resolution No. _____ Page 68 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS MAGNOLIA AT THE PARK MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE No: 2018021031 CITY OF SANTA ANA: DP No. 2017-34 Introduction The City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency under CEQA responsible for preparation, review and certification of the Final EIR for the Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project (Project). As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant and can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the Project. In making this determination, the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 which provides as follows: 15093. Statement of Overriding Considerations. a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. 2-104 EXHIBIT B Statement of Overriding Considerations Resolution No. _____ Page 69 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the Project against the following unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the Project, most of which do not meet the Project objectives and are environmentally preferable to the Project for the reasons discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. The City of Santa Ana, the Lead Agency for this Project, having reviewed the DEIR for the Project and reviewed all written materials within the City’s public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the Project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the Project. Overriding Considerations The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits of the Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impact of the Project, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. Each of the benefits identified below provides a separate and independent basis for overriding the significant environmental effects of the Project. The specific economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the Project are as follows: 1. The Project would implement capital investment to enhance the City’s economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan. 2. The Project would implement the General Plan Scenic Corridors Element Major City Entry designation along N. Main Street at the Project site. 3. The Project would implement the General Plan Urban Design Element Main Street at I-5 Freeway Gateway designation. 4. The Project would provide consistency with the General Plan Scenic Corridors Element Inter- City Corridor designation along the Santiago Creek area at N. Main Street. 5. The Project would provide needed multi-family rental housing to improve the City’s 3.2 percent vacancy rate and provide a variety of housing options for existing and future residents. 6. The Project would reduce the jobs-housing ratio, providing a beneficial effect of providing multi- family housing in a jobs-rich area so that employees can easily travel to employment opportunities. 7. The Project would result in a potential reduction of vehicle miles traveled and the related traffic congestion, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions from the provision of housing near regional shopping areas and employment, and by improving the jobs-housing balance. 2-105 EXHIBIT B Statement of Overriding Considerations Resolution No. _____ Page 70 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 8. The Project would provide additional multi-family housing to support the regionally forecasted increase in economic activities and employment increases. 9. The Project would redevelop an underutilized parcel to implement high-quality multi-family housing with recreation amenities, near transportation facilities and utilizing existing infrastructure capacity. 10. The Project would improve storm water filtration, such that unfiltered runoff would no longer be conveyed to Santiago Creek. All of the runoff from the site would be conveyed to infiltrating landscaping areas and catch basins that would improve the existing storm water quality that conveys to the creek. 11. The Project would install additional 24- and 36-inch box trees and tree wells along the Edgewood Road and N. Main Street right-of-way, providing additional public street trees. 12. The Project would result in the creation, installation, and maintenance of a public art project with a value equivalent to one-half of one percent of the total construction cost of the Project, pursuant to a development agreement entered into between the City and the Project Applicant, AC 2525 Main St., a California limited liability company (“Project Applicant”). 13. The Project would result in the Project Applicant providing $1,400,000 to the City for future park maintenance and for the purpose of completing park improvements including, but not limited to, installation of irrigation, landscaping, security lighting and bike trail enhancements to Santiago Park. 14. The Project would result in the Project Applicant providing $100,000 to the City for future maintenance of the three new entry monuments. 15. The Project would result in providing benefits to the Park Santiago neighborhood for a period of 55-year (subject to annual review) including access to on-site amenities and Amazon locker, private 24-hour roving security patrol of Santiago Park and the Park Santiago Neighborhood. 16. The Project would result in the Project Applicant performing all tasks necessary, and paying all fees, not to exceed one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), associated with processing an application for consideration of the designation of the Santiago Park Neighborhood Association as a local historic district on the City’s Historical Register. Provided the members of the Santiago Park Neighborhood Association support creation of a Park Santiago Historic District. 17. The Project would result in the Applicant preforming the analysis, design, engineering, construction, and inspection/administration of (1) Santiago Park neighborhood improvements at up to three locations on Edgewood and/or Bush Street to achieve traffic calming and traffic diversion. Improvements may be based on input from the Santiago Park Neighborhood Association and may include, but not be limited to, bulb-outs, traffic circles and medians within the neighborhood streets. (2) Santiago Park Neighborhood entry monuments at Main Street/Edgewood Road, Santa Clara Avenue/Lincoln Avenue, and Santiago Street/17th Street based on input from the Santiago Park Neighborhood Association. (3) Street lighting enhancements within the Santiago Park Neighborhood. (4) A street light at the Santiago Park 2-106 EXHIBIT B Statement of Overriding Considerations Resolution No. _____ Page 71 of 71 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Drive / Main Street intersection. (5) Decorative concrete pavement within the intersection of Main Street/Walkie Way and Main Street/Santiago Park Drive. 2-107 City of Santa Ana 1 November 2018 MAGNOLIA AT THE PARK MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1.1 Introduction The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead or public agency that approves or carries out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report has been certified which identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects and where findings with respect to changes or alterations in the project have been made, to adopt a “…reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment” (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21081, 21081.6). A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are successfully implemented for the 2525 N. Main Street Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project (project). The City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency for the proposed project and is responsible for implementation of the MMRP. This report describes the MMRP for the project and identifies the parties that will be responsible for monitoring implementation of the individual mitigation measures in the MMRP. 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The MMRP for the project will be active through all phases of the project, including design, construction, and operation. The attached table identifies the mitigation program required to be implemented by the City for the project to avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts on the environment. The table identifies the timing of implementation, and the responsible party or parties for monitoring compliance. The MMRP also includes a column for the compliance monitor (individual responsible for monitoring compliance) to document when implementation of the measure is completed. As individual mitigation measures are completed, the compliance monitor will sign and date the MMRP, indicating that the required mitigation measure has been completed. The project includes specific Project Design Features (PDFs) that are incorporated to avoid and/or minimize potential environmental impacts. In addition, the EIR analysis describes the existing regulations that effectively avoid or reduce environmental impacts. The PDFs and the existing regulations that are implementable actions related to project construction and operation activities are included in the following MMRP table to ensure implementation and appropriate monitoring of each, in the same manner as the mitigation measures. EXHIBIT C 2-108 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2525 N. Main Street Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project City of Santa Ana 2 November 2018 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MAGNOLIA AT THE PARK MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT FINAL EIR Required Measure Implementation Timing Responsible for Ensuring Compliance / Verification Date Completed and Initials Project Description Features PDF-1: The landscape plan will incorporate the existing mature trees located along the eastern and southern project site boundaries, which were identified as healthy by the Arborist Report (MMRP Attachment A). In Construction and Landscape Plans and Specifications. Prior to Demolition and Construction Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division PDF-2: The project will include at least 25 electric vehicle charging stations. In Site Plans and Specifications. Prior to Occupancy Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division PDF-3: The project will include installation and maintenance of air filtration systems with efficiencies equal to or exceeding a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 16 as defined by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 52.2 within all buildings. In Building Mechanical Plans and Specifications. Prior to Occupancy Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division PDF-4: Outdoor trash receptacles will be provided throughout the common areas of the site, including the dog park area, for the tenants to dispose of their refuse in a proper manner. Property maintenance will provide trash and waste material removal, including dog feces disposal bags, to maintain a trash- free property. All wastes shall be collected and properly disposed of off-site. In Site Plans and Specifications. Prior to Occupancy Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division PDF-5: The project will include safety design features for security, such as low-intensity security lighting, key pads for building access, security cameras, and 24-hour security personnel. In Site Plans and Specifications. Prior to Occupancy Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Aesthetics Mitigation Measure AES-1: Construction plans and specifications shall state that the following measures shall be implemented by the construction contractor to protect the trees along the eastern and southern project site boundary that are planned for preservation during construction of the proposed project pursuant to the 2018 Arborist Report (MMRP Attachment A): • If the wall along the eastern boundary of the project site cannot be heightened in-place and must be replaced, it shall be reconstructed with a precast concrete fence or a wall without a continuous footing. • Before finalizing construction plans, a contractor with an AirSpade or AirKnife shall explore the locations adjacent to the preserved trees to locate large lateral roots. The root locations shall be marked, and a survey provided to update the construction plans to avoid cutting any significant large roots. The cutting of small roots shall be planned for late spring or winter and made with In Construction and Landscape Plans and Specifications. Prior to Demolition and Construction Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division 2-109 2525 N. Main Street Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Santa Ana 3 November 2018 Required Measure Implementation Timing Responsible for Ensuring Compliance / Verification Date Completed and Initials clean cuts. No pruning paint or sealants shall be used. • Any grade changes near the preserved trees or pruning of trees to provide clearances for construction equipment shall be coordinated with a Registered Consulting Arborist before construction begins, and precautions pursuant to the arborist’s recommendations shall be taken to mitigate potential tree injuries. • Prior to construction, a one-pound soil sample shall be taken from the top 18-inches of soil in each area where trees will be preserved. The samples shall be sent to an appropriate laboratory for analysis and soil supplement recommendations. Fertilization of the preserved trees shall be completed pursuant to the laboratory analysis’ soil supplement recommendations. • Prior to construction, augur 6-inch diameter holes about 3 feet deep at a 3-foot spacing between large roots in the more compacted and crowded spaces. Avoid large visible roots, relocating the holes as needed. Start augur holes at three times the trunk diameter, i.e. 6-feet from a 24-inch tree. Back fill with amended soil, based on an agronomic lab’s testing and recommendations. • Prior to construction, mulch all exposed soil areas using a topical application of a well- composted, coarse-texture mulch, without manure or bio-solids, e.g. Aguinaga Forest Floor ½ to 1½” particle size. Apply it 2-inches deep, but not against the tree trunks. • Deep water before construction and check soil moisture monthly during construction by means of a soil test probe. Slow water with a soaker hose or water spike for 12 hours, or as long as necessary to reach 4-feet deep. • Rinse tree foliage at the end of each work week, using a strong stream of water from a high- pressure nozzle. • During construction in areas without pavement near the preserved trees, 3 or more inches of coarse mulch or tree chips under 1-inch plywood for light vehicle parking and steel plates for larger vehicles is required to prevent compaction and protect surface roots. • Protection Barrier: A protection barrier shall be installed around the trees to be preserved. The barrier shall be constructed of durable fencing material, such as chain link fencing. The barrier shall be placed as far from the base of the tree(s) as possible and shall be maintained in good repair throughout the duration of construction, and shall not be removed, relocated, or encroached upon without permission of the project arborist. o Storage of Materials: There shall be NO storage of materials or supplies of any kind within the area of the protection barriers. Concrete and cement materials, block, stone, sand and soil shall not be placed within the drip-line of the tree. 2-110 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2525 N. Main Street Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project City of Santa Ana 4 November 2018 Required Measure Implementation Timing Responsible for Ensuring Compliance / Verification Date Completed and Initials o Fuel Storage: Fuel storage shall NOT be permitted within 150 feet of any tree to be preserved. Refueling, servicing and maintenance of equipment and machinery shall NOT be permitted within 150 feet of the protected trees. o Debris and Waste Materials: Debris and waste from construction or other activities shall NOT be permitted within protected areas. Wash down of concrete or cement handling equipment, in particular, shall NOT be permitted within 150 feet of protected trees. • Any damages or injuries should be reported to the project arborist as soon as possible. Severed roots shall be pruned cleanly to healthy tissue, using proper pruning tools. Broken branches or limbs shall be pruned according to International Society of Arboriculture Pruning Guidelines and ANSI A-300 Pruning Standards. Municipal Code Section 33-185, Street Tree Species to Be Planted: The tree species to be planted shall be consistent with the list of the official street tree species for the City of Santa Ana. Species other than those included in this list may be planted as street trees with consent from the environmental and transportation advisory committee In Site and Landscape Plans and Specifications. Prior to Landscape Plan Approval City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency Municipal Code Section 33-188, Site Plan Approval: The site plan for the project shall include street trees showing the approximate location, size, and species of all existing trees to be maintained, trees to be removed, and trees required for approval of the project. In Site and Landscape Plans and Specifications. Prior to Demolition and Construction Permits City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency Municipal Code Section 33-193, Building Materials Near Trees, Shrubs: No person shall pile building material, or other material, about any tree, plant, or shrub in a street in any manner that will in any way injure such tree, plant or shrub. In Construction Plans and Specifications. During Construction and Demolition City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Municipal Code Section 31-1304, Outdoor Lighting: All outdoor lighting in parking lots should be reflected away from these sensitive land uses. In Lighting and Design Plans. Prior to Occupancy Permits City of Santa Ana Planning Division Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Construction plans and specifications shall state that the construction contractor shall use off-road diesel construction equipment that complies with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards and shall ensure that all construction equipment be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. In Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to Demolition and Construction Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403: The following measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of Rule 403 (4): • All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the In Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to Demolition and Construction Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division 2-111 2525 N. Main Street Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Santa Ana 5 November 2018 Required Measure Implementation Timing Responsible for Ensuring Compliance / Verification Date Completed and Initials Project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid- morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less. South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113: The following measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of Rule 1113. The project shall not include application of any architectural coating within the SCAQMD with VOC content in excess of the values specified in a table incorporated in the Rule. A list of low/no-VOC paints is provided at the following SCAQMD website: www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/paintguide.html. All paints will be applied using either high volume low-pressure spray equipment or by hand application. In Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to Demolition and Construction Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1186: The following measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of Rule 1186. Sweep onsite streets (and off-site streets if silt is carried to adjacent public thoroughfares) to reduce the amount of particulate matter. Visible roadway accumulations shall begin removal within 72 hours of any notification of the accumulation and shall be completely removed. All sweepers shall be compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1186.1, Less Polluting Sweepers. In Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to Demolition and Construction Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Construction plans and specifications shall state that vegetation clearing during nesting season (February 1 through September 15) shall be avoided, if feasible. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall be required to conduct a nesting bird survey within 3 days prior any disturbance of the site, including disking, demolition activities, and grading. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around nests at an appropriate distance that is a minimum of 250 feet for raptors and 100 feet for non-raptors. The buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied, and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. In Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to demolition, grading, or construction permits City of Santa Ana Planning Division Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by a qualified hazardous materials consultant and shall detail procedures and protocols for excavation and disposal of onsite hazardous materials, including: • A certified hazardous waste hauler shall remove all potentially hazardous soils. Excavation of contaminated soils shall be to the depth of approximately 0.5 feet below the existing ground surface in areas identified as having arsenic impacted soils. In addition, sampling of soil shall be In Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to Grading Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division 2-112 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2525 N. Main Street Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project City of Santa Ana 6 November 2018 Required Measure Implementation Timing Responsible for Ensuring Compliance / Verification Date Completed and Initials conducted during excavation to ensure that all arsenic impacted soils are removed, and that residential Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residential uses are not exceeded. Excavated materials shall be transported per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the state to accept hazardous materials. • Any subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of excavation activities. Soils suspected of contamination shall be tested for potential contamination. If contamination is found to be present per the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ESLs for residential uses, it shall be transported and disposed of per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to an appropriately permitted landfill. • A Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall be prepared for each contractor that addresses potential safety and health hazards and includes the requirements and procedures for employee protection. The HSP shall also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction. • All SMP measures shall be printed on the construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of grading permits. Noise Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The project plans and specifications shall include the following construction requirements to be implemented and verified prior to provision of occupancy permits: • Windows/Glass Doors: Residential units adjacent to N. Main Street (all floors) require upgraded windows and sliding glass doors (all windows/doors on all floors) with minimum STC ratings of 30; and all other buildings require standards windows and sliding glass doors with a minimum STC rating of 27. • Exterior Doors (Non-Glass): Exterior doors facing N. Main Street (all floors) require upgraded exterior doors with minimum STC ratings of 30 and shall be well weather-stripped; and all other residential building exterior doors shall be well weather-stripped and have minimum STC ratings of 27. Well-sealed perimeter gaps around the doors are essential to achieve the optimal STC rating. • Walls: At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts, or conduits shall be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal. • Ventilation: Residential exterior vents shall be oriented away from I-5 and Main Street. If such an orientation cannot be avoided, then an acoustical baffle shall be placed in the attic space In Building Plans and Specifications. Prior to Occupancy Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division 2-113 2525 N. Main Street Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Santa Ana 7 November 2018 Required Measure Implementation Timing Responsible for Ensuring Compliance / Verification Date Completed and Initials behind the vents. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The project’s construction plans and specifications shall include the following requirements: • Large loaded trucks and mobile equipment, such as bulldozers (greater than or equal to 80,000 pounds) shall not be used within 50 feet of the eastern boundary of the project site. Instead, smaller, rubber-tired mobile equipment (less than 80,000 pounds) or equivalent alternative equipment shall be used within this area during project construction. • All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site. • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receivers nearest the project site during all construction. In Demolition and Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to Demolition, Grading, and/or Building Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Mitigation Measure NOI-3: The project’s construction plans and specifications shall include the requirement to install a minimum 11-foot high temporary construction noise barrier along the project site eastern boundary for the duration of project construction. The noise control barriers shall have a solid face from top to bottom and shall meet the following height and constructed requirements: • The temporary noise barrier shall provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA (Federal Highway Administration, Noise Barrier Design Handbook). The noise barrier shall be constructed using an acoustical blanket (e.g. vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or temporary fence posts. • The noise barrier shall be maintained, and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired; • The noise control barrier and associated elements shall be completely removed, and the site appropriately restored upon the conclusion of the construction activity. In Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to demolition, grading, or construction permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division and Planning Division Municipal Code Section 18-314, Construction Activities: Construction activities shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. In Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to demolition, grading, or construction permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Public Services Orange County Fire Authority Fire Prevention Guideline B-09: Specific information shall be In Development Plans and Orange County Fire Authority 2-114 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2525 N. Main Street Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project City of Santa Ana 8 November 2018 Required Measure Implementation Timing Responsible for Ensuring Compliance / Verification Date Completed and Initials provided during the submittal of plans to demonstrate compliance with all codes and other regulations governing water availability for firefighting and emergency access to the project site and structures that shall be reviewed by the Orange County Fire Authority. Specifications. Prior to Building Permits Municipal Code Chapter 14, Fire Code: New structures shall meet all California Fire Code standards. In Development Plans. Prior to Building Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Orange County Fire Authority Municipal Code Chapter 8-46, Fire Facilities Fee: The fire facilities fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit for construction of buildings. All fire facility fee revenues shall be expended solely to fund equipment needed to fight fires in buildings over 2 stories in height and to improve fire stations to accommodate such equipment. Prior to Building Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Municipal Code Sections 35-108, 35-110, and 35-111 Park and Recreation Fees: The park and recreation fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit for construction of buildings. The park and recreation fee revenues shall be expended solely to fund the acquisition, construction, and renovation of park and recreation facilities based on a standard of 2 acres of public park and/or recreational space per 1,000 residents. Prior to Building Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Inadvertent Discoveries. The project’s grading and construction plans and specifications shall state that prior to commencement of any excavation activities, a Native American shall be contacted to conduct a Native American Indian Sensitivity Training for construction personnel. The training session includes a handout and focus on how to identify Native American resources encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures followed if resources are discovered. In the event that tribal cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work must be halted within 50 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist in cooperation with a Native American monitor to determine if the potential resource meet the CEQA definition of historical (State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(a)) and/or unique resource (Public Resources Code 21083.2(g)). Construction activities could continue in other areas. If the find is considered a “resource” the archaeologist, in cooperation with a Native American monitor shall pursue either protection in place or recovery, salvage and treatment of the deposits. Recovery, salvage and treatment protocols shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4. If unique a tribal cultural resource cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, recovery, salvage and treatment shall be required at the project applicant’s expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation in an established accredited In Grading and Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to Grading Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division 2-115 2525 N. Main Street Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Santa Ana 9 November 2018 Required Measure Implementation Timing Responsible for Ensuring Compliance / Verification Date Completed and Initials professional repository. Utilities and Service Systems Municipal Code Article XVI, Green Building Standards Code: New structures shall meet the CALGreen water efficiency standards (i.e., maximum flow rates) for all new plumbing fittings and fixtures. In Development Plans. Prior to Building Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Municipal Code Section 39-106, Permanent Water Conservation Requirements: New structures shall meet the CALGreen water efficiency standards (i.e., maximum flow rates) for all new plumbing fittings and fixtures. In Development Plans. Prior to Building Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Municipal Code Section 39-106, Permanent Water Conservation Requirements: The project shall implement the required water conservation measures that are effective at all times and is not dependent upon a water shortage. In Development Plans. Prior to Occupancy Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Municipal Code Section 41-1503, Landscape Water Use Standards: New landscaping shall implement the Santa Ana Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines. In Landscape Plans. Prior to Building Permits City of Santa Ana Planning Division Municipal Code Section 18-156, Control of Urban Runoff: The project shall implement the County of Orange Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and any conditions and requirements established by the City related to the reduction or elimination of pollutants in storm water runoff from the project site. In Demolition, Grading, and Development Plans. Prior to Demolition, Grading, and/or Building Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division 2-116 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Draft Environmental Impact Report, Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Technical Appendices are available at the following locations: Online: https://www.santa-ana.org/pb/planning-division/major-planning-projects-and- documents/2525-n-main-residential-development Paper Copies: Planning and Building Agency Planning Counter, First Floor 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Santa Ana Public Library 26 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LINK 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-117 This page left blank intentionally. 2-118 EXHIBIT 2 2-119 This page left blank intentionally. 2-120 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 1 of 9 LS 1.14.19 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND AC 2525 MAIN, LLC FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65864, ET SEQ. WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana (“City”) is authorized pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 to enter into development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the purpose of establishing certainty for both City and owner in the development process; and WHEREAS, the City has found that development agreements strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning by providing a greater degree of certainty in that process, reduce the economic costs of development, allow for the orderly planning of public improvements and services, allocate costs to achieve maximum utilization of public and private resources in the development process, and ensure that appropriate measures to enhance and protect the environment are achieved; and WHEREAS, the City enters into this Development Agreement pursuant to the provisions of the Government Code and applicable City policies; and WHEREAS, AC 2525 Main, LLC (“Developer”) proposes to develop a 5.93-acre site located in the City of Santa Ana, more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (“Property”) for residential uses on the Property (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Development Agreement came before the Planning Commission for a duly noticed public hearing on January 14, 2019. At that hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve said Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, entering into this Development Agreement would provide the City with extraordinary and significant benefits that are of regional significance, relate to existing deficiencies in public facilities, require the owner of 2525 North Main Street to contribute a greater percentage of benefits than would otherwise be required, and represent benefits which would not otherwise be required as part of the development process; and EXHIBIT 2 2-121 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 2 of 9 WHEREAS, the Project and the use that the Developer proposes in connection with the Property have been extensively reviewed and considered by the City, and such proposed development and use have been found to accommodate the City’s recommendations and suggestions in order to protect the public’s interest to enhance the desirability of such proposed development and use. The terms and conditions of this Development Agreement have been found to be fair, just and reasonable, and the City has concluded that the pursuit of the Project will serve the interests of the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that by entering into the Development Agreement: (i) the City will promote orderly growth and quality development on the Property in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan; and, (ii) significant benefits will be created for City residents and the public generally from increased employment, housing, parks and/or park improvements; and WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 (State Clearinghouse No. 2018021031) for the proposed Project was circulated between August 7, 2018 and October 4, 2018; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report analyzed the impacts related to the proposed amendment to the zoning map and adoption of Specific Development No. 93; and WHEREAS, the City and Developer have reached mutual agreement and desire to voluntarily enter into the Development Agreement to facilitate development of the Project subject to the conditions and requirements set forth therein; and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement have undergone review by the Planning Commission at a publicly noticed hearing and have been found to be fair, just, and reasonable, and consistent with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project will not adversely affect the General Plan, as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, as is expressly set forth in the Request for Planning Commission Action dated January 14, 2019, together with all supporting documents, including but not limited to, proposed resolutions, which are incorporated herein by this reference. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CEQA. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act have been satisfied in that a Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared for the Project, including the Development Agreement, and the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2-122 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 3 of 9 SECTION 2. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY. Pursuant to California Government Code section 65867.5(b) and based on the entire record before the Planning Commission, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the Development Agreement is compatible with the objectives, policies, and general plan land use programs specified in the General Plan for the City of Santa Ana in that: A. The City of Santa Ana has officially adopted a General Plan. B. The land uses authorized by the General Plan Amendment, and the General Plan Amendment itself, are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan, for the following reasons: i. The existing General Plan land use designations for the project is Professional and Administrative Office (PAO), which allows business and professional offices; with a floor area ratio of 1.5. In order to facilitate the construction of a multi-family housing Project with a maximum floor area ratio of 2.28, the land use designation needs to be changed to District Center (DC), which create a high intensity, mixed-use urban villages and pedestrian-oriented experiences that support the mid- to high-rise office centers, commercial activity, and cultural activities with floor area ratios ranging from 0.5 to 5.0. ii. The proposed Project will support several goals and policies of the General Plan. Housing Element (HE) Goal 2: to create diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana’s residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive community. HE Policy 2.2 District Centers. Create high intensity, mixed-use urban villages and pedestrian-oriented experiences that support the mid- to high-rise office centers, commercial activity, and cultural activities in the varied District Centers. HE Policy 2.4 to facilitate diverse types, prices and sizes of housing. Housing Element (HE) Goal 4: to provide adequate rental and ownership housing opportunities and supportive services. The Project will provide 476 rental housing units. The amendment will expand the District Center designation and provide a connection between the existing District Centers to the north and south of the site by providing a residential development that will support a mixed-use environment. 2-123 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 4 of 9 Land Use (LU) Element Goal 1: to promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs. LU Policy 1.2 Maintain and foster a variety of residential land uses in the City. LU Policy 4.3 Support land uses which provide community and regional economic and service benefits. LU Policy 4.4 Encourage the development of projects which promote the City’s image as a regional activity center. LU Policy 5.5 Encourage development which is compatible with, and supportive of surrounding land uses. LU Policy 5.7 Anticipate that the intensity of new development will not exceed available infrastructure capacity. Land Use (LU) Element Goal 6: to reduce residential overcrowding to promote public health and safety. The Project is within ½ mile of existing transportation infrastructure such as the Santa Ana (I-5) freeway and State Route 22 (SR 22) highway which provide vehicular access to the region; the Orange County Transportation Agency bus routes which connect to the Anaheim Regional Transportation Authority which provides rail service throughout California and is immediately adjacent to Santiago Park and Santiago Creek Bike Trail which connects to regional bike trails. Main Street, a major urban corridor with cultural, educational, employment and retail destinations such as the Bowers Museum, Discovery Science Center, Main Place Mall and in the City of Orange; the Children’s Hospital of Orange County and St. Joseph’s Hospital of Orange County. Therefore, the residential development would be within close proximity of major employment centers and retail establishments. The Project will also provide an additional housing option for those seeking housing within the jobs rich northern area of the City. The multi-storied development will complement the nearby mid-rise office buildings located along Main Street to the north and west of the site and the multi-family residential use supports a mixed-use setting. Although the density will be higher than the adjacent uses, the residential use is consistent with the residential uses to the east and south. Urban Design (UD) Element, Goal 1: to improve the physical appearance of the City through development of districts that project a sense of place, positive community image, and quality environment. UD Policy 1.1. New development and redevelopment must have the highest quality design, materials, finishes and construction. 2-124 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 5 of 9 UD Policy 1.11 Visual and physical links between districts, nodes, and significant sites, landmarks and other points of interest, are to be provided in all public and private projects. The residential buildings are of high quality design and include high quality materials such as stone veneer, brick veneers, metal panels, and canopies. The building is designed with courtyards that are open to the public right-of-way, and landscaped areas to reduce the mass of the building. The Project has street frontage on Main Street which is identified as a major path in the General Plan and supports the North Main Street Node described as an opportunity for the establishment of a cohesive, height intensity, mixed activity center with a strong presence in the region. The new development will include public art and convey a sense of place and contribute to the urban image for the City along a street corridor that includes regional, local and cultural landmarks. The development will be in scale with the buildings along Main Street to the north and west of the site. In addition, the Urban Design Element of the General Plan identifies the site as a Gateway; the Project promotes elements of a Gateway by developing the site with a building with attractive architectural features, projecting a positive image for the City of Santa Ana. C. The proposed Development Agreement will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare in that the Development Agreement will not result in incompatible land uses on adjacent properties, inconsistencies with any General Plan goals or policies, or adverse impacts to the environment. SECTION 3. The Development Agreement, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby recommended for City Council approval. SECTION 4. The Development Agreement shall not be effective unless and until Resolution No. 2019- (Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01), Ordinance No. 2019- (Development Agreement No. 2018-01) and Resolution No. -2019- (General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06) are adopted and become effective. If said resolution and Development Agreement are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise does not go into effect for any reason, then the Development Agreement shall be null and void and have no further force and effect. SECTION 5. INDEMNIFICATION. The Developer shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, 2-125 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 6 of 9 equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the Project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Developer shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Developer of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Developer in the defense of the Action. SECTION 6 . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. The Planning Commission hereby takes the following action: 1. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Development Agreement No. 2018-01, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, as follows: A. The Development Agreement shall not take effect unless and until Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 is certified by the City Council, and General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06 and Amendment Application No. 2018-10, are each approved by the City Council. SECTION 7. EXECUTION OF RESOLUTION. The Chairperson shall sign this Resolution and the Planning Commission Recording Secretary shall attest and certify to the adoption thereof. 2-126 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 7 of 9 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of January 2019. AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: _______________________ Mark McLoughlin Chairperson APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By:________________________ Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, SARAH BERNAL, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2019-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on January 14, 2019. Date: ________________ ____________________________________ Recording Secretary City of Santa Ana 2-127 EXHIBIT A 2-128 2-129 2-130 2-131 2-132 2-133 2-134 2-135 2-136 2-137 2-138 2-139 2-140 2-141 2-142 2-143 2-144 2-145 2-146 2-147 2-148 2-149 2-150 2-151 2-152 2-153 2-154 2-155 2-156 2-157 2-158 2-159 2-160 2-161 2-162 2-163 2-164 2-165 2-166 2-167 2-168 2-169 2-170 2-171 2-172 2-173 2-174 2-175 2-176 2-177 2-178 2-179 2-180 2-181 This page left blank intentionally. 2-182 EXHIBIT 3 2-183 This page left blank intentionally. 2-184 LS 1.14.19 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2018-06 AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO DISTRICT CENTER FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET WHEREAS, Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 (commencing with Section 65300) of the Government Code requires the City to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the City; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 1998, the City of Santa Ana adopted the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which has since been amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2017, AC 2525 Main, LLC ("Applicant") filed applications for approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, Amendment Application 2018-10, and Development Agreement No. 2018-01, for the development of a 5.93-acre site (“Project Site”), located at 2525 North Main Street with up to 476 multi-family units. WHEREAS, the Project with staff recommended changes will consist of development of a maximum of 476 multi-family units, parking capacity at 2.0 spaces per unit, private open space, and associated improvements on a 5.93-acre site (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the requested General Plan Amendment would change the General Plan land use designation of the property from Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) to District Center (DC) and to update text portions of the City’s Land Use Element to reflect this change in order to allow for development of the multi-family housing Project; and WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 (State Clearinghouse No. 2018021031) for the proposed Project was circulated between August 7, 2018 and October 4, 2018; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report analyzed the impacts related to the proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2018, the City invited recognized Native American tribes to engage in consultation regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3; and EXHIBIT 3 2-185 WHEREAS, on February 8, 2018, the City received a request for consultation from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation and a conference call between the City and Chairman Salas occurred on March 15, 2018 during which the history of uses and development of the Project Site and the depth of previous and existing infrastructure on the site was discussed. On March 21, 2018 additional information in follow up of the meeting was sent to Chairman Salas. Chairman Salas did not respond to the City with any information or evidence pertaining to Tribal Cultural Resources; and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a work study session to overview the Project and thirty-two (32) verbal comments were received (three in support and 29 in opposition) and nine (9) written comments were received (one in support and eight in opposition); and WHEREAS, on November 16, 2018, the City gave public notice of a Planning Commission public hearing for consideration of General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06 by advertising in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation, and on November 15, 2018 by mailing to owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the Project Site and posting on the Project site; and WHEREAS, on November 26, 2018, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing for the project to January 14, 2019 and held a second study session to overview the Project and fifty-eight (58) verbal comments were received (25 in support; 31 in opposition and two neutral) and eleven (11) written comments were received (two in support and nine in opposition); WHEREAS, on January 4, 2019, the City gave public notice of a Planning Commission public hearing for consideration of General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06 by advertising in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation, and on January 4, 2019 by mailing to owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the Project Site and posting on the Project site; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly- noticed public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, Amendment Application 2018-10, and Development Agreement No. 2018-01, and the Environmental Impact Report for the Project, at which hearing members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment upon General Plan Amendment No. 2018- 06. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommends City Council certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and Statement of Overriding Consideration for the proposed Project, including this General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06. 2-186 SECTION 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: The General Plan Amendment consists of amendments to the Land Use Element and text updates, as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS: The General Plan Amendment, Environmental Impact Report and all supporting documents are on file and available for public review at Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92702. SECTION 4. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment is compatible with the objectives, policies, and general plan land use programs specified in the General Plan for the City of Santa Ana in that: A. The City of Santa Ana has officially adopted a General Plan. B. The land uses authorized by the General Plan Amendment, and the General Plan Amendment itself, are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan, for the following reasons: i. The existing General Plan land use designations for the project is Professional and Administrative Office (PAO), which allows business and professional offices; with a floor area ratio of 1.5. In order to facilitate the construction of a multi-family housing Project with a maximum floor area ratio of 2.28, the land use designation needs to be changed to District Center (DC), which create high intensity, mixed-use urban villages and pedestrian-oriented experiences that support the mid- to high-rise office centers, commercial activity, and cultural activities with floor area ratios ranging from 0.5 to 5.0. Focusing growth within District Centers and along major corridors reduces the pressure for growth in low density residential neighborhoods. ii. The proposed Project will support several goals and policies of the General Plan. Housing Element (HE) Goal 2: to create diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana’s residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive community. HE Policy 2.2 District Centers. Create high intensity, mixed-use urban villages and pedestrian-oriented experiences that support the mid- to high-rise office centers, commercial activity, and cultural activities in the varied District Centers. HE Policy 2.4 to facilitate diverse types, prices and sizes of housing. 2-187 Housing Element (HE) Goal 4: to provide adequate rental and ownership housing opportunities and supportive services. The Project will provide 476 rental housing units. The amendment will expand the District Center designation and provide a connection between the existing District Centers to the north and south of the site by providing a residential development that will support a mixed-use environment. Land Use (LU) Element Goal 1: to promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs. LU Policy 1.2 Maintain and foster a variety of residential land uses in the City. LU Policy 4.3 Support land uses which provide community and regional economic and service benefits. LU Policy 4.4 Encourage the development of projects which promote the City’s image as a regional activity center. LU Policy 5.5 Encourage development which is compatible with, and supportive of surrounding land uses. LU Policy 5.7 Anticipate that the intensity of new development will not exceed available infrastructure capacity. Land Use (LU) Element Goal 6: to reduce residential overcrowding to promote public health and safety. The Project is within ½ mile of existing transportation infrastructure such as the Santa Ana (I-5) freeway and State Route 22 (SR 22) highway which provide vehicular access to the region; the Orange County Transportation Agency bus routes which connect to the Anaheim Regional Transportation Authority which provides rail service throughout California and is immediately adjacent to Santiago Park and Santiago Creek Bike Trail which connects to regional bike trails. Main Street, a major urban corridor with cultural, educational, employment and retail destinations such as the Bowers Museum, Discovery Science Center, Main Place Mall and in the City of Orange; the Children’s Hospital of Orange County and St. Joseph’s Hospital of Orange County. Therefore, the residential development would be within close proximity of major employment centers and retail establishments. The Project will also provide an additional housing option for those seeking housing within the jobs rich northern area of the City. The multi-storied development will complement the nearby mid-rise office buildings located along Main Street to the north and west of the site and the multi-family residential use supports a mixed-use setting. Although the density will be higher than the adjacent uses, the residential use is consistent with the 2-188 residential uses to the east and south. In addition, multi-family uses are often used in planning and zoning practice to buffer higher intensity uses like commercial or industrial uses from single-family residential uses. Urban Design (UD) Element, Goal 1: to improve the physical appearance of the City through development of districts that project a sense of place, positive community image, and quality environment. UD Policy 1.1. New development and redevelopment must have the highest quality design, materials, finishes and construction. UD Policy 1.11 Visual and physical links between districts, nodes, and significant sites, landmarks and other points of interest, are to be provided in all public and private projects. The residential buildings are of high quality design and include high quality materials such as stone veneer, brick veneers, metal panels, and canopies. The building is designed with courtyards that are open to the public right-of-way, and landscaped areas to reduce the mass of the building. The Project has street frontage on Main Street which is identified as a major path in the General Plan and supports the North Main Street Node described as an opportunity for the establishment of a cohesive, height intensity, mixed activity center with a strong presence in the region. The new development will include public art and convey a sense of place and contribute to the urban image for the City along a street corridor that includes regional, local and cultural landmarks. The development will be in scale with the buildings along Main Street to the north and west of the site. In addition, the Urban Design Element of the General Plan identifies the site as a Gateway; the Project promotes elements of a Gateway by developing the site with a building with attractive architectural features, projecting a positive image for the City of Santa Ana. C. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare in that the General Plan Amendment will not result in incompatible land uses on adjacent properties, inconsistencies with any General Plan goals or policies, or adverse impacts to the environment. SECTION 5. INDEMNIFICATION. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any 2-189 permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the Project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. SECTION 6 . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission hereby takes the following action: 1. The Planning Commission recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06 as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth below: A. Subject to compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Land Use Element map and text shall be amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. B. The General Plan Amendment shall not take effect unless and until Environmental Impact Report 2018-01 is certified and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 is approved by the City Council, and the associated Development Agreement No. 2018-01 is approved by the City Council and executed by all parties thereto. SECTION 7. EXECUTION OF RESOLUTION. The Chairperson shall sign this Resolution and the Planning Commission Recording Secretary shall attest and certify to the adoption thereof. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of January, 2019. AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: 2-190 _______________________ Mark McLoughlin Chairperson APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By:________________________ Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, SARAH BERNAL, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2019-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on January 14, 2019. Date: ________________ ____________________________________ Recording Secretary City of Santa Ana 2-191 EXHIBIT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-192 EXHIBIT A 2-193 2-194 2-195 2-196 2-197 2-198 2-199 2-200 2-201 2-202 2-203 2-204 2-205 2-206 EXHIBIT 4 2-207 This page left blank intentionally. 2-208 LS 1.14.19 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2018-10 REZONING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET FROM PROFESSIONAL (P) TO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 93 (SD-93) (AA NO. 2018-10) AND ADOPTING SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 93 (SD-93) FOR SAID PROPERTY WHEREAS, Chapter 41, Article 1, Division 1, Section 41-1 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code establishes the necessity of segregating the location of residences, businesses, trades and industries; regulating the use of buildings, structures, and land regulation; the location, height, bulk and size of buildings and structures, the size of yards and open space; the City is divided into land-use districts of such number, shape and area as may be considered best suited to carry out these regulations and provide for their enforcement; and WHEREAS, the regulations are considered necessary in order to: encourage the most appropriate use of land, conserve and stabilize property value, provide adequate open spaces for light and air and to prevent and fight fires, prevent undue concentration of population, lessen congestion on streets and highways, and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people, all as part of the general plan of the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana has adopted a zoning map which has since been amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2017, AC 2525 Main, LLC ("Applicant") filed applications for approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, Amendment Application No. 2018-10, and Development Agreement No. 2018-01, for the development of a 5.93-acre site (“Project Site”), located at 2525 North Main Street with up to 496 multi-family units. WHEREAS, the project with staff recommended changes to the Specific Development text will consist of the development of a maximum of 476 multi-family units, parking capacity at 2.0 spaces per unit, private open space, and associated improvements on a 5.93-acre site (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the requested Amendment Application would change the zoning designation of the property from Professional (P) to Specific Development No. 93 (SD-93) and adoption of Specific Development No. 93 to reflect this change in order to facilitate the construction of the multi-family housing project; and EXHIBIT 4 2-209 WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 (State Clearinghouse No. 2018021031) for the proposed Project was circulated between August 7, 2018 and October 4, 2018; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report analyzed the impacts related to the proposed amendment to the zoning map and adoption of Specific Development No. 93; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2018, the City invited recognized Native American tribes to engage in consultation regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3; and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a work study session to overview the project and thirty-two (32) verbal comments were received (three in support and 29 in opposition) and nine (9) written comments were received (one in support and eight in opposition); and WHEREAS, on November 16, 2018, the City gave public notice of the Planning Commission public hearing for consideration of Amendment Application No. 2018-10 by advertising in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation, and on November 15, 2018, by mailing to owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the Project site and posting on the Project site; and WHEREAS, on November 26, 2018, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing for the project to January 14, 2019 and held a second study session to overview the Project and fifty-eight (58) verbal comments were received (25 in support; 31 in opposition and two neutral) and eleven (11) written comments were received (two in support and nine in opposition); WHEREAS, on January 4, 2019, the City gave public notice of the Planning Commission public hearing for consideration of Amendment Application No. 2018-10 by advertising in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation, and by mailing to owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the Project site and posting on the Project site; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly- noticed public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, Amendment Application No. 2018-10, and Development Agreement No. 2018-01, and the Environmental Impact Report for the Project, at which hearing members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment upon Amendment Application No. 2018-10. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommends City Council certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 2-210 Program (MMRP), and adoption of the Statement of Overriding Consideration for the proposed Project, including this General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06. SECTION 2. AMENDMENT APPLICATION: The Amendment Application consists of amendments to the zoning map (SDM 6-5-9) and adoption of Specific Development No. 93, as shown in Exhibit A and Exhibit B respectively, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS: The Amendment Application, Environmental Impact Report and all supporting documents are on file and available for public review at Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92702. SECTION 4. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed Amendment Application is compatible with the objectives, policies, and general plan land use programs as amended by General Plan Amendment 2018-06 in that: A. The proposed Amendment Application will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare in that the Amendment Application will not result in incompatible land uses on adjacent properties, inconsistencies with any General Plan goals or policies, or adverse impacts to the environment. B. The amendment application to change the zoning designation from Professional (P) to Specific Development 93 (SD 93) is consistent with Santa Ana Municipal Code section 41-593.1 for the following reasons: (1) Protecting and enhancing the value of properties by encouraging the use of good design principles and concepts, as related to the division of property, site planning and individual improvements with full recognition of the significance and effect they have on the proper planning and development of adjacent and nearby properties. The site plan has been designed with the vehicular entrance on Main Street away from the residential neighborhood to the south and east. In addition, the parking structure and rooftop amenity deck, which are the tallest building elements are positioned closer to Main Street, with residential buildings wrapped around the structure to screen it. There is a 40-foot rear (east) setback requirement which creates a buffer between the multi-family buildings and single-family homes. In addition, the existing healthy trees along the east property line will be protected in place and new mature trees will be planted or replaced as needed. The wall along the eastern property line will be increased to 8-feet in height and the east side of the building will tier in height from two, three, four to five stories to provide a transition in height when compared to the single-story residential dwellings to the east. The building is also designed with courtyards rather than one large “box” to 2-211 provide open space and variation in the massing. Furthermore, the units along Edgewood Road will have patios with access to the street to mimic single-family dwelling porches and to connect the project with the residential neighborhood. (2) Encouraging, securing and maintaining the orderly and harmonious appearance, attractiveness and aesthetic development of structures and grounds in order that the most appropriate use and value thereof be determined and protected. The property is a 5.93-acre site with street frontage along Main Street, a major urban corridor with cultural, educational, employment and retail destinations such as the Bowers Museum, Discovery Science Center, Main Place Mall and in the City of Orange; the Children’s Hospital of Orange County and St. Joseph’s Hospital of Orange County. Therefore, the residential development would be within close proximity of major employment centers and retail establishments. The site is also located just north of the Santa Ana (I-5) freeway which provides regional access to and from the City. The multi-storied development will complement the nearby mid-rise office buildings located along Main Street to the north and west of the site and the multi-family residential use supports a mixed-use setting. In addition, the new building will have a variety of materials such as multiple brick veneers, stone veneer, metal panels, ceramic tile, metal canopies, flat and metal seamed roofs to assist in creating a modern contemporary design. The residential development will replace a potential office use with a residential use. Although a professional office use is typically considered a low intensity land use when compared to commercial or industrial uses, issues with parking, traffic and noise may still arise. When comparing land uses multi-family uses are more compatible in nature with single- family residential neighborhoods than office uses. (3) Providing a method whereby specific development plans are to be based on the general plan as well as other regulations, programs, and legislation as may in the judgment of the city be required for the systematic execution of the general plan. With approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, the Project will be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element. Although the Project requires an amendment to the Land Use Element to allow for residential use of the property, the Project still supports and is consistent with several other overarching goals and policies of the General Plan. For example, as described in the associated General Plan Amendment 2018- 06: Housing Element Goal 2, to create diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa 2-212 Ana’s residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive community. Land Use Element Goal 4, to protect and enhance development sites and districts which are unique community assets that enhance the quality of life. Urban Design Element, Goal 1, to improve the physical appearance of the City through development of districts that project a sense of place, positive community image, and quality environment. (4) Recognizing the interdependence of land values and aesthetics and providing a method to implement this interdependence in order to maintain the values of surrounding properties and improvements and encouraging excellence of property development, compatible with the general plan for, and character of, the city, with due regard for the public and private interests involved. Development of the Project would result in a substantial change in views and a significant and unavoidable impact to aesthetics. However, the Project will replace an over 30-year old structure with a modern building with enhanced landscaping contributing to the character of the City. Furthermore, a Development Agreement between the developer/property owner and the City of Santa Ana has been entered into. Public benefits of the agreement include: public art, monetary contribution to the Santiago Park for maintenance and improvement, Park Santiago Neighborhood benefits including access to on-site amenities for Park Santiago residents, security patrol of the residential neighborhood and Santiago Park, assistance in designating the Park Santiago Neighborhood Association as a historic district, and monetary contribution to Park Santiago Neighborhood for traffic improvements and calming such as street calming, traffic diversion, entry monuments, and street lights. (5) Insuring that the public benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvements and beautification of streets and public facilities shall be protected by exercise of reasonable controls over the character and design of private buildings, structures and open spaces. The multi-family residential development will utilize existing water, sewer, and drainage infrastructure and will not result in the expansion of infrastructure. In addition, the Project will not result in the expansion of new or altered police or fire facilities. The Project will be subject to utility user tax, property taxes based on the valuation of the new construction and management company business taxes. The building facades and new landscaping are designed to deter graffiti, existing sidewalks will be removed and replaced with new sidewalks that are constructed to City standards, new street lights will be installed and the City’s 2-213 Building Security Ordinance will be implemented which includes security and crime preventing measures to help reduce City expenditures on public services and maintenance. In addition, the residential development will be subject to all required development impact fees. SECTION 5. INDEMNIFICATION. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. SECTION 6 . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS: The Planning Commission hereby takes the following actions: 1. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2018-10 as follows: A. Subject to compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the property at 2525 North Main Street shall be amended to Specific Development No. 93 and Specific Development No. 93 plan shall be adopted as set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. B. The Amendment Application shall not take effect unless and until Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 and General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, are each certified and approved by the City Council, and the associated Development Agreement No. 2018-01 is approved by the City Council and executed by all parties thereto. 2-214 SECTION 7. EXECUTION OF RESOLUTION. The Chairperson shall sign this Resolution and the Planning Commission Recording Secretary shall attest and certify to the adoption thereof. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of January 2019. AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: _______________________ Mark McLoughlin Chairperson APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By:________________________ Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, SARAH BERNAL, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2019-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on January 14, 2019. Date: ________________ ____________________________________ Recording Secretary City of Santa Ana 2-215 MAIN ST17TH ST M E M O R Y L N LAWSON WYGRAND AVFAIRHAVEN AV SANTA CLARA AV ASPEN ST SANTA CLARA AV 20TH ST LINCOLN AVSANTA CLARA AV SANTIAGO STJOANA DR FAIRMONTSTEDGEWOOD RD 22ND ST HATHAWAY STAVALONAVCLEMENSENAVPARKLN 18TH ST HATHAWAY STJESSEEDR18TH ST BUFFALO AV 19TH ST CHERRYST BEECHWOODST PARK LN 21ST ST LINCOLNAVVALENCIA STHATHAWAY STBUFFALOAV SANTIAGO STSANTACLARAAV EASTWOOD AVVALENCIASTPARK LN SANTAFESTOBARR PLLARCHMONT AVOAKMONT A V BEECHWOODST POINSETTIA STFRENCH STFAIRHAVEN AV CITY PLACEDRBUSH STP EN N W Y GROVEMONT ST JOANA DR CHERRY ST BEECHWOODST ASPEN ST MAINPLACE DR 21ST ST WALKIEWY VIRGINIA AV BUFFALO AV JONQUIL R D BUFFALO AV FAIRMONT AVGROVEMO N T S T EASTWOOD AVHATHAWAY ST18TH STFRENCH STEASTWOOD AVVIRGINIA AV POINSETTIA STBRYNWOOD STFRENCH STEASTWOOD AVFRENCH STOAKMONT AVFAIRMONT AVBUFFALO AV AVALON AV CATALINA AV 21ST ST 20TH ST 19TH STSPURGEON STBUSHSTBUSH STBUSH STPOINSETTIA STLARCHMONT AV20TH ST SPURGEON STA1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 C1C1C1C1 C1 C1 C1 C1-MDC1-MD C1-MD C1-MD C1-MD C1-MD C1-MD C1-MD C1-MD C4 C4 C5C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 O O O O O P P P R1 R1 R1R1 R1 R1R1 R1 R1 R1 R1R1 R1 R1 R1R1 R1 R1 R1 R1R1R1R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1R1R1R1R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R2 R2 R2 R2R2 R2R2R2 R3 R3R3 R4 R4R4 SD31 SD65 SD73 SD78 SD79 SD91 SD93 SP3SP3SP3 C1-HDIIC1-HDII C1-HDII P-HDII P-HDII P-HDII R1-B R1-B R1-B R1-B R1-B R3-PRD 7-5-9 8-5-95-5-931-4-9 32-4-95-5-931-4-9 31-4-91-5-107-5-912-5-101-5-10 EXHIBIT A Print Date: 10/18/18 Sectional District Map: 6-5-9 I A1 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL CSM SOUTH MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL DIST. R2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE -B PARKING MODIFICATION C1 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL GC GOVERNMENT CENTER R3 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE -OZ OVERLAY ZONE C1MD COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL - MUSEUM DIST. M1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL R4 SUBURBAN APARTMENT C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL M2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE C4 PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER O OPEN SPACE SD SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT -HD2 HEIGHT DISTRICT II C5 ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL P PROFESSIONAL SP SPECIFIC PLAN CR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL R1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT -PRD City of Santa Ana, California ZONING DISTRICTS 2-216 EXHIBIT B SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 93 2525 North Main Street Multi-Family Housing Project SECTION 1 – APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE The Specific Development Zoning District No. 93 (SD-93) for the 2525 North Main Street multi-family residential project is authorized by Chapter 41, Division 26 Section 41-593 et seq. of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. SD-93 contains specific standards and regulations for the purpose of establishing land use regulations and development and operational standards for the project site. All other applicable chapters, articles, and sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code are in effect unless expressly superseded by regulations contained in this ordinance. SECTION 2 – PURPOSE The Specific Development Plan No. 93 for the 2525 North Main Street project consists of standards and regulations established for the purpose of protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the City of Santa Ana by promoting and enhancing the value of property and encouraging the orderly development of the property. Objectives The objectives of the 2525 North Main Street multi-family project specific development plan include provisions of the following: 1. Promote the City’s image as providing high-quality residential projects for individuals and families of all income groups. 2. Create a clean and safe environment for the City’s residents, workers, and visitors. 3. Contribute to the North Main Street corridor by providing a high density residential development that supports nearby cultural, office and commercial uses. 4. Provide regulations that allow development, in response to market conditions while achieving overall City and community goals. SECTION 3 – Uses permitted in Specific Development No. 93 The following uses are permitted in the SD-93 district: (a) A maximum of 476 multiple-family dwelling units not exceeding a density of 81 dwelling units/acre. (1) The unit mix shall be comprised of: a. 70% studio and one-bedroom units b. 30% two-bedroom and three-bedroom units 2-217 (2) Unit square footages ranging from a. 525 to 740 square foot studios b. 610 to 1,091 square foot one-bedrooms c. 909 to 1,472 square foot two-bedrooms d. 1,362 to 1,550 square foot three-bedrooms (b) Home occupations, pursuant to section 41-192.1 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. (c) Accessory recreational rooms, dog wash, club room, fitness room, wellness center, bike rooms, pools and spas for residential use. SECTION 4 – Uses subject to a conditional use permit in Specific Development No. 93 (a) Childcare facilities caring for more than eight (8), but no more than fourteen (14) children. SECTION 5 – Maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR) The maximum authorized building intensity for the 2525 North Main Street multi-family project is a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.28, including residential areas, community-serving areas (e.g., laundry room, office, gym and community room) and interior corridors. SECTION 6 – Minimum lot size in Specific Development No. 93 The minimum lot size is 5.9 acres. SECTION 7 – Minimum street frontage in Specific Development No. 93 The lot shall have a minimum street frontage of at least 350 feet. SECTION 8 – Building height in Specific Development No. 93 (a) No residential structure shall exceed 78 feet (five stories with mezzanines) in height, as measured from the lowest adjacent grade of the structure to the top of the structure. (b) The parking structure and amenity deck shall not exceed 95 feet as measured from the finished grade to the top of the structure. (c) Along the east property line the building shall be tiered from two, three, four to five stories as shown on the approved site plan. SECTION 9 – Setback standards in Specific Development No. 93 (a) North setback. A minimum setback of ten (10) feet shall be provided between the property line and buildings along Santiago Park. (b) South setback. A minimum setback of fifteen (15) feet shall be provided between the 2-218 property line and buildings along Edgewood Road. (c) West setback. A minimum setback of twelve (12) feet shall be provided between the property line and buildings along Main Street. (d) East setback. A minimum setback of forty (40) feet shall be provided between the property line and buildings. SECTION 10 – Off-street parking standard in Specific Development No. 93 (a) The minimum off-street parking requirements for the project are as follows: (1) Capacity for of a minimum of 2.0 spaces per unit shall be provided including but not limited to use of valet parking, mechanical lifts, and/or tandem parking, subject to approval of the Executive Director of the Planning and Building Agency. (2) Parking stalls shall not be less than eight (8) feet six (6) inches wide and eighteen (18) feet long, except as noted in subsections 41-1320(c) and (d). Where double-striping is required, the width of stalls shall be measured from lines midway between each pair of stripes. Structural, mechanical, utility or similar appurtenances are only permitted adjacent to required stall areas if the required width of the stall is increased at least six (6) inches and if the appurtenance is not located so as to interfere with safe and free parking movement, car door opening, or of visibility. (3) Aisles to and from parking stalls shall not be less than: Twenty-three (23) feet wide for 90-degree parking. (4) Drive aisles shall not dead-end; a turn-around method be provided to allow cars to exit if all stalls are occupied (5) The interior of the parking structure without natural lighting shall be painted white or shall be equipped with lighting devices which will provide a minimum maintained two (2) footcandle of light on the parking surface during hours of darkness. Subterranean parking areas shall maintain lighting twenty-four (24) hours a day. Lighting devices shall be protected by vandal resistant covers. (6) A minimum of ten (10) bicycle spaces shall be provided onsite. The design and materials shall comply with the approved materials board submitted for the project during building plan check. (7) Prior to final approval for occupancy or the issuance of the certificate of occupancy a parking management plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review, identifying parking per unit, and guest parking. The plan is subject to approval of the Executive Director of the Planning and Building Agency. Onsite parking shall be provided 2-219 for residents and visitors of the Project and the parking demand of the Project site shall be actively monitored. Property owner “Owner” shall continually monitor and take appropriate measures to manage the parking demand of the Project site to mitigate the use of offsite parking spaces on private or public properties and/or right-of-way. SECTION 11 – Vehicular Access in Specific Development No. 93 (a) There shall be one driveway for vehicular entry along Main Street, except as modified by Section 16 of SD-93. (b) The Emergency Vehicular Access Lane (Fire Lane) with access to Edgewood Road shall be gated per Orange County Fire Authority and City Public Works Agency requirements and standards. The emergency lane shall not be used for trash staging, trash loading and/or move-ins/outs. No other vehicular access or curb approach openings will be approved on Edgewood Road for the project. SECTION 12 – Open Space standard in Specific Development No. 93 (a) Pedestrian Walkways and Open Space. The project will provide a minimum of 15% of the total lot size shall be open space in the form of common, landscaped open space areas, pools, spas, deck, courtyard and lobby, interior community room, dining room, gym, business room, etc. (b) Courtyards. (1) East courtyards shall be a minimum of 33 feet wide by 80 feet in depth. (2) South and West courtyards shall be a minimum of 35 feet wide by 45 feet in depth. (3) North courtyards shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide by a minimum of 22 feet in depth from the property line and a minimum of two courtyards shall be provided. (c) Private Open Space. Each residential unit shall have a patio or balcony a minimum of 50 square feet in size. SECTION 13 – Walls/Fences standard in Specific Development No. 93 (a) East property line. A solid block wall with a minimum height of eight (8) feet shall be constructed along the east property line. The block wall shall be designed to contain a decorative cap, regularly-spaced decorative pilasters, and a decorative finish in accordance to the design provisions contained within the most recent version of the City’s design guidelines. (b) North property line. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, replace the existing wrought iron fence. The fence shall also incorporate decorative pilasters located a maximum of 50 feet on center. Any walls and/or fences are limited to six (6) feet in height. 2-220 (c) South and West property line walls are prohibited. Within the front and street side setback walls and/or fences shall be limited to four (4) feet in height. SECTION 14 – Landscape standard in Specific Development No. 93 (a) A Landscape Plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The Irrigation Plan shall include an irrigation system layout with the location of controllers and points of connection with data on valve sizes and gallons per minute (G.P.M.), the size and location of sleeves and all spray heads, including the location of conventional systems and drip systems; an irrigation legend with complete specifications; irrigation notes and construction details of all assemblies and components; a recommended irrigation schedule, preferably on an annual basis; and a summary block on the initial page of submitted plans that will present the above information clearly and accurately. The landscape plan shall include a Plant Legend containing: plant symbol, scientific name of plant material, common name of plant material, plant container size, and plant spacing. Very low, low and medium water usage plant materials are encouraged. The landscape plan shall provide a cross section of the eastern planter showing the planter at time of planting, after five (5) years and at full maturity. The cross section shall demonstrate the landscaping will adequately screen the project from the adjacent residential uses along the eastern portion of the Property. A minimum size of 36-inch box trees shall be planted along street setbacks, open space areas and shared parking areas. (b) Per the arborist report dated May 4, 2018: (1) Retain and protect in place the existing eleven (11) healthy Ficus benjamina trees adjacent to the east property line. (2) Remove the existing eight (8) unhealthy trees (Liquidambar styraciflua) in the eastern planter and plant eight (8) minimum size of 60-inch box trees in their place. (3) Plant new vertical and canopy specimen trees with a minimum size of 60- inch box, 20-feet on center in the east planter within 150 feet of the front property line and within 150 feet of the rear property line. (4) The planter along the east property line shall be sized to allow for future growth and health of the trees. (5) To the extent feasible, all other healthy mature trees on the property shall be protected and preserved. If the perseveration of the existing healthy, mature trees is not feasible because of the location of the approved structures on the property, the Owner shall work with Staff to evaluate the feasibility of relocating the healthy tree(s) to other locations on the property. 2-221 (c) Project Landscaping: Landscaping shall be compliant with the City of Santa Ana’s Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance Chapter 41, Article XVI of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. All landscape areas shall have a fully automatic irrigation system (including spray or drip) as required by the City of Santa Ana Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance. (d) All meters shall be appropriately screened from public view with trellis work and vines or hedge-type shrubs, or be incorporated into the residential structure. (e) Installation: Landscaping for the project shall be completed in phases by building and shall be installed and inspected prior to occupancy of units within that building. The Owner shall be responsible for maintaining all common area landscaping within the development. (f) Maintenance: All plant material shall be maintained per Section 41-609 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. SECTION 15 – Residential Signage in Specific Development No. 93 (a) Signage for the project shall be consistent with Section 41-868 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. SECTION 16 – Architectural Design in Specific Development No. 93 (a) Exterior materials. Prior to building plan check the Owner shall submit revised architectural elevations subject to the review and approval of the Executive Director of the Planning and Building Agency. Exterior materials and finishes for the project shall comply with the approved materials board submitted for the project including stone veneer, brick veneer, ceramic tile, metal canopies, flat and metal seamed roofs. All trash enclosures and similar ancillary structures shall match the texture, material and color of the building. (1) The east building wall windows (at the 40 foot building setback) shall be opaque or clerestory (above eye level) windows. (2) The east wall of the parking structure shall incorporate screen materials and be designed to screen the views from the amenity deck or parking structure to the neighborhood. (b) Green Building. Alternative Transportation and Energy Source, Resource Conservation, and LEED Certification. The project shall be constructed to Silver Standard or better LEED equivalent and shall at the minimum, incorporate bike lockers, bike sharing programing, electric vehicle charging stations, rain capturing systems, grey water capturing systems, and to the extent feasible, automobile sharing programing. (c) Public Art. Public Art shall be installed, and maintained with a value equivalent to 2-222 one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the total construction cost of the Project. Total construction cost shall mean all design, engineering and construction costs. A public art plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City no later than one hundred eight (180) days before final approval for occupancy or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy and the approved art shall be installed prior to final approval for occupancy of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Project. (d) Storage. A minimum of 250 cubic feet of storage, in addition to interior bedroom closets, shall be provided with minimum dimensions of 4 feet by 8 feet per unit. (e) Hardscape materials. Enhanced paving materials shall be installed at the Main Street driveway entrance. The actual paving materials shall be approved by the Planning Division. (f) Lighting standards/fixtures. The light fixtures are to integrate design elements of the building and landscape architecture. Lighting is to be designed to confine the direct rays of the artificial lighting within the boundaries of the development. Specifications of light standards/fixtures and photometrics plan shall be submitted to Planning Division for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. (g) Composite Utility Plan. Composite utilities shall not be allowed within required parking, turnaround and landscape areas or on any façade facing a public street. (h) Mechanical Equipment, Appurtenances, and Conduits. All mechanical equipment, heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) units, satellite dish systems, solar panels, thermal solar heaters, utility meters, above ground utility and fire safety connections will be, screened, located out of public view or be architectural integrated into the project design within designated rooms, inside walls, behind parapets, or through a combination of landscape and hardscape materials. (i) Trash Enclosures. Trash bins shall be stored in designated trash enclosures. There shall be an onsite designated trash staging area only to be used on service days and the staging area and bins shall not disrupt vehicular use of the driveway. The minimum requirements needed to service the location shall be clearly indicated on the plans and subject to the approval of the Public Works Agency. SECTION 17 – Secondary Vehicular Access for Specific Development No. 93 (a) Secondary Vehicular access via Walkie Way/Park Santiago Drive. The use of Santiago Park property for vehicular access into the Project shall be replaced with equivalent land (equal in size and appraised value) as required by the Land and Water Conservation Fund grant conditions. The Santiago Park Entrance design shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Planning & Building, Public Works, and Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency Directors, including residential units to front onto Santiago Park, Main Street, and the Santiago Park Drive 2-223 entrance. The Project façade along Santiago Park shall be consistent with and reflect the natural, current state of the Park and include articulation of the building façade to include open courtyard areas. The Owner shall pay for sole cost and expense, prepare any and all documents required by the Land and Water Conservation Fund for review and submission to the State of California. (b) Traffic Signal Modification for the Walkie Way/Park Santiago Drive and Main Street intersection shall include relocate poles, relocate/upgrade traffic cabinet, install conduit and wiring, Accessible Pedestrian Signals pedestrian push buttons, vehicle/bike video detection and signing and striping as needed to accommodate the proposed entrance to the development. The design and improvements for the vehicular access shall be solely at the Owner’s expense. SECTION 18 – Property Maintenance in Specific Development No. 93 (a) Onsite Property Manager. The Project shall include 24-hour on-site Property Management services and personnel. Up-to-date 24-hour contact information for the on-site personnel shall be provided to the following City Agencies on an ongoing basis: (1) Police Department (2) Fire Department (3) Planning and Building Agency (4) Community Development Agency (b) Maintenance. The property shall be maintained free of trash, debris and graffiti. Graffiti shall be removed within ten (10) days after its appearance in accordance with Section 10-227 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. (c) Crime Free Housing. The approved Crime Free Housing Plan shall be implemented and administered by the Owner. (d) Building Security. All structures and parking lots shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8, Article II, Division 3 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (Building Security Ordinance). (e) Emergency Evacuation Plan. An approved Emergency Evacuation Plan from City Police and Fire Protection agencies shall be on file for the project. Up-to-date 24- hour emergency contact information for the on-site personnel shall be provided to the City on an ongoing basis and the approved EEP shall be kept onsite and also be submitted to the following City Agencies: (1) Police Department (2) Fire Department (3) Planning and Building Agency (4) Community Development Agency (f) On Going Property Maintenance. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy a property maintenance agreement shall be recorded to the property, the 2-224 agreement must conform to city standards, with the City of Santa Ana a party to Agreement with rights to compel owner to cure. Including provisions that the property and all improvements located thereupon are properly maintained, Owner (and the owner of the property upon which the authorized use and/or authorized improvements are located if different from the applicant) shall execute a maintenance agreement with the City of Santa Ana which shall be recorded against the property and which shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City Attorney. The maintenance agreement shall contain covenants, conditions and restrictions relating to the following: (1) Compliance with operational conditions applicable during any period(s) of construction or major repair (e.g., proper screening and securing of the construction site; implementation of proper erosion control, dust control and noise mitigation measure; adherence to approved project phasing etc.); (2) Compliance with ongoing operational conditions, requirements and restrictions, as applicable (including but not limited to hours of operation, security requirements, the proper storage and disposal of trash and debris, enforcement of the parking management plan, and/or restrictions on certain uses, (3) Ongoing compliance with approved design and construction parameters, signage parameters and restrictions as well as landscape designs, as applicable; (4) Ongoing maintenance, repair and upkeep of the property and all improvements located thereupon at all times (including but not limited to controls on the proliferation of trash and debris about the property; the proper and timely removal of graffiti; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of damaged, vandalized and/or weathered buildings, structures and/or improvements; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of exterior paint, parking striping, lighting and irrigation fixtures, walls and fencing, publicly accessible bathrooms and bathroom fixtures, landscaping and related landscape improvements and the like, as applicable); (5) If Developer and the owner of the property are different (e.g., if the applicant is a tenant or licensee of the property or any portion thereof), both the applicant and the owner of the property shall be signatories to the maintenance agreement and both shall be jointly and severally liable for compliance with its terms. (6) The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any party responsible for complying with its terms shall not assign its ownership interest in the property or any interest in any lease, sublease, license or sublicense, unless the prospective assignee agrees in writing to assume all of the duties and obligations and responsibilities set forth under the maintenance agreement. 2-225 (7) The maintenance agreement shall contain provisions relating to the enforcement of its conditions by the City and shall also contain provisions authorizing the City to recover costs and expenses which the City may incur arising out of any enforcement and/or remediation efforts which the City may undertake in order to cure any deficiency in maintenance, repair or upkeep or to enforce any restrictions or conditions upon the use of the property. The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any unreimbursed costs and/or expenses incurred by the City to cure a deficiency in maintenance or to enforce use restrictions shall become a lien upon the property in an amount equivalent to the actual costs and/or expense incurred by the City. (8) The execution and recordation of the maintenance agreement shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of final approval for any construction permit related to this entitlement. 2-226 EXHIBIT 5 2-227 This page left blank intentionally. 2-228 Comments from November 15, 2017 Sunshine Ordinance Meeting regarding 2525 N. Main Street 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: 1. Why buy a property to rezone? o 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. 2. Build an office project. o 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. 3. Putting Single family units on site will solve crime issue. o 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. 4. No apartments. o 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. 5. No re-zoning. 2-229 o 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. 6. Need to disclose previous mortuary use on site to people. o As a part of the environmental impact report, it will investigate all former uses and of course the report will be made public. 7. Would you rezone a property next to your neighborhood? o 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. 8. On this site you can put 40 single family/for sale homes and they will sell. o 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. 9. Oppose apartments of any kind. o 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. 10. Our neighborhood is a jewel, don’t want your project it will damage our neighborhood. o 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. 11. Rezone would take away our quality of life, some business use ok. o 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. 12. If the rezoning is going to happen, why are we even talking? o 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 2-230 review including the CEQA environmental process before any decisions are made. 13. . So it is a foregone conclusion that the re zone will happen? o 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. 14. Why bring apartments to this neighborhood? o 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 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. 15. We need apartments but not on this site. There are a lot of apartments planned for adjacent areas. o 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 sub- market, 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. 16. Not appropriate for our neighborhood. o 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 sub- market, 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 2-231 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. 17. Is there any research about how it works to have apartments adjacent to older neighborhoods? o 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. 18. Our community opposed apartments being built in our vicinity in the 1960’s and they did not get built. o 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. 19. What is the Sunshine Ordinance? o 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. 20. Why doesn’t developer put money in a property in a broken neighborhood in Santa Ana? o 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. 21. This neighborhood has been here for 100 years. o 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 2-232 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. 22. No rezoning, no GPA, no apartments o Please refer to responses to comments 4 and 5. 23. Don’t want to be packed in like sardines. o 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. 24. Concerned about privacy, people would be able to see into backyards of adjacent houses. o 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. 25. This project would ruin our quality of life. o Please refer to responses to comments 21, 23 and 24. Traffic and Parking: 1. Where are the 900 cars? o 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. 2. Streets aren’t wide enough to accommodate apartments. o We will work with our traffic engineers, architects and City staff to make the egress away from Park Santiago community and towards Main Street. 3. Cowan Heights residents cut through our streets already. 2-233 o We believe you have a wonderful community and we will look into any means to mitigate this and any existing nuisance. 4. Nearby Apartments are not full and traffic is already miserable. o 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. 5. Need to account for all the future apartments in Santa Ana and Orange in area in traffic analysis. o The traffic study area is extensive and will address the appropriate area as determined by City staff and will analyze up to 2040 traffic. 6. Need to assume 2 persons per apartment, this is Santa Ana, there won’t be 1 person in an apartment. o 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. 7. There is a huge problem with cars running through Park Santiago now. o We will work with our traffic engineers, architects and City staff to make the egress away from Park Santiago community and towards Main Street. 8. You think there will be a benefit of reduced traffic with apartments instead of commercial? o 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). 9. What is a trip? o The movement of one car in or out. 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. o 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. 11. How many parking stalls are currently on site? 2-234 o There are 441 stalls on site. 12. The number of parking spaces on site don’t correlate to traffic. o 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. 13. Look at current traffic now. o Please keep in mind that the proposed project will result in less daily trips than the current structure would if fully leased and operational. 14. People park on our streets on Spurgeon now, it will get worse. o 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. 15. Where will Discovery Science Center park? o The Discovery Science Center has plans for a new garage on their rocket lot. Discovery Science Center fully supports our project. 16. Take into consideration, Park Santiago only has three access points, traffic at Edgewood and Main is already impacted. o 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. 17. More traffic will result in more accidents. o As stated previously, the current use produces more daily trips than the proposed use. 18. There should be no entrance to the project on Edgewood, keep project traffic on Main. o 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. 19. Parking on neighborhood streets is already a problem. o 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. 20. Can we see the traffic study? o 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. Affordable Housing: 1. What is a market rate unit? o It is housing that is either sold or leased at the price the market bears. 2. Would you save money including inclusionary housing? o No. 2-235 3. Will there be inclusionary housing, the application says there will be low and very low units included? o 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. 4. Have you made any promises to groups about affordable housing? o 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. 5. No affordable units on site o It is not our current plan to provide any affordable units on site. Crime: 1. Is there security on site? o Currently there are workers on site during the day, after dusk and until dawn we have on site security. 2. Is the property as is bringing crime to the neighborhood? o 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. 3. Increasing the population won’t decrease crime. o 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). 4. 1.2 million a year to the General Fund will provide 3 police officers that is nothing. o 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. 5. Putting single family on the site will solve the crime issue. o We believe the more people the greater, in deterring crime in the area. 6. We have one of the first neighborhood watch groups, why haven’t you come to talk to us? o We have reached out to the community group and to date they were not available to meet. 7. It is insulting that you talk about crime in our neighborhood. o We are hopeful that crime will be mitigated in the future. 8. Was there vandalism when the building was used as a call center? o We do not have a crime report for the area, we have made a request for any such reports. 2-236 Environmental: 1. How many persons will the project bring? o Approximately 850 people. 2. We have a drought where will water come from? o Currently we are not in a drought, but we are aware historically ther 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. 3. Look at all surrounding projects, will they be considered? o Existing and proposed development will be addressed in the environmental review. 4. What is the impact on current water supply? o This will be addressed in the environmental review. Other: 1. Are you on the Next Door site? o No. 2. Have you made any contributions to City Council persons, have you been promised anything? o The project entity has not and nothing has been promised. 3. Don’t care if project brings money for Santa Ana, we shop in Orange. o 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. 4. How many developments has Vineyard been involved in that required zone changes, were they successful? Did they back up to residential neighborhoods? o 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 nd this use would be most beneficial to the City. A recent project was approved at Dyer and Red Hill in an industrial area. 5. Is the powerpoint available to the Park Santiago HOA? o We will shortly launch a website with all the information that we attempted to present at the Sunshine meeting. 6. Why didn’t you meet with us before you submitted the application? 2-237 o We tried to meet but the meeting agenda had already been set, we are trying to set a meeting soon. 7. Will you meet with the HOA? o Yes. 8. We don’t need this project for Santiago Park to be restored, we have paid taxes and City owes us the park restoration. o 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. 2-238 2-239 2-240 2-241 2-242 2-243 2-244 2-245 2-246 2-247 2-248 2-249 2-250 EXHIBIT 6 2-251 This page left blank intentionally. 2-252 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 1 2-253 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 1 2 2-254 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 § 3 2-255 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) 3 2-256 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 3 4 2-257 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 4 5 6 7 2-258 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. 7 8 9 2-259 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. 10 11 12 2-260 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).) 13 14 15 2-261 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 16 17 2-262 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 17 18 2-263     EXHIBIT A  2-264 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, 19 2-265 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. 19 2-266 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 20 21 2-267 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 21 22 2-268 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 22 23 24 2-269 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 24 25 2-270 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. 25 2-271 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. 2-272 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  2-273 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 2-274 2-275 EXHIBIT B  2-276 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  26 27 2-277 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   27 28 2-278 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).  28 29 2-279 4  𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 ቀ 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑ቁൌ 377.6 𝑙𝑏𝑠 536 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 ൈ 453.6 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠 𝑙𝑏 ൈ 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦 24 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 ൈ 1 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 3,600 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑠ൎ 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 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑠ൎ 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   29 2-280 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  29 2-281 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  30 31 2-282 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   31 2-283 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  31 2-284 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  31 2-285 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  31 32 2-286 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); 2-287 •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 2-288 •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 2-289 •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 2-290 •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 2-291 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 2-292 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 2-293 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 at 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 2-294 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 2-295 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 2-296 Response to Comment City of Santa Ana 1 Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project December 2018 Response to Lozeau Drury LLP Comment Letter dated November 26, 2018 Comment 1: This comment provides an introductory statement to the letter from Lozeau Drury LLP. The introductory statement notes the comments on the Draft and Final EIR are submitted on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA), Local Union No. 652, and its members living in and near Santa Ana. The comment also provides generalized assertions and states that that the EIR fails as an informational document and fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the project’s impacts and a revised Draft EIR must be circulated for public review. Response 1: This comment is general in nature and does not provide any examples or citations of where analysis within the EIR is flawed, where additional information is needed, or what feasible mitigation is recommended. In accordance with CEQA, the City of Santa Ana prepared a Draft and Final EIR for the proposed project for the purpose of informing City decision makers, governmental agencies, and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of the proposed project, identifying the ways that environmental impacts can be avoided or significantly reduced, and implementing mitigation to reduce and prevent impacts to the environment. The EIR adequately analyzes the environmental effects of the proposed project, and the conclusions in the EIR are supported by substantial evidence in the record. None of the requirements for recirculation listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 and described in Master Response 2: Draft EIR Recirculation of the Final EIR (page 2-4), have been triggered, and recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. Comment 2: The comment summarizes the proposed project, including the proposed discretionary actions. Response 2: The comment is an introduction and summary of the project and does not include comment about the environmental analysis in the EIR and, therefore, does not require an additional response. Comment 3: The comment provides a summary of CEQA requirements through references to case law and statutes. The comment asserts that the Final EIR fails to meet CEQA’s legal standards and includes conclusory statements that lack any factual support or analysis. Response 3: The comment is general in nature and does not identify any specific alleged deficiency with the analysis in the Draft EIR, or any other alleged noncompliance with CEQA. To the extent such argument is asserted, the Draft EIR thoroughly and appropriately evaluated the project’s potential environmental impacts, and the conclusions of the Draft EIR are supported by substantial evidence, including expert opinion. Comment 4: This comment provides an introduction to Francis Offermann, PE, CIP and describes that Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products typically used in modern home construction contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde. The comment asserts 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, above the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. The comment further asserts that even if the project uses modern “CARB-compliant” materials, formaldehyde will create a cancer risk of 126 per million. Response 4: The comment does not describe how the asserted formaldehyde related cancer risk of 126 per million would occur and does not identify any project-specific conditions (other than the fact that the project’s construction may use wood building materials) that would lead to impacts. Current federal and state regulations exist, which limit the potential formaldehyde emissions from building materials. On June 1, 2018, the U. S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Title VI was implemented, which requires composite wood products sold, supplied, offered for sale, 2-297 Response to Comment City of Santa Ana 2 Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project December 2018 manufactured, or imported in the United States are required to meet new emission standards for formaldehyde from composite wood products in order to reduce exposures to formaldehyde and avoid adverse health effects. Typical composite wood products include hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, and particleboard, as well as household and other finished goods containing these products. The new emission limits include the following: • Hardwood Plywood: 0.05 parts per million (ppm) • Particleboard: 0.09 ppm • Medium-density fibreboard: 0.11 ppm • Thin Medium-density fibreboard: 0.13 ppm These emission levels were determined to be incompliance with and result in less exposure (e.g., daily intake) than the California Proposition 65 safe harbor level for formaldehyde (40 μg/day), which is based on Proposition 65's risk criterion of 1 in 100,000. Thus, products manufactured to TSCA Title VI and California Proposition 65 safe harbor standards, which is now required by the U.S. EPA for all products manufactured or imported into the United States, would not generate formaldehyde emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 per million. CARB identifies that these standards are projected to lead to a reduction in statewide formaldehyde emissions of 500 tons per year. Reduced risk of cancer from formaldehyde exposure is also a resulting benefit, and implementation of these standards is estimated to reduce excess cancer cases per million people from formaldehyde exposure by about 40 percent (https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/implementation/faq.htm#G). The CalGreen Building Code also includes similar formaldehyde limits for building products. The project would be implemented pursuant to these formaldehyde requirements, as all products manufactured or imported in the United States would be required to meet these regulations. This would limit the potential of human health and cancer risks to a less than significant level pursuant to the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 per million. Thus, building material manufacturer compliance with existing regulations would avoid potentially significant impacts related to formaldehyde. Thereby, the project would also result in less than significant impacts. Comment 5: This comment states that when a project exceeds an adopted CEQA significance threshold it establishes a fair argument that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact. The comment further asserts that since expert evidence demonstrates that the project will exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) CEQA significance threshold, there is a fair argument that the project will have significant adverse and an EIR is required. Response 5: As described above in Response 4, the project will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for formaldehyde. Further, the project site is located in the SCAQMD, which includes all of Orange County and the urban parts of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The BAAQMD is located in the San Francisco Bay Area and includes the following counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, southwestern Solano, and southern Sonoma. The thresholds of the BAAQMD are therefore irrelevant to this project. The comment appears to be left over from a comment letter prepared for a different project. Comment 6: This comment refers to recommended mitigation measures, such as requiring the use of no-added- formaldehyde composite wood products, requiring air ventilation systems that would reduce formaldehyde levels. In addition, the comment states that the EIR does not analyze effects related to formaldehyde or consider mitigation measures. 2-298 Response to Comment City of Santa Ana 3 Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project December 2018 Response 6: Refer to Response 4. The project would be implemented pursuant to existing formaldehyde requirements, as all products manufactured or imported in the United States would be required to meet these regulations. Application of these mandatory regulations would limit the potential of human health and cancer risks and avoid impacts related to formaldehyde. Thus, no mitigation measures related to formaldehyde are required. Comment 7: This comment refers to the Draft EIR comment letter provided by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and asserts that the EIR dismissed comments related to soil and groundwater contamination, failed to conduct additional analysis and failed to adopt adequate mitigation measures, and that a revised Draft EIR is required to analyze the impacts and to respond to DTSC’s comments. Response 7: This comment is inaccurate. The Draft and Final EIRs describe the various subsurface investigations that were conducted on the site to identify potential areas of groundwater and soil contamination. These investigations were included in Appendix G of the Draft EIR and were conducted pursuant to the requirements of DTSC and the OC Health Care Agency. As detailed on page 4.6-5 of the Draft EIR, soil and groundwater investigations were conducted on the site that identified low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater (at 110 feet below grade), but the overlying soil samples did not have detectable levels of hydrocarbons. Thus, the groundwater contamination is not from the project site. Also, due to the depth of groundwater, potentially contaminated groundwater would not be encountered during project construction or operation. The Draft EIR details that initial soils testing identified three VOCs (benzene, bromomethane, and formaldehyde) in concentrations that could potentially be of concern. In response, more intensive soils and soils gas testing was conducted in accordance with DTSC guidelines. The results showed that no VOCs (including: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene) or formaldehyde exceed residential screening levels (Draft EIR page 4.6-5). Thus, potential impacts related to vapor intrusion as suggested by the comment, would not occur from redevelopment of the project site. The Draft EIR also details that the soils testing identified isolated areas of arsenic impacted soil that are estimated to total 50 cubic yards of soils and extend to approximately 0.5 feet below the ground surface (page 4.6-7). Pursuant to the requirements of the DTSC, California Integrated Waste Management Board, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Orange County Fire Authority, and the Orange County Health Care Agency, the contaminated soils would be excavated and disposed of. The EIR ensures compliance with all of the various applicable hazardous materials regulations through Mitigation Measure Haz-1, which requires implementation of a site specific a Soil Management Plan to detail specific regulations, procedures, and standards for removal, handling, and disposal of contaminated soils to protect human health and the environment (Draft EIR page 4.6-8). With implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz-1, impacts related to onsite contaminated soils would be less than significant. Thus, the EIR provides for a detailed analysis of potential onsite hazardous materials and has provided appropriate mitigation. The EIR has completed analysis pursuant to DTSC’s comments and guidelines. In addition, refer to Response 1. The analysis and mitigation related to hazardous materials are supported by substantial evidence in the record. This comment does not identify any new or different impacts that could occur from the project that would require revision or recirculation of the EIR document. Comment 8: This comment asserts that the EIR states that a soil mitigation plan will be developed at a later time, and that this is a deferral of mitigation that is not allowed by CEQA. The comment also provides a summary of CEQA requirements related to deferral of mitigation and the allowable use of performance standards through references of court decisions and statutes. 2-299 Response to Comment City of Santa Ana 4 Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project December 2018 Response 8: Refer to Response 7. As described, the soils testing identified isolated areas of arsenic impacted soil that are estimated to total 50 cubic yards of soils and extend to approximately 0.5 feet below the ground surface. The contaminated soils would be excavated and disposed of as part of the project. The EIR ensures compliance with all the applicable hazardous materials regulations through the proposed mitigation. Mitigation Measure Haz-1 would implement a site specific a Soil Management Plan that would ensure specific existing regulations, procedures, and standards for removal, handling, and disposal of contaminated soils to protect human health and the environment (Draft EIR page 4.6-8) would occur. The Soil Management Plan would be based on the specific construction activities within the areas that contain the contaminated soils. The proposed mitigation does not constitute deferral because measurable performance standards that are set by existing regulations are required to be conducted. Use of existing regulations and performance standards that reduce environmental impacts are allowed pursuant to CEQA. Furthermore, the EIR and mitigation provides full disclosure and informed decision making by detailing the environmental issues of concern and methods for reducing the impact to a less than significant level. Comment 9: This comment expresses concern relating to construction workers being exposed to higher levels of soil and groundwater contamination given their involvement in direct excavation of potentially contaminated soil and groundwater. The comment also states that it is critical that adequate mitigation measures be identified prior to project construction not after contaminated soil is discovered. Response 9: Refer to Responses 7 and 8. As described in the previous responses, investigation of onsite hazardous materials has occurred through various testing and analyses, which identified that potentially contaminated groundwater or soils gasses would not be encountered and the limited areas of arsenic impacted soils would be mitigated to a less than significant level by implementing regulatory specifications to dispose of hazardous materials. As described in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act Safety and Health Regulations for Construction (29 CFR Part 1926.65 Appendix C) contains requirements for construction activities, which include occupational health and environmental controls to protect worker health and safety. The guidelines describe the health and safety plan(s) that must be developed and implemented during construction, including associated training, protective equipment, evacuation plans, chains of command, and emergency response procedures. In addition, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA) requires preparation of an Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP). Compliance with OSHA and CalOSHA regulations would maintain worker safety related to the removal and disposal of contaminated soils. Adherence to. Mitigation Measure Haz-1 would implement a site specific a Soil Management Plan that includes hazard-specific OSHA and Cal/OSHA regulations. Thus, adequate mitigation measures are identified that would protect the environment and construction workers. Comment 10: This comment asserts that Caltrans comment letters conclude that the EIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the project’s significant traffic impacts related to I-5 and SR-22 or respond adequately Caltrans’ initial comments. The comment further asserts that the Final EIR dismisses the agency’s comment and that the EIR legally inadequate. Response 10: This comment is inaccurate. The Caltrans comment letters are provided as Letter A-3 in the Final EIR. The response to the Caltrans comment describes the analysis that was conducted pursuant to the Caltrans letter received in response to the Notice of Preparation for the proposed project. The response provided in the Final EIR details that the project would result in less than significant impacts pursuant to Caltrans criteria. The Final EIR provides a complete response to the Caltrans concerns that were raised. Comment 11: This comment asserts that the EIR improperly abrogates responsibility for mitigating the project’s traffic impacts. The comment asserts that the EIR states that Caltrans has authority to adopt certain mitigation measures, 2-300 Response to Comment City of Santa Ana 5 Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project December 2018 and as a result, the City of Santa Ana would not adopt or impose mitigation. The comment also provides a summary of CEQA references of court decisions describing that 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. Response 11: This comment is inaccurate. The Draft and Final EIRs explain that the proposed project would result in less than significant traffic related impacts and that mitigation measures are therefore not required. Page 2-25 of the Final EIR provides recommendations that could be implemented at a Caltrans controlled intersection to improve the existing function. The recommendation is not mitigation, because it does not reduce a potentially significant impact, and the Final EIR provides for coordination between the two agencies (not abrogation of responsibility). The information provided in the response to the Caltrans comment serves a cooperative purpose and includes the discussion of recommended infrastructure improvements. Furthermore, the City has not delegated any mitigation measures to other agencies or entities, as shown in Chapter 4 of the Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Comment 12: This comment asserts that the project disregards the General Plan and does not include any affordable housing units that all the units would be market rate and that none would be designated for low- or moderate-income residents. Response 12: The City’s General Plan does not require that all residential developments provide affordable housing units within the project. The market rate units that would be provided by this project would accommodate moderate income households within the City based on the moderate-income range identified by the City1. In addition, the project would be required to provide funding for development of low-income housing pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Sections 41-1900 through 41-1911, which requires provision of or payment of in-lieu fees for the provision of 15 percent of rental units for low-income households, or 10 percent to very low-income households. As detailed in Municipal Code Section 41-1904(c)(3), the in-lieu fees are required to be paid in full before issuance of the first building permit for any portion of a project. Thus, the project would be required to provide for low income units, which would be implemented through project permitting procedures. Comment 13: This comment asserts that the General Plan Housing Element Policy 2.3 requires housing for all income levels, and the project would be inconsistent because it only includes market-rate housing. The comment asserts that this is unacceptable given the area’s shortage of affordable housing. The comment also states that the EIR does not analyze whether it is feasible to include income-restricted housing. Response 13: General Plan Housing Element Policy 2.3 states “encourage the construction of rental housing for Santa Ana’s residents and workforce, including a commitment to very low, low, and moderate-income residents and moderate-income Santa Ana workers”. This policy applies citywide and does not mandate or require that any individual project include affordable housing, rent restricted, units within each new development. Section 4.7, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR describes that the project would be consistent with this policy because it would provide rental housing for Santa Ana’s moderate-income households. In addition, as described in Response 12, the City’s Municipal Code regulations related to the provision of residential units or funding for low- and very-low income housing. Furthermore, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines do not require the analysis of the feasibility of the project to include income-restricted housing. The proposed project would add to the rental housing market in the project area. As described in the Draft EIR (page 4.9-4), Santa Ana had a vacancy rate of 3.2 percent in 2017, and the vacancy rate 1 https://www.santa-ana.org/residents/homeowners-renters/rehab-loan-programs/down-payment-assistance-loan-program 2-301 Response to Comment City of Santa Ana 6 Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project December 2018 within the City of Orange was similar at 3.0 percent. As described in the Draft EIR, an adequate supply of housing is essential to maintaining adequate choices for residents, moderating housing prices, and encouraging the normal maintenance of properties. Low vacancy rates result in price and rent escalation, while excess vacancy rates result in price depreciation, rent declines, and deferred maintenance. The City’s Housing Element identifies that a housing vacancy rate of 5–6 percent for rental units is optimal. Thus, the new rental units provided by the project would provide additional housing options and could assist in increasing the vacancy rate and lowering rent costs, as more supply would be available to meet the rental housing demand. As a result, the project would not generate any impacts related to the feasibility of developing income-restricted housing, and analysis related to this issue is not required. Comment 14: This comment asserts that the Final EIR rejects comments made concerning affordable housing because the issue is socio-economic and not environmental, and therefore not within the scope of CEQA. The comment asserts that urban decay is a CEQA issue and that the lack of affordable housing has led to an increase in homelessness, which is a prime contributor to urban decay. The comment refers to CEQA and states that an EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision through anticipated economic or social changes resulting from the project to physical changes caused in turn by the economic and social changes. Response 14: Refer to Responses 12 and 13. The proposed project would develop rental units that are affordable to moderate income households and provide for low and/or very low-income housing through the options included in the City’s Municipal Code. The project would assist in providing an adequate supply of housing that would help to improve the vacancy rate and result in lowering rent costs, as more supply would be available to meet the rental housing demand. Thus, the project would provide residential units; not result in homelessness. Furthermore, the project site is currently vacant, and the existing building is unused. Typical urban decay as described in Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) (124 Cal.App.4th 1184) (Bakersfield Citizens) occurs from vacant buildings and unused properties that are unmaintained. The project would implement new development and landscaping on the project site that would be maintained during operation of the project, as required by the proposed SD zone. Overall, the project would not result in physical changes to the environment related to urban decay or blight. Comment 15: This comment provides a summary of CEQA requirements through references of court decisions and statutes related to policies such as ordinances that are adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects. Response 15: This comment is general in nature and does not provide any examples or citations of where the project would conflict with a policy or ordnance that was adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect or where analysis within the EIR is flawed. To the extent such argument is asserted, Section 4.7, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR, thoroughly evaluated the relevant policies and the project’s compliance with these policies. Additionally, each environmental analysis section of the EIR lists the existing regulations that would assist in the reduction or avoidance of potential impacts. As detailed within the Draft and Final EIRs the project would result in less than significant impacts related to potential conflict with a regulation or policy that was adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects. Comment 16: This comment asserts that 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. The comment also states that feasible mitigation measures should be proposed, such as requiring more affordable housing in the project and contributions to low- income housing funding. 2-302 Response to Comment City of Santa Ana 7 Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project December 2018 Response 16: Refer to Responses 1, 13, and 14. The proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to the lack of affordable housing or result in urban decay. Mitigation measures related to affordable housing are not required. However, compliance with the City’s existing municipal code would be required to provide for low income units, that include contributions to low-income housing funding, which would be implemented through project permitting procedures. Additionally, none of the requirements for recirculation listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 and described in Master Response 2: Draft EIR Recirculation of the Final EIR (page 2-4), have been triggered, and recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. Comment 17: This comment states that Soil, Water, Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE), a private consulting company, has provided information that demonstrates that the EIR improperly calculates air quality impacts and that the project would have airborne cancer risk impacts from construction and operation of the project. The comment asserts that a cancer risk of 220 per million – above the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold of 10 per million – would result from diesel engine exhaust associated with construction and operation of the project. The comment states that this was determined over 30 years and consistent with California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance that assumed exposure to begin in the third trimester stage of pregnancy to provide the most conservative estimates of air quality hazards. The comment asserts that the HRA fails to comply with the OEHHA methodology and a revised EIR is required to analyze these impacts. Response 17: The HRA prepared for the project was conducted consistent with all protocols promulgated by the SCAQMD, which is the regulatory agency for air quality in the project region. The HRA utilized the California Air Resource Board’s (ARB) EMFAC2017 emission factor model, the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model AERMOD, and ARB and SCAQMD data, as directed by SCAQMD methodology. In addition, exposure assumptions were obtained from the 2015 OEHHA Guidelines and SCAQMD methodology, and the assessment utilized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Exposure Factors Handbook. In compliance with this guidance and methodology, lifetime risk values for residents were adjusted to account for an exposure duration of 350 days per year for 30 years (i.e., 95th percentile). Additionally, the HRA included analysis pursuant to the OEHHA guidance, which indicates that both the prenatal and postnatal life stages can be impacted differently than adults. The HRA included age sensitivity factors from the third trimester of pregnancy through adulthood and the related variations of breathing rates, exposure duration, and time at home (Table 2-3 in the HRA). Thus, the analysis accounted for impacts to the entire population prenatal infants through adults. This methodology is consistent with CEQA and provides an evaluation of environmental effects of proposed project in a manner that reflects both reasonable and feasible assumptions. Furthermore, this methodology is consistent with current guidance prescribed by SCAQMD; and is not obsolete. The results of the HRA analysis (provided in Appendix C of the Draft EIR and Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR) identified that the maximum exposed residential receptor totaled 7.57 in one million and would not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. In addition, the analysis showed that other emissions would not exceed the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The analysis provided in the EIR substantiates that the project would not result in potentially significant health risks, and that impacts would be less than significant. None of the requirements for recirculation listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 and described in Master Response 2: Draft EIR Recirculation of the Final EIR (page 2-4), have been triggered. Thus, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. Comment 18: This comment states that for the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons set forth by other commenters (which are incorporated herein by reference), a revised draft EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the proposed project’s significant impacts. Response 18: This is a conclusionary statement. Refer to Responses 1 through 17. As detailed in the previous responses and the Final EIR, none of the requirements for recirculation listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 2-303 Response to Comment City of Santa Ana 8 Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project December 2018 and described in Master Response 2: Draft EIR Recirculation of the Final EIR (page 2-4), have been triggered, and recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. Comment 19: This comment provides background information related to indoor air quality that is general in nature. The comment refers to the California New Home Study completed in 2009 by Mr. Offermann (the commenter) in which many of the homes exceeded No Significant Risk Levels of formaldehyde. The comment asserts that based on findings from the previous study, the proposed project would expose future residents to a significant airborne cancer risk of 180 per million, which is above the threshold of 10 per million. The comment further asserts that the impact should be evaluated, and mitigation measures should be imposed. Response 19: The circumstances of the 2009 study referenced by this comment and the residences evaluated in the 2009 study are different than and not applicable to the proposed project. The residences surveyed were built between 2002 and 2004 and 64 percent of the ventilation systems in the homes did not meet 2008 Building Efficiency Standards. The proposed project would be developed pursuant to the most recent building standards at the time of development (the 2019 standards take effect on January 1, 2020, which would replace the 2016 standards) and would exceed the function of the older systems evaluated in the study. The study found that formaldehyde concentrations were significantly higher in residences with non-mechanically ventilated and ducted outdoor air units. However, the project would be fully ventilated with air filtration systems with efficiencies equal to or exceeding a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 16 as defined by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 52.2 within all buildings (included as Project Description Feature [PDF] 3). Thus, the lack of filtered ventilation that occurred during the study referenced by this comment, would not occur by the proposed project. In addition, page 7 of the study states that “the research team was not able to determine the extent to which formaldehyde-based resins were used in the composite wood identified in the homes”. Therefore, the assertion in this comment that the levels of formaldehyde identified in the 2009 study were from wood composite products that would be used in the proposed project is unfounded. It should be noted that the recommendations of the 2009 study are consistent with the project. The study recommends that mechanical air ventilation systems that provide a dependable and continuous flow of air should be included in residences, which would occur with the proposed project. The recommendations of the 2009 study also include regulating emissions of formaldehyde from wood products, which has been done by the U.S EPA and became effective in 2018. As detailed in Response 4, the proposed project would utilize products that have to be manufactured or imported pursuant to TSCA Title VI and California Proposition 65 safe harbor standards, which would not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 per million and the project would result in less than significant impacts related to formaldehyde and no mitigation is required. Comment 20: This comment states that formaldehyde can be an eye and respiratory irritant and that many of the residences in the 2009 study exceeded non-cancer reference levels. The comment also states that the primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, and that the CARB standards adopted in 2009 have reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, but 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. Response 20: Refer to Responses 4 and 19. The U.S. EPA requires all products manufactured or imported into the United States to meet TSCA Title VI and California Proposition 65 safe harbor standards that include regulations related to composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, would preclude the project from resulting in indoor formaldehyde emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 per million. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. 2-304 Response to Comment City of Santa Ana 9 Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project December 2018 Comment 21: This comment asserts that a follow up study to the California New Home Study conducted in 2016-2018 found that the 2009 CARB requirements reduced indoor formaldehyde emissions by 30 percent, 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 10 in a million threshold. The comment then states that if the project is ventilated to the minimum requirements by code it would still result in a cancer risk of 125 per million, which is more than 12 times the threshold of 10 per million. Response 21: This comment is inaccurate. The follow up study referred to by this comment concluded that the residences developed in compliance to the 2009 CARB requirements showed good compliance with installed mechanical ventilation requirements; however, because the ventilation systems were not operating, the formaldehyde concentrations were similar to the previous study. Furthermore, the results of the follow up study found that adequate ventilation reduces formaldehyde to below the SCAQMD threshold. (Accessible: https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt2xg7s5nv/qt2xg7s5nv.pdf?t=pamtn8) As described previously, the project would utilize TSCA Title VI products that meet California Proposition 65 safe harbor standards and operate air filtration systems with efficiencies equal to or exceeding MERV 16, as defined by the ASHRAE Standard 52.2, within all buildings (included as PDF-3). Thus, the lack of ventilation that occurred during the studies referenced by this comment would not occur in the proposed project. This project’s building ventilation would be operated and maintained as required by PDF-3. Thus, the levels of indoor formaldehyde described by the comment would not occur, and as detailed in previous responses, would be less than the SCAQMD threshold. Comment 22: This comment describes the findings of the previously discussed New Home Studies and states that outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants and that 32 percent of the residences did not use their windows during the test day, and 15 percent of the residences did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. The comment asserts that because the project is located near high traffic roadways that generate noise, the project will require mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation air to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Response 22: Refer to Response 21. Based on this comment a majority (68 percent) of residences opened windows the day of the testing and 85 percent opened their windows during the week of the testing. Thus, the study indicates that a majority of study residences had open windows at least part of the time. In addition, as described by previous responses, building ventilation with air filtration systems that equal to or exceed MERV 16 values would be operated and maintained by the property management as included by PDF-3. Thus, the proposed project includes a mechanical supply of filtered outdoor air ventilation air for all of the residences. Comment 23: This comment states that traffic associated with the project would result in increased outdoor concentrations of PM 2.5 and that the HRA 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. Response 23: This comment is inaccurate. The HRA for the project was prepared by Urban Crossroads in May 2018 (Appendix C of the Draft EIR). The HRA document does not include a Table 6, and the HRA determined that the risk for the maximum exposed residential receptor would be 7.57 in one million which would not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. The comment appears to be referencing an HRA for a different project. The comment appears to be left over from a comment letter prepared for a different project. 2-305 Response to Comment City of Santa Ana 10 Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project December 2018 Comment 24: This comment provides information about the San Francisco Department of Health requirements that all residences within 500 feet of a freeway or high traffic roadway is required to install air filtration with a minimum efficiency of MERV 13 to remove PM 2.5 . The comment also states that Santa Ana is within a non-attainment area for PM 2.5 and that due to the high traffic near the project site installation of MERVE 13 filters is warranted. Response 24: The City of Santa Ana is not under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Department of Health. However, as described in previous Responses 19, 21, and 22, the proposed project includes building ventilation with air filtration systems that equal to or exceed MERV 16 values that are included as PDF-3. The MERV 16 filters would exceed the filtration and efficiency function of the MERVE 13 filters, resulting in improved air quality in comparison to the filtration that is recommended by the comment. The comment appears to be left over from a comment letter prepared for a different project. Comment 25: This comment provides recommended mitigation measures to reduce indoor formaldehyde concentrations, which includes: 1) use of only composite wood materials that are CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultralow emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins; 2) provide all habitable rooms with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards; and 3) install air filtration with a minimum efficiency of MERV 13 to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply system. Response 25: As described in Responses 4, 6, 19, 20, and 21, the levels of indoor formaldehyde within residential units would not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 per million and the project would result in less than significant impacts related to formaldehyde. Therefore, no mitigation is required. However, as required by the U.S. EPA and CARB, the proposed project would utilize products that have to be manufactured or imported pursuant to TSCA Title VI and California Proposition 65 safe harbor standards. In addition, the project includes air filtration systems with efficiencies equal to or exceeding a MERV 16 as defined by the ASHRAE Standard 52.2 within all buildings (included as PDF-3). This would provide improved indoor air quality over the recommended MERV 13 filtration. Comment 26: This comment provides an introductory statement that describes the proposed project and states that that EIR fails to adequately evaluate air quality impacts from construction and operation of the project because emissions are underestimated and that a revised EIR should be prepared. Response 26: This comment is general in nature and does not provide any examples or citations of where analysis within the EIR is flawed. The air quality analysis for the proposed project (Appendix C of the Draft EIR and Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR) was prepared pursuant to current SCAQMD guidelines and determined that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of construction related mitigation, which requires that off-road diesel construction equipment comply with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards that would reduce emissions below the applicable SCAQMD thresholds, and recirculation of the EIR is not required. Comment 27: This comment asserts that the Draft EIR fails to conduct a quantified HRA as a result of diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions that would be emitted during project activities for nearby existing sensitive receptors. The comment asserts that the construction and operational health risk impacts posed to nearby existing sensitive receptors resulting from the proposed project need to be quantified and compared to applicable thresholds. Response 27: The project does not propose significant operational sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs), such as freeways and high-traffic roads, commercial distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome platers, dry cleaners, or gasoline stations. The project would generate a limited amount of passenger vehicle traffic which would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds (as shown on Table 4.2-7) and per SCAQMD is not a substantial TAC source. Only 2-306 Response to Comment City of Santa Ana 11 Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project December 2018 diesel delivery trucks would be considered a TAC source, of which the residential project would generate a very small amount, resulting in almost no increase in health risk at the nearby residential receptors. Additionally, the air quality analysis for the proposed project (Appendix C of the Draft EIR and Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR) evaluates both construction and operational emissions that would be generated by the proposed project and could affect nearby existing sensitive receptors. SCAQMD does not state that construction based HRAs are required. However, the local significance thresholds (LSTs) are used to evaluate potential impacts from particulate matter emissions to sensitive receptors in the project's vicinity from project construction. Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR includes a local construction analysis of particulate matter (and other criteria pollutants) and compared those emissions to SCAQMD’s LSTs. As shown in Table 4.2-9 on page 4.2-17 of the Draft EIR, local construction related emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LST thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 that requires off-road diesel construction equipment to comply with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards. Therefore, no further analysis is required. The Draft EIR also includes an operational analysis of air quality that evaluates the long-term emissions of criteria pollutants that would be generated from the project, including particulate matter that determined that emissions from operation of the proposed project would not exceed the applicable regional thresholds of significance (Table 4.2-7 on page 4.2-16 of the Draft EIR). In addition, page 4.2-18 of the Draft EIR describes that the number of vehicle trips in year 2040 with project condition would not be high enough to generate an adverse CO concentration or “hot spot” per SCAQMD. Furthermore, Draft EIR Table 4.2-10 describes that the HRA determined that freeway emissions of CO, NO2, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds and that impacts related to exposures, including exposure of nearby existing sensitive receptors, to both toxic and criteria pollutants would be less than significant. Comment 28: This comment asserts that the Draft EIR does not include a construction or an operational HRA for existing sensitive receptors, the Draft EIR is inconsistent with recommendations set forth by the OEHHA that recommends that all short‐term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors and that long-term projects should assume a 30-year exposure rate. The comment further asserts that this evaluation should be included in a revised CEQA evaluation for the project. Response 28: Refer to Responses 17, 23, and 27. As described in these previous responses, the air quality analysis for the proposed project (Appendix C of the Draft EIR and Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR) evaluates both construction and operational emissions that would be generated by the proposed project and could affect nearby existing sensitive receptors. Both short-term construction related local impacts (LSTs) and long-term operational impacts from the project and the emissions related to the nearby high traffic roadways have been evaluated and determined to be less than significant with construction related Mitigation Measure AQ-1. As a result, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. Comment 29: This comment provides a screening-level assessment and asserts that construction and operational diesel particulate matter emissions may result in a potentially significant health risk impact that was not previously identified or evaluated in the EIR. The screening-level assessment provided in the comment utilized the AERSCREEN model and maximum downwind concentration to generate estimates of emissions from the project. Response 29: The analysis provided by this comment relies on an imprecise screening model (i.e., AERSCREEN) to predict high impact levels and is based on CalEEMod modeling that appears to have used default conditions. As such, the analysis is imprecise and inaccurate. A screening modeling approach, such as the one used in this comment is a simplified version of a refined model and is limited to: use of theoretical, or synthetic, meteorological conditions that 2-307 Response to Comment City of Santa Ana 12 Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project December 2018 are designed to encompass the spectrum of potential meteorological conditions - not actual measured data; calculation of only a one-hour concentration for each of the theoretical meteorological conditions; and no differentiation is provided between daytime and nighttime conditions. As such, the model calculates one-hour concentrations under all conditions. Due to its simplicity and reliance on limited actual site-specific physical and meteorological conditions, AERSCREEN provides an overstated assessment of pollutant concentrations. Given the limited TAC emissions sources that would result from operation of the project, the assessment provided in this comment has greatly exaggerated and overestimated project operational risk impacts, and therefore is not substantial evidence of an actual project impact. As detailed in the previous responses, both construction and operational emissions resulting from the project would be below SCAQMD thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1. For these reasons, health risk impacts at adjacent sensitive receptors would be less than significant and would not result in a potential impact not previously addressed in the EIR. Comment 30: This comment states that the screening‐level HRA, provided as Comment 29, is conservative and its purpose is to determine if a more refined HRA needs to be conducted. The comment asserts that based on the results of the screening-level HRA provided as Comment 29, refined construction and operational HRAs need to be prepared to examine air quality impacts generated by project construction and operation using site‐specific information. The comment further asserts that an updated analysis of the project’s health risk impact should be prepared and mitigation measures included to reduce impacts to a less‐than‐significant level. Response 30: Refer to Responses 27 through 29. Project specific analysis of potential air quality impacts have been completed pursuant to the SCAQMD methodology, which has determined that impacts would be less than significant with Mitigation Measure AQ-1 related to off-road diesel construction equipment compliance with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards. An updated analysis and additional mitigation measures are not required. Comment 31: This comment provides a list of recommended mitigation measures to reduce diesel particulate matter emissions that is emitted by on‐road vehicles and by off‐road construction equipment. Response 31: As described by Response 30, impacts would be less than significant with Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and additional mitigation measures, including those listed in this comment, are not required. Comment 32: This comment states that the recommended mitigation measures offer a cost‐effective, feasible way to incorporate lower‐emitting design features into the project, and that an updated EIR needs be prepared to additional analyses and include diesel particulate matter related mitigation measures to reduce health risk impacts to a less than significant level. Response 32: As described by Response 30, impacts would be less than significant with Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and additional mitigation measures, including those listed in this comment, are not required. 2-308 EXHIBIT 7 2-309 This page left blank intentionally. 2-310 Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project Appendix A City of Santa Ana Final EIR Appendix A: Parking Memo 2-311 | translutions, inc. | 17632 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 200, Tustin, California 92780 | P (949) 656-3131 | solutions@translutions.com | m e m o r a n d u m DATE: October 26, 2018 TO: Ms. Selena Kelaher, AICP City of Santa Ana FROM: Sandipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., TE, AICP, ENV-SP SUBJECT: 2525 Main Street – Parking Analysis Translutions, Inc. (Translutions) is has prepared this memorandum for the proposed 2525 Main Street Residential Project in the City of Santa Ana. The project proposes the following types of multi-family units:  Studio - 73 units (14.7%)  1 Bedroom - 307 units (61.8%)  2 Bedroom - 88 units (17.7%)  3 Bedroom - 28 units (5.65%) City Code. Section 41 of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), Off-Street Parking Requirements discusses off-street parking requirements for development projects. Sec. 41-1322 discusses the off-street parking requirements for multi-family dwellings. a) The minimum off-street parking requirements for each dwelling unit in multiple-family dwellings are as follows: one (1) space in a garage or carport. b) Each multiple-family dwelling site shall provide off-street parking spaces, in addition to the minimum requirements of subsection (a) of this section, in an amount not less than the number of bedrooms on the site. Such spaces may be open or covered and may be assigned to particular units or not so assigned. Bachelor units shall be considered as one-bedroom units. c) In addition to the minimum requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of this section, each multiple-family dwelling site shall provide guest parking, identified as such, in an amount of spaces not less than twenty-five (25) per cent of the minimum required spaces under subsections (a) and (b) of this section, but in no case less than three (3) spaces. The SAMC also requires that a portion of the required off-street parking spaces be designed for physically handicapped persons. Parking for handicapped persons at a rate of 2% of total parking for parking facilities between 501 and 1,000 stalls, and 1% thereafter is required. Note that handicapped parking is portion of the required parking and not an additional requirement. Table A calculates the required parking using the SAMC. As seen on Table A, the residential parking requirement for the project would be 1,420 spaces based on City Code. Table A: Project Parking Demand Code Subsection Land Use Units Rate Parking Required (a) Total Units 496 1 496 (b) Studio 73 1 73 1 Bedroom 307 1 307 2 Bedroom 88 2 176 3 Bedroom 28 3 84 Parking Required (Residential) 1,136 Handicap (2% up to 1000 spaces, 1% thereafter - Included in Residential) 203 Parking Required (Guest - 25% of Minimum of a & b) 284 Handicap (2% of Guest - Included in Guest) 6 Total Parking Required 1,420 translutionsthe transportation solutions company... 2-312 Memorandum: 2525 Main Parking Analysis \\TRANSLUTIONS\PROJECTS\RE - 2525 MAIN STREET\PARKING ANALYSIS\PARKING REVISED\PARKING MEMO.DOCX 2 the transportation solutions company...General Plan Circulation Element. The City’s General Plan acknowledges that while adequate supply of parking is essential to the economic success of businesses, parking needs should be evaluated to determine needed changes based upon changing circumstances in land use patterns and the public’s mode of travel. Policy 7.4 of the General Plan Circulation Element also states that parking requirements be re-evaluated and updated on a regular basis. It should be noted that the City’s parking ratios are from 1997 and are over 20 years old. With changes in demographics, increased transit, and increased uses of active transportation modes in the City, an update to the parking standards is needed. Parking Study & Rate Calculation. Translutions surveyed two similar facilities in the area to identify parking generation factors for similar multi-family residential projects. The two facilities surveyed are Nineteen01 and The Marke. Both properties are similar to the proposed project in terms of rents, target population, apartment types, and amenities. Nineteen01 is located at 1901 East First Street in the City of Santa Ana and has 254 units. The unit breakdown for Noneteen01 is as follows:  1 Bedroom - 123 units (48.4%)  2 Bedroom - 125 units (49.2%)  3 Bedroom - 6 units (2.4%) The Marke is located at 100 E MacArthur Boulevard in the City of Santa Ana and has 300 units. The unit breakdown for Noneteen01 is as follows:  1 Bedroom - 155 units (51.7%)  2 Bedroom - 131 units (43.6%)  3 Bedroom - 14 units (4.7%) To identify parking demand for the two projects, Translutions contracted with Counts Unlimited, Inc. to conduct a parking occupancy survey for the two facilities identified above. The surveys were conducted on one weekday (Thursday) and one weekend day (Saturday) in April 2018 for a period of 24 hours. Table B shows the findings of this analysis. Detailed parking accumulation data is included in Attachment A. Table B: Parking Survey Summary Survey Location Units Day of Week Parking Parking Nineteen01 254 Peak Weekday 344 1.354 Peak Weekend 342 1.346 The Marke 300 Peak Weekday 230 0.767 Peak Weekend 193 0.643 Average Demand (Weekday) 1.060 Average Demand (Weekend) 0.995 Peak Parking Demand Per Unit (Weekday & Weekend) 1.354 Project Maximum Parking Demand (496 Units) 496 672 As seen on Table B, the peak weekday parking demand is 1.354 spaces per unit observed at Nineteen01. The peak weekend parking demand is 1.346 spaces per unit observed at Nineteen01. Therefore, the peak parking demand based on empirical data occurred at Nineteen01, at the rate of 1.354 parking spaces per unit. Parking Needs for Proposed Project. Applying the peak parking rate based on empirical data, the peak parking demand for the proposed project is anticipated to be 672 spaces. The project will include 904 parking spaces, which is approximately 35% more than the number of spaces forecast based on empirical data. Conclusion. The parking supply required for the project using parking rates from the SAMC is 1,420 spaces, which translates to more than 2.86 parking spaces per residential unit. Since the parking requirements in the SAMC are over 20 years old, Translutions conducted surveys at two similar facilities currently in operation. The peak parking demand was observed to be 1.354 spaces per unit. Using the 2-313 Memorandum: 2525 Main Parking Analysis \\TRANSLUTIONS\PROJECTS\RE - 2525 MAIN STREET\PARKING ANALYSIS\PARKING REVISED\PARKING MEMO.DOCX 3 the transportation solutions company...parking demand rates from empirical data, the project parking needs are forecast to be 672 spaces. The project will include 904 parking spaces, which is approximately 35% more than the number of spaces forecast based on empirical data. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (949) 656-3131. 2-314 City: Location: Date: Count Type: 332 Beginning Occupancy Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Total 0:00 1000333 0:15 1210333 0:30 3421333 0:45 1302329 1:00 0122328 1:15 2010331 1:30 0101329 1:45 3100331 2:00 0010332 2:15 1010334 2:30 1010336 2:45 0000336 3:00 0010337 3:15 1000338 3:30 0100337 3:45 0001336 4:00 0000336 4:15 0000336 4:30 0000336 4:45 2001337 5:00 0102334 5:15 0123332 5:30 1403326 5:45 1202323 6:00 2105319 6:15 1402314 6:30 0304307 6:45 3516300 7:00 2516292 7:15 2209283 7:30 2 14 0 11 260 7:45 3717250 8:00 3 6 2 11 238 8:15 2539229 8:30 6 11 2 12 214 8:45 9513216 9:00 6625213 9:15 5311215 9:30 2806203 9:45 4205200 10:00 1518189 10:15 0639177 10:30 3319169 10:45 6413169 11:00 3412167 11:15 3415162 11:30 3217157 11:45 5218153 4/26/2018 Santa Ana Ninteen01 Parking Occupancy / Driveway Count First St Dwy Cabrillo Park Dwy Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-62682-315 City: Location: Date: Count Type: 332 Beginning Occupancy Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Total 4/26/2018 Santa Ana Ninteen01 Parking Occupancy / Driveway Count First St Dwy Cabrillo Park Dwy 12:00 8537152 12:15 4463155 12:30 3713149 12:45 10 4 2 6 151 13:00 6136153 13:15 5363158 13:30 5554159 13:45 4335158 14:00 2444156 14:15 8633158 14:30 9206159 14:45 7344163 15:00 8236166 15:15 9446169 15:30 6536167 15:45 11 5 4 4 173 16:00 7342179 16:15 5316176 16:30 7509169 16:45 9261181 17:00 10 4 9 8 188 17:15 16 2 6 6 202 17:30 10 3 5 3 211 17:45 12 2 5 4 222 18:00 9482233 18:15 15 2 6 15 237 18:30 12 5 5 11 238 18:45 14 8 5 3 246 19:00 12 5 8 4 257 19:15 2684257 19:30 8156263 19:45 9777265 20:00 9574272 20:15 9265280 20:30 12 3 6 7 288 20:45 6753289 21:00 9200296 21:15 2452297 21:30 8 1 10 5 309 21:45 7195319 22:00 5141326 22:15 1721321 22:30 6464325 22:45 3215322 23:00 8242330 23:15 1121331 23:30 6221336 23:45 4051344 0:00 0003341 TOTAL 452 307 252 388 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-62682-316 City: Location: Date: Count Type: 331 Beginning Occupancy Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Total 0:00 3031330 0:15 2452331 0:30 3110334 0:45 1222333 1:00 4530335 1:15 2412332 1:30 4212333 1:45 2302330 2:00 2221331 2:15 0010332 2:30 1000333 2:45 4221336 3:00 4023339 3:15 0000339 3:30 1110340 3:45 0012339 4:00 0010340 4:15 0100339 4:30 0021340 4:45 1010342 5:00 0001341 5:15 0001340 5:30 0010341 5:45 2200341 6:00 0200339 6:15 0012338 6:30 0222336 6:45 0102333 7:00 0210332 7:15 0004328 7:30 1 11 0 6 312 7:45 1014310 8:00 6516306 8:15 1203302 8:30 1426295 8:45 2407286 9:00 4205283 9:15 5317279 9:30 6107277 9:45 3216273 10:00 7557273 10:15 0915260 10:30 4404256 10:45 4447253 11:00 5 3 1 10 246 11:15 5504242 11:30 4 2 3 13 234 11:45 6337233 Santa Ana Ninteen01 4/28/2018 Parking Occupancy / Driveway Count First St Dwy Cabrillo Park Dwy Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-62682-317 City: Location: Date: Count Type: 331 Beginning Occupancy Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Total Santa Ana Ninteen01 4/28/2018 Parking Occupancy / Driveway Count First St Dwy Cabrillo Park Dwy 12:00 7119231 12:15 4 2 3 11 225 12:30 6 4 4 12 219 12:45 7877218 13:00 2633214 13:15 4158214 13:30 9653219 13:45 9445223 14:00 5226222 14:15 4112224 14:30 2225221 14:45 5625217 15:00 11 2 7 8 225 15:15 3156226 15:30 9 1 3 11 226 15:45 4455226 16:00 11 9 4 6 226 16:15 9326228 16:30 3353230 16:45 7 1 2 10 228 17:00 9036234 17:15 7536233 17:30 9358236 17:45 8306235 18:00 9346239 18:15 12 4 11 4 254 18:30 7936249 18:45 8339248 19:00 5167251 19:15 7967248 19:30 6637244 19:45 5337242 20:00 7176249 20:15 11 4 5 4 257 20:30 3 5 6 11 250 20:45 7363257 21:00 6342262 21:15 8333267 21:30 6137268 21:45 7232274 22:00 5245276 22:15 5324276 22:30 9323281 22:45 9622284 23:00 5345285 23:15 6020293 23:30 5243297 23:45 4441300 0:00 0000300 TOTAL 417 266 240 416 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-62682-318 City: Location: Date: Count Type: 219 Beginning Occupancy Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Total 0:00 0044219 0:15 0020221 0:30 0010222 0:45 0011222 1:00 0022222 1:15 0001221 1:30 0020223 1:45 0002221 2:00 0010222 2:15 0020224 2:30 0020226 2:45 0010227 3:00 0020229 3:15 0000229 3:30 0010230 3:45 0013228 4:00 0022228 4:15 0021229 4:30 0003226 4:45 0024224 5:00 0003221 5:15 0005216 5:30 0026212 5:45 00210204 6:00 0014201 6:15 0019193 6:30 0334189 6:45 1644184 7:00 0 3 2 11 172 7:15 2 7 2 11 158 7:30 0 5 3 10 146 7:45 0 8 1 10 129 8:00 0 4 3 12 116 8:15 1 5 1 11 102 8:30 1 6 2 12 87 8:45 084974 9:00 164667 9:15 006766 9:30 055759 9:45 095352 10:00 034350 10:15 136648 10:30 043245 10:45 226546 11:00 045740 11:15 134537 11:30 153531 11:45 224530 4/26/2018 Santa Ana The Marke Parking Occupancy / Driveway Count Main St Dwy Rear Dwy Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-62682-319 City: Location: Date: Count Type: 219 Beginning Occupancy Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Total 4/26/2018 Santa Ana The Marke Parking Occupancy / Driveway Count Main St Dwy Rear Dwy 12:00 3 2 16 2 45 12:15 043440 12:30 135934 12:45 3 4 4 10 27 13:00 159428 13:15 0 1 10 6 31 13:30 148729 13:45 033524 14:00 3 3 10 11 23 14:15 027622 14:30 018326 14:45 117231 15:00 127235 15:15 0 8 10 7 30 15:30 148530 15:45 1 3 11 1 38 16:00 133237 16:15 3 4 11 6 41 16:30 118544 16:45 359744 17:00 0 6 14 5 47 17:15 1 5 24 1 66 17:30 0 3 15 1 77 17:45 2 3 14 5 85 18:00 0 7 24 8 94 18:15 0 4 24 4 110 18:30 1 0 11 12 110 18:45 0 0 13 8 115 19:00 0 0 10 12 113 19:15 0 0 17 5 125 19:30 0 0 22 8 139 19:45 0 0 14 7 146 20:00 0 0 19 8 157 20:15 0 0 17 10 164 20:30 0 0 15 8 171 20:45 1 0 13 8 177 21:00 0 0 13 4 186 21:15 0 0 10 7 189 21:30 0 0 11 7 193 21:45 0 0 11 5 199 22:00 0 0 10 4 205 22:15 0094210 22:30 0073214 22:45 0052217 23:00 0095221 23:15 0073225 23:30 0022225 23:45 0011225 0:00 0000225 TOTAL 42 192 632 476 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-62682-320 City: Location: Date: Count Type: 166 Beginning Occupancy Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Total 0:00 0074169 0:15 0074172 0:30 0053174 0:45 0066174 1:00 0011174 1:15 0042176 1:30 0053178 1:45 0021179 2:00 0032180 2:15 0020182 2:30 0030185 2:45 0000185 3:00 0040189 3:15 0010190 3:30 0021191 3:45 0020193 4:00 0000193 4:15 0000193 4:30 0000193 4:45 0000193 5:00 0000193 5:15 0001192 5:30 0001191 5:45 0021192 6:00 0001191 6:15 0010192 6:30 0001191 6:45 2012192 7:00 1132193 7:15 0114189 7:30 0424183 7:45 0214178 8:00 0222176 8:15 0324171 8:30 0535164 8:45 2229157 9:00 3845151 9:15 0447144 9:30 1752141 9:45 1318132 10:00 0452131 10:15 0312127 10:30 0454124 10:45 0556118 11:00 1 10 7 4 112 11:15 1244111 11:30 1464110 11:45 0782109 Santa Ana The Marke 4/26/2018 Parking Occupancy / Driveway Count Main St Dwy Rear Dwy Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-62682-321 City: Location: Date: Count Type: 166 Beginning Occupancy Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Total Santa Ana The Marke 4/26/2018 Parking Occupancy / Driveway Count Main St Dwy Rear Dwy 12:00 1343108 12:15 0598104 12:30 0494105 12:45 276898 13:00 136399 13:15 063294 13:30 138496 13:45 148695 14:00 229698 14:15 2 8 12 2 102 14:30 2 5 11 3 107 14:45 2 8 10 6 105 15:00 061199 15:15 201597 15:30 255198 15:45 2 7 12 5 100 16:00 014697 16:15 067593 16:30 3 6 14 3 101 16:45 0131102 17:00 2451104 17:15 1453103 17:30 3555101 17:45 4553102 18:00 2383106 18:15 2160113 18:30 0054114 18:45 1086117 19:00 1 0 14 8 124 19:15 0 0 12 10 126 19:30 0 0 17 4 139 19:45 1 1 10 11 138 20:00 1 1 13 8 143 20:15 0063146 20:30 0088146 20:45 0095150 21:00 0039144 21:15 0 0 10 10 144 21:30 0086146 21:45 0 0 11 4 153 22:00 0094158 22:15 0 0 12 8 162 22:30 0097164 22:45 0046162 23:00 0 0 11 5 168 23:15 0063171 23:30 0093177 23:45 0052180 0:00 0000180 TOTAL 54 195 504 349 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-62682-322 EXHIBIT 8 2-323 This page left blank intentionally. 2-324 MARKET FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT AND FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR AN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT AT 2525 MAIN STREET, SANTA ANA, CA PREPARED FOR: AC 2525 MAIN ST. LLC FINAL REPORT DECEMBER 11, 2017 369 SAN MIGUEL DRIVE, SUITE 265 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 PHONE 949.717.6450 251 KEARNY STREET, 6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 PHONE 415.397.5490 641 LEXINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 1400 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022 PHONE 646.354.7090 1170 PEACHTREE ST NE. SUITE 1200 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309 PHONE 404.437.4507 2-325 AC 2525 MAIN ST. LLC November 2017 17590.00 Santa Ana, CA LIST OF EXHIBITS I. SUPPLY / DEMAND OUTLOOK 1. Regional Location 2. Jobs A. Total B. Commute 3. Demographics A. Overall B. Renters 4. Building Permits 5. Macro Market Metrics A. Scale B. Occupancy & Rents C. Rent vs. Own 6. General Apartment Demand A. Demand Estimate B. Segmentation / Renter Profile 7. Development Pipeline A. Location B. Detail 8. Supply vs Demand II. COMPETITIVE SET 1. Inventory A. Location B. Performance C. Vacancy by Unit Type D. Floor Plan Mix E. Amenities III. SITE SPECIFIC ANALYSIS 1. Local Setting 2. Site Plan 3. Recommendations 4. Rent to Size Positioning A. Overall B. Studio/One-Bedroom C. Two-Bedroom IV. Fiscal Impact APPENDIX A. Survey – Competitive Inventory B. Demand Model C. Prizm Lifestyle Segmentation 11/12/1722-326 I. SUPPLY / DEMAND OUTLOOK 11/12/1732-327 EXHIBIT I-1 REGIONAL LOCATIONORANGE COUNTYNOVEMBER 2017Blue =Orange CountyPage 2Theblueshaded area is Orange County, denoted as "PMA" and is where the majority of demand for residential will emanate from.17590.00 Maps: RegPage 1 of 2The Concord Group11/12/1742-328 EXHIBIT I-1 REGIONAL LOCATIONORANGE COUNTYNOVEMBER 2017TheCompetitive Market Area ("CMA"), the area in which new rental product will compete on a more or less equal basis with the Subject Site, is comprised of 10 zip codes located along the 55 and 5 freeways.The Subject Site sits at the northern edge of Santa Ana, highlighted in green.17590.00 Maps: RegPage 2 of 2The Concord Group11/12/1752-329 EXHIBIT I-2AJOBS - METRO TOTALORANGE COUNTY1990 THROUGH 2021Orange County U.S.GrowthPeriod # # Perc. # Perc.Historical - Annual1990 1,182,000 --- --- 109,527,000 ---1991 1,155,900 (26,100) -2.2% 108,427,000 -1.0%1992 1,138,000 (17,900) -1.5% 108,802,000 0.3%1993 1,126,600 (11,400) -1.0% 110,935,000 2.0%1994 1,136,300 9,700 0.9% 114,398,000 3.1%1995 1,161,300 25,000 2.2% 117,407,000 2.6%1996 1,193,600 32,300 2.8% 119,836,000 2.1%1997 1,242,500 48,900 4.1% 122,951,000 2.6%1998 1,307,800 65,300 5.3% 126,157,000 2.6%1999 1,350,800 43,000 3.3% 129,240,000 2.4%2000 1,393,400 42,600 3.2% 132,024,000 2.2%2001 1,418,200 24,800 1.8% 132,087,000 0.0%2002 1,408,300 (9,900) -0.7% 130,649,000 -1.1%2003 1,434,700 26,400 1.9% 130,347,000 -0.2%2004 1,463,700 29,000 2.0% 131,787,000 1.1%2005 1,498,800 35,100 2.4% 134,051,000 1.7%2006 1,527,600 28,800 1.9% 136,453,000 1.8%2007 1,525,000 (2,600) -0.2% 137,999,000 1.1%2008 1,494,000 (31,000) -2.0% 137,242,000 -0.5%2009 1,387,600 (106,400) -7.1% 131,313,000 -4.3%2010 1,371,200 (16,400) -1.2% 130,361,000 -0.7%2011 1,387,400 16,200 1.2% 131,932,000 1.2%2012 1,424,300 36,900 2.7% 134,175,000 1.7%2013 1,462,800 38,500 2.7% 136,381,000 1.6%2014 1,496,600 33,800 2.3% 138,958,000 1.9%2015 1,544,500 47,900 3.2% 141,843,000 2.1%2016 1,579,800 35,300 2.3% 144,306,000 1.7%Historical - 1-Year Growth3Q16 1,577,800 144,576,0003Q17 1,581,567 3,767 0.2% 146,613,000 1.4%Annual Average5-Yr 38,480 2.6% 1.8%10-Yr 5,220 0.3% 0.6%20-Yr 25,747 1.4% 0.9%25-Yr 16,956 1.3% 1.1%ForecastMoody's2017 1,619,743 39,943 2.5% 146,545,420 1.6%2018 1,640,802 21,060 1.3% 148,402,230 1.3%2019 1,654,196 13,394 0.8% 149,986,490 1.1%2020 1,657,131 2,935 0.2% 150,908,250 0.6%2021 1,665,402 8,271 0.5% 151,295,070 0.3%Source: Historical - US Bureau of Labor Statistics; Forecast -Moody's / Economy.com (October-17) 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,300,000 1,400,000 1,500,000 1,600,000 1,700,000'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16Orange CountyOrange County has seen strong job growth over thelast five years, averaging 2.6% growth annually,significantly higher than the national average of1.8% over the same time period.17590.00 Macro: JobOThe Concord Group11/12/1762-330 EXHIBIT I-2BJOBS - COMMUTEORANGE COUNTY2015CMA Santa Ana Orange County CMA - Location of WorkGeography: Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc.Jobs/Labor RatioJobs283,182 149,866 1,443,968Employed Labor145,152 114,016 1,290,523Jobs/Labor2.01.31.1Commute to Work(Living in Geography)Distance to WorkUnder 10-Miles86,569 60% 71,250 62% 621,011 48%10-24 Miles29,044 20% 21,325 19% 385,531 30%25-50 Miles17,100 12% 12,363 11% 168,720 13%Over 50-Miles12,439 9% 9,078 8% 115,261 9%Direction of WorkNortherly61,726 43% 50,365 44% 595,794 46%Westerly71,089 49% 40,346 35% 607,799 47%Southerly56,954 39% 43,046 38% 400,704 31%Easterly41,733 29% 44,780 39% 430,565 33%Location of WorkIrvine city, CA22,96216%13,59612%Santa Ana city, CA 19,686 14% 21,821 19%Orange city, CA9,432 6% 6,097 5%Anaheim city, CA9,2496%7,6047%Costa Mesa city, CA 6,443 4% 5,824 5%Los Angeles city, CA 6,328 4% 4,669 4%Tustin city, CA6,145 4% 3,393 3%Newport Beach city, CA 5,456 4% 4,085 4%Huntington Beach city, CA 2,860 2% 2,995 3%Lake Forest city, CA 2,793 2% 2,231 2%Garden Grove city, CA 2,555 2% 3,232 3%San Diego city, CA2,107 1% 1,425 1%Fullerton city, CA1,954 1% 1,483 1%Fountain Valley city, CA 1,843 1% 2,024 2%Long Beach city, CA 1,506 1% 1,104 1%Brea city, CA1,350 1% 919 1%Mission Viejo city, CA 1,308 1% 744 1%Laguna Hills city, CA 1,081 1% 624 1%Corona city, CA1,050 1% 700 1%Aliso Viejo city, CA956 1% 495 0%Riverside city, CA956 1% 687 1%All Other Locations 37,132 26% 28,264 25%Subtotal145,152 100% 114,016 100%Source: "On The Map" - US Census Bureau, Center for Economic StudiesMore than half (60%, 86,569) of the CMA residents commute under 10-miles for work. The CMA is the a local employment core.17590.00 Macro: JobCThe Concord Group11/12/1772-331 EXHIBIT I-3ADEMOGRAPHICS - OVERALLORANGE COUNTY2017Local Radius1-Mile 3-Mile 5-Mile CMASanta AnaOrange CountyGeography:Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc.Population2017 33,554 317,672 740,193 382,111 339,929 3,212,9462022 34,905 330,300 770,982 398,535 352,998 3,368,803Gr./ Yr. 270 0.8% 2,526 0.8% 6,158 0.8% 3,285 0.8% 2,614 0.8% 31,171 1.0%Households2000 9,252 76,299 181,395 101,427 72,954 935,2742017 10,010 81,501 194,399 112,710 77,436 1,059,778Gr./ Yr. 45 0.5% 306 0.4% 765 0.4% 664 0.6% 264 0.4% 7,324 0.7%2022 10,431 85,175 203,128 117,789 80,781 1,112,647Gr./ Yr. 84 0.8% 735 0.9% 1,746 0.9% 1,016 0.9% 669 0.8% 10,574 1.0%Renters ('17)5,890 59% 46,786 57% 93,204 48% 58,191 52% 40,773 53% 435,609 41%HH Size ('17)3.4 3.9 3.8 3.4 4.4 3.01 Person 1,961 20% 14,053 17% 30,330 16% 21,259 19% 9,955 13% 225,206 21%1-2 Persons 4,412 44% 31,223 38% 73,685 38% 49,462 44% 23,017 30% 531,581 50%3+ Persons 5,598 56% 50,278 62% 120,714 62% 63,248 56% 54,419 70% 528,197 50%Family HHs 7,181 72% 61,173 75% 150,890 78% 82,097 73% 62,921 81% 753,539 71%Median Income (000s)2000 $45 $43 $48 $52 $44 $592017 $56 $56 $63 $70 $55 $80Gr./ Yr. $0.7 1.3% $0.8 1.5% $0.9 1.6% $1.0 1.7% $0.7 1.4% $1.2 1.8%2022 $58 $59 $67 $74 $58 $86Gr./ Yr. $0.4 0.7% $0.6 1.0% $0.7 1.1% $0.8 1.1% $0.5 1.0% $1.1 1.4%Income Profile ('17)Over $35K 6,902 69% 56,307 69% 143,016 74% 85,266 76% 54,433 70% 833,806 79%Over $50K 5,480 55% 44,824 55% 117,589 60% 71,774 64% 42,438 55% 724,254 68%Over $75K 3,666 37% 28,835 35% 81,111 42% 52,751 47% 26,814 35% 558,342 53%Over $100K 2,400 24% 18,190 22% 54,853 28% 37,520 33% 16,453 21% 423,697 40%Over $150K 1,099 11% 7,345 9% 24,306 13% 19,174 17% 6,185 8% 233,805 22%Age Profile ('17)Median - Pop. 33.3 32.0 33.7 34.0 31.7 37.9HouseholderUnder 25 344 3% 2,991 4% 5,506 3% 3,925 3% 2,205 3% 28,791 3%25-34 1,753 18% 14,364 18% 29,851 15% 18,809 17% 12,622 16% 140,303 13%35-44 2,276 23% 18,594 23% 41,485 21% 24,480 22% 18,175 23% 192,913 18%45-54 2,174 22% 18,036 22% 44,227 23% 25,299 22% 18,324 24% 230,205 22%55-64 1,672 17% 13,416 16% 35,259 18% 19,972 18% 13,338 17% 210,770 20%65 Plus 1,790 18% 14,101 17% 38,072 20% 20,225 18% 12,772 16% 256,796 24%Age Profile (Annual Growth - '17-'22)HouseholderUnder 25 2 2% -28 0% -30 0% -23 0% -5 0% -161 0%25-34 -45 0% -249 0% -469 0% -328 0% -257 0% -1,060 0%35-44 14 11% 162 16% 333 15% 168 12% 135 14% 912 7%45-54 22 17% 165 16% 144 6% 93 7% 126 14% -1,398 0%55-64 39 30% 308 30% 702 31% 438 32% 304 33% 3,876 29%65 Plus 53 41% 377 37% 1,065 47% 667 49% 366 39% 8,404 64%Source: Spotlight17590.00 Macro: DemoOvThe Concord Group11/12/1782-332 EXHIBIT I-3BDEMOGRAPHICS - RENTERSORANGE COUNTY2017 - WITH 2015 AFFCMASanta AnaOrange CountyRenter HouseholdsRenter HouseholdsRenter HouseholdsAll HHs % RentAll HHs % RentAll HHs% RentGeography:Num. Shr. Rent HHs Shr. Num. Shr. Rent HHs Shr. Num. Shr. Rent HHs Shr.HouseholdsTotal 112,710 100% 52% 58,961 100% 62,921 100%55% 34,541 100% 1,059,778 100% 42% 448,544 100%Income RangeUnder $35K 27,444 24% 74% 20,274 35% 23,00337% 73% 16,680 40% 225,972 21% 64% 143,847 33%$35-$50K 13,492 12% 65% 8,745 15% 11,995 19% 66% 7,877 19% 109,552 10% 56% 61,876 14%$50-$75K 19,023 17% 58% 11,099 19% 15,624 25% 52% 8,151 20% 165,912 16% 49% 81,675 19%$75-$100K 15,231 14% 46% 7,009 12% 10,361 16% 43% 4,415 11% 134,645 13% 42% 56,302 13%$100-$150K 18,346 16% 38% 6,881 12% 10,268 16% 30% 3,052 7% 189,892 18% 31% 58,973 13%Over $150K 19,174 17% 20% 3,857 7% 6,185 10% 24% 1,471 4% 233,805 22% 16% 37,342 8%$150-$200K8,6378% ---3,5946% ---99,5579% ---$200-$250K3,7763% ---1,2102% ---46,2724% ---$250-$500K4,6254% ---1,0812% ---58,1915% ---Over $500K2,1362% ---3000% ---29,7853% ---Age RangeUnder 25 3,925 3% 92% 3,613 6% 12,84120% 89% 11,392 21% 28,791 3% 92% 26,417 6%25-34 18,809 17% 78% 14,727 25% 7,699 12% 81% 6,240 11% 140,303 13% 74% 104,113 24%35-44 24,480 22% 63% 15,539 27% 7,010 11% 67% 4,673 8% 192,913 18% 52% 101,254 23%45-54 25,299 22% 43% 10,902 19% 9,762 16% 47% 4,634 8% 230,205 22% 38% 87,972 20%55-64 19,972 18% 34% 6,802 12% 26,483 42% 36% 9,434 17% 210,770 20% 28% 59,282 13%65+ 20,225 18% 31% 6,207 11% 60,512 96% 31% 18,926 34% 256,796 24% 24% 60,630 14%Household Size1-Person21,259 19% 56% 11,926 20% 9,955 16% 57% 5,681 13% 225,206 21% 49% 110,866 25%1-2-Person49,462 44% 51% 25,141 43% 23,017 37% 53% 12,195 29% 531,581 50% 42% 222,544 50%3 Person18,583 16% 51% 9,461 16% 10,45717% 55% 5,797 14% 177,367 17% 42% 74,595 17%4+ Person44,665 40% 55% 24,440 41% 43,962 70% 56% 24,556 58% 350,830 33% 43% 151,669 34%ChildrenFamilies82,097 73% 59% 48,078 77% 81,183 129% 62% 50,183 121% 753,539 71% 47% 357,473 75%Non-Families30,613 27% 48% 14,590 23% -18,262 -29% 47% -8,596 -21% 306,239 29% 39% 120,744 25%Source: American Factfinder35%40%33%15%19%14%19%20%19%12%11%13%12%7%13%0%20%40%60%80%100%CMASanta AnaOrange CountyShare of Renters by IncomeUnder $35K$35-$50K$50-$75K$75-$100K$100-$150KOver $150K6%21%6%25%11%24%27%8%23%19%8%20%12%17%13%11%34%14%0%20%40%60%80%100%CMASanta AnaOrange CountyShare of Renters by AgeUnder 2525-3435-4445-5455-6465+52% (58,961) of households within the CMA are renters, lower than Santa Ana (55%, 34,541) and higher than Orange County (42%, 448,544).60% of Santa Ana renters qualify for market rate rents, rents that are over $1,600 per month.17590.00 Macro: Demo-AFFThe Concord Group11/12/1792-333 EXHIBIT I-4BUILDING PERMITSORANGE COUNTY1990 THROUGH SECOND QUARTER 2017Santa Ana Orange CountyMF 5+MF 5+PeriodTotal# Shr. % OC Total # Shr.Annual1990 94 21 22% 0% 11,983 6,379 53%1991 43 0 0% 0% 6,555 2,434 37%1992 43 0 0% 0% 5,821 1,850 32%1993 74 0 0% 0% 6,344 1,575 25%1994 3 0 0% 0% 12,640 4,554 36%1995 6 0 0% 0% 8,193 1,822 22%1996 12 0 0% 0% 10,173 2,895 28%1997 15 0 0% 0% 12,261 3,657 30%1998 42 0 0% 0% 9,704 2,031 21%1999 62 0 0% 0% 12,239 3,897 32%2000 329 274 83% 5% 12,520 5,075 41%2001 25 0 0% 0% 8,611 1,832 21%2002 122 26 21% 1% 11,796 4,597 39%2003 184 40 22% 1% 9,248 2,733 30%2004 105 5 5% 0% 9,256 4,073 44%2005 79 0 0% 0% 7,143 2,665 37%2006 643 0 0% 0% 8,303 4,216 51%2007 99 0 0% 0% 7,372 4,931 67%2008 13 0 0% 0% 3,235 1,774 55%2009 7 0 0% 0% 2,143 668 31%2010 8 0 0% 0% 3,134 1,186 38%2011 167 110 66% 5% 4,352 2,381 55%2012 382 354 93% 10% 6,082 3,434 56%2013 20 0 0% 0% 10,422 6,281 60%2014 95 0 0% 0% 9,291 5,223 56%2015 541 502 93% 8% 10,771 6,393 59%2016 219 70 32% 1% 11,523 6,671 58%L4Q 450 241 54% 5% 9,921 4,672 47%Annual Average5-Yr 251 185 74% 3% 9,618 5,600 58%10-Yr 155 104 67% 3% 6,833 3,894 57%20-Yr 158 69 44% 2% 8,470 3,686 44%25-Yr 132 55 42% 2% 8,503 3,457 41%Note: "L4Q" - last one year ending 3Q17Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0000100200300400500600700'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16MF (5+) Building PermitsSanta AnaOrange County (Right Axis)Orange County has seen strong development in the multifamily market over the last 10 years with 57% (3,894 annually) of all building permits pulled for multifamily structures with 5 or more units.Santa Ana's 20 year (from 1990 to 2010) share of Orange County's multifamily deliveries was approximately 0.6%, but over the last 5 years Santa Ana has increased its share to 3.3%17590.00 Macro: PermitThe Concord Group11/12/17102-334 EXHIBIT I-5AMACRO MARKET METRICS - SCALEORANGE COUNTY2000 THROUGH THIRD QUARTER 20172017ValuesHistoricalAnnual Average November 2017in 000s 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 5-Yr 10-Yr 15-Yr 3Q17 U/CJob GrowthOrange County 3.2% 1.8% -0.7% 1.9% 2.0% 2.4% 1.9% -0.2% -2.0% -7.1% -1.2% 1.2% 2.7% 2.7% 2.3% 3.2% 2.3%Inventory (000s)Orange County194.5 198.0 200.8 202.7204.4 207.6 209.9 210.9 213.7 219.8 224.7 225.3 228.7 230.5 233.4 236.8 240.4245.6CMA30.0 30.1 30.3 30.3 30.3 30.3 30.4 30.9 31.4 32.5 34.0 34.3 34.4 34.5 35.1 35.7 36.137.2% of Orange County 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%15%Santa Ana19.0 19.0 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.3 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.9 19.9 20.120.1% of Orange County 10% 10% 10% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 8% 9% 8% 8%8%Completions (000s)YTDU/COrange County1.31 5.07 0.70 2.52 1.58 3.46 1.88 0.85 4.11 8.83 1.15 0.09 3.43 2.99 3.42 3.26 2.87 3.19 3.10 2.74 4.30 0.00CMA0.00 0.07 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.46 0.95 1.76 0.61 0.09 0.00 0.24 1.04 0.00 0.94 0.44 0.61 0.44 0.61 0.00% of Orange County 0% 1% 36% 0% 0% 0% 15% 54% 23% 20% 53% 100% 0% 8% 30% 0% 33% 14% 20% 16% 14% 0%Santa Ana0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.26 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.00% of Orange County 0% 0% 36% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 9% 4% 3% 3% 0% 0%Source: Jobs - BLS; Apartment - CoStar (for all market rate projects of 10-units or more)Note: "U/C" - under construction-8%-6%-4%-2%0%2%4%6%8%02004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,0002000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 3Q17Completions (bar, right axis) and Job Growth (line, left axis)CMASanta AnaOrange County (Right Axis)The Competitive Market Area (CMA) has had 14%(442 average annual units) of Orange Countydeliveries over the last 5 years.17590.00 Macro: ScaleThe Concord Group11/12/17112-335 EXHIBIT I-5BMACRO MARKET METRICS - OCCUPANCY AND RENTSORANGE COUNTY2000 THROUGH THIRD QUARTER 20173Q14 3Q14 0ValuesHistoricalAnnual Average1-Yearin 000s2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 5-Yr 10-Yr 15-Yr 3Q16 3Q17Job GrowthOrange County3.2% 1.8% -0.7% 1.9% 2.0% 2.4% 1.9% -0.2% -2.0% -7.1% -1.2% 1.2% 2.7% 2.7% 2.3% 3.2% 2.3%Asking Rent ($)Santa Ana 974 1,034 1,055 1,070 1,0921,142 1,235 1,315 1,336 1,282 1,246 1,267 1,307 1,376 1,450 1,544 1,6291,653 1,700Gr/Yr6.1% 2.0% 1.4% 2.1% 4.6% 8.2% 6.4% 1.6% -4.1% -2.8% 1.7% 3.2% 5.2% 5.4% 6.4% 12.4% 5.2% 2.8% 3.1% Y/Y: 2.8%CMA1,114 1,168 1,184 1,200 1,234 1,3021,424 1,518 1,562 1,502 1,466 1,475 1,519 1,585 1,667 1,773 1,8701,895 1,957Gr/Yr4.8% 1.4% 1.4% 2.9% 5.5% 9.3% 6.7% 2.9% -3.8% -2.4% 0.7% 2.9% 4.3% 5.2% 6.4% 12.2% 4.9% 2.8% 3.2% Y/Y: 3.3%Orange County 1,104 1,168 1,190 1,2071,241 1,309 1,399 1,484 1,520 1,457 1,430 1,451 1,502 1,569 1,651 1,751 1,8441,865 1,923Gr/Yr5.8% 1.9% 1.4% 2.8% 5.5% 6.9% 6.1% 2.4% -4.1% -1.9% 1.5% 3.5% 4.5% 5.2% 6.1% 11.7% 4.9% 2.8% 3.1% Y/Y: 3.1%Asking Rent (PSF)Santa Ana $1.20 $1.27 $1.29 $1.31 $1.34 $1.40$1.50 $1.58 $1.61 $1.54 $1.50 $1.53 $1.57 $1.64 $1.74 $1.84 $1.945.0% 2.6% 2.9% $1.97 $2.03CMA $1.28 $1.34 $1.36 $1.37 $1.41$1.49 $1.62 $1.71 $1.76 $1.69 $1.65 $1.66 $1.70 $1.78 $1.87 $1.98 $2.09 4.8% 2.6% 3.0% $2.12 $2.19Orange County $1.29 $1.36 $1.39 $1.41 $1.45$1.53 $1.63 $1.73 $1.76 $1.69 $1.66 $1.68 $1.74 $1.81 $1.90 $2.01 $2.12 4.7% 2.7% 3.0% $2.14 $2.21OccupancySanta Ana97% 97% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 95% 94% 95% 95% 95% 96% 95% 96% 96% 96% 95% 96% 96% 97%CMA97% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 95% 95% 94% 93% 94% 95% 95% 96% 95% 96% 96% 95% 95% 95% 96% 96%Orange County97% 96% 95% 95% 95% 95% 96% 95% 94% 93% 94% 94% 94% 95% 95% 95% 96% 95% 95% 95% 96% 95%Source: Jobs - BLS; Apartment - CoStar (for all market rate projects of 10-units or more)-8%-4%0%4%8%12%16%2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 3Q17Rent Growth (bar) and Job Growth (line)Orange County (left axis)CMASanta AnaOrange County Job GrowthThe CMA has seen strong rent growth in recent years as the economy strengthens. In 2016 rental rates in the CMA increased by over 12% ($97). Additionally, 2016 nominal and per square foot rents exceed prior 2008 peak's rents.17590.00 Macro: RentThe Concord Group11/12/17122-336 EXHIBIT I-5CMACRO MARKET METRICS - RENT VS. OWNORANGE COUNTY1996 THROUGH 2016AnnualAnnualAveragePeriod: 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 10-Yr 15-YrAsking RentCMA na na na na $1,114 $1,168 $1,184 $1,200 $1,234 $1,302 $1,424 $1,518 $1,562 $1,502 $1,466 $1,475 $1,519 $1,585 $1,667 $1,773 $1,870Gr./Yr. --- --- --- --- --- 4.8% 1.4% 1.4% 2.9% 5.5% 9.3% 6.7% 2.9% -3.8% -2.4% 0.7% 2.9% 4.3% 5.2% 6.4% 5.4% 2.8% 3.2%Median Resale Price ($000s)CMA $172 $180 $204 $216 $234 $265 $321 $382 $460 $537 $587 $596 $398 $346 $393 $380 $402 $485 $541 $557 $583Gr./Yr. --- 5% 13% 6% 9% 13% 21% 19% 20% 17% 9% 1% -33% -13% 14% -3% 6% 21% 11% 3% 5% -0.1% 5.4%Mortgage Payment + Property Tax% Down20%20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%i-Rate 7.8% 7.6% 6.9% 7.4% 8.1% 7.0% 6.5% 5.8% 5.8% 5.9% 6.4% 6.3% 6.0% 5.0% 4.7% 4.5% 3.7% 4.0% 4.2% 3.8% 3.6%Property Tax1.1%1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1%Monthly Payment $1,147 $1,182 $1,267 $1,397 $1,597 $1,651 $1,923 $2,150 $2,590 $3,032 $3,481 $3,508 $2,283 $1,810 $1,991 $1,879 $1,843 $2,295 $2,603 $2,598 $2,669Gr./Yr. --- 3% 7% 10% 14% 3% 17% 12% 20% 17% 15% 1% -35% -21% 10% -6% -2% 24% 13% 0% 3% -2.6% 3.3%Rent Premium / (Discount) -30% -29% -38% -44% -52% -57% -59% -57% -32% -17% -26% -21% -18% -31% -36% -32% -30% -30% -37%Source: Median Rent / Home Price - CoStar; 30-Year Fixed Rate - Freddie Mac$0$300$600$900$1,200$1,500$1,800$2,100$2,400$2,700$3,000-30%-20%-10%0%10%20%30%40%1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Rent and Housing PaymentRent Growth (left axis)Payment Growth (left axis)Rent (right axis)Housing Payment (right axis)It is currently more affordable to rent than it is to own property in the Market Area, with monthly rental costs close to 30% ($799) cheaper than an average monthly mortgage.17590.00 Macro: CostThe Concord Group11/12/17132-337 EXHIBIT I-6ADEMAND ESTIMATE - SCALEORANGE COUNTY2017 THROUGH 2022I. Demographics Based Demand (Appendix B1)II. Employment Based Demand (Appendix B2)Orange County Santa Ana CMAUnits DemandedRent % of % of Share of % of Share of5-YrRange Num. Bld. Dem. Num. Bld. Dem.Orange County Num. Bld. Dem. Orange County Geography2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 AverageUnder $1,200468 ---54 ------66 ------ Orange County8,561 4,514 2,871 629 1,7733,670$1,200 - $1,600201 5%39 13% 19%34 8%17% Santa Ana856 451 287 63 177367$1,600 - $2,300275 7%55 18% 20%66 15%24% Capture of Orange County10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%$2,300 - $2,500462 12%59 19% 13%45 10%10% CMA856 451 287 63 177367$2,500 - $3,1001,122 30%101 33%9%155 34%14% Capture of Orange County10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%$3,100 - $3,700500 13%40 13%8%53 12%11%$3,700 - $4,400577 15%29 9%5%56 12%10%$4,400 and Over 862 23%24 8%3%75 17%9%Total4,466 ---401 ---9%548 ---12%Buildable Demand 3,798 100%308 100%8%449 100%12%Average Rent Demanded: $2,994$3,344III. Historical Market ScaleSanta AnaCMAMetricOrange CountyNum.Capture of Orange CountyNum.Capture of Orange CountySourceHouseholdsExhibit I-3Total - 20171,059,778 77,4367% 112,71011%Annual Growth - '17-'227,3242644%6649%Renters (% Rent x Growth)3,0101395%34311%Renters w/ Incomes >$50K234,291 17,0897% 28,84512%Apartment CompletionsExhibit I-520162,8652649%94233%20153,26300%00%20143,4233009% 1,03630%5-Yr3,1931134%44414%10-Yr3,099913%60920%15-Yr2,741783%44216%IV. TCG Concluded Demand (considers I, II, III above)Santa AnaCMAGeography:Orange CountyNum.Capture of Orange CountyNum.Capture of Orange CountyTCG Demand3,7502637%48813%8%15%10%34%12%12%17%13%18%19%33%13%9%8%5%7%12%30%13%15%23%0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%$1,200-$1,600$1,600-$2,300$2,300-$2,500$2,500-$3,100$3,100-$3,700$3,700-$4,400$4,400-and OverShare of New Apartment Demand by Rent RangeOrange CountySanta AnaCMAConsidering demographics based demand, employment based demand, and historical market scale, TCG's concluded annualdemand for rental units is 488 units in the CMA annually.17590.00 Macro: Dem-SclThe Concord Group11/12/17142-338 EXHIBIT I-6BDEMAND ESTIMATE - SEGMENTATION / RENTER PROFILEORANGE COUNTY2017Households U.S. Profile CMAOrange County Santa Ana CMA Range % Renter HHs Preference DemandRenters Num. Share Num. Share Num. Share Income Age Rent Family Total Share Demand S/1B 2B 3B S/1B 2B 3Bof Inc.Young Singles / CouplesQualHome Sweet Home 157 0% 0 0% 0 0% 60%-80% 25-44 21% w/o Kids 0 0% 060% 40% 0%000Young & Influential 13,977 1% 57 0% 1,355 1% 40%-60% 25-44 100% Mostly w/o Kids 1,355 66% 32060% 40% 0%192 128 0New Beginnings 1,877 0% 15 0% 144 0% 0%-20% <55 92% Mostly w/o Kids 133 6% 3160% 40% 0%19 13 0Subtotal: 16,011 2% 72 0% 1,499 1% 1,488 72% 352 60% 40% 0% 211 141 0FamiliesKids & Cul-de-Sacs5,829 1%34 0%764 1% 80%-100% 25-44 24% Family Mix182 9% 4310% 60% 30%42613Beltway Boomers4,740 0%34 0%377 0% 60%-80% <55 22% Family Mix83 4% 2010% 60% 30%212 6Pools & Patios272 0%0 0%17 0% 60%-80% 25-44 24% Mostly w/ Kids4 0% 110% 60% 30%010Second City Startups1,580 0%0 0%21 0% 40%-60% 25-44 37% Mostly w/ Kids8 0% 210% 60% 30%011Subtotal:12,421 1%68 0% 1,179 1%277 13% 66 10% 60% 30% 7 39 20Mature Professionals / Empty NestersCruisin' to Retirement 17,150 2% 428 1% 1,701 2% 80%-100% 55+ 9% Mostly w/o Kids148 7% 3530% 60% 10%10 21 3Traditional Times60 0%0 0%0 0% 60%-80% 65+ 5% w/o Kids0 0% 050% 50% 0%000Empty Nests10,736 1% 105 0%514 0% 40%-60% 65+ 8% w/o Kids40 2% 950% 50% 0%550Toolbelt Traditionalists 5,396 1%26 0%494 0% 40%-60% 45-64 22% Mostly w/o Kids109 5% 2650% 50% 0%13 13 0Subtotal:33,342 3% 559 1% 2,709 2%297 14% 70 40% 55% 5% 28 39 3Total:1,059,77877,436112,710Targeted:61,774 6% 699 1% 5,387 5%2,062 100%48850% 45% 5% 246 219 23Source: TCG, based on Spotlight demographic data applied to demand model in Exhibit I-6A0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%CMA Santa Ana Orange CountyIncome Qualified Demand Segmentation by Renter TypeEmpty NestsTraditional TimesCruisin' to RetirementToolbelt TraditionalistsPools & PatiosSecond City StartupsBeltway BoomersKids & Cul-de-SacsNew BeginningsYoung & InfluentialHome Sweet Home50%45%50%45%49%45%5%6%5%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%CMA Santa Ana Orange CountyIncome Qualified Demand Segmentation by Unit ConfigurationStudio/1-Bed2-Bed3-BedTaking into account the most prevalent PRIZM householdscategories and their projected unit type preference, theCompetitive Market Area has annual demand for 227 studios/1-bedrooms, 202 2-bedrooms, and 21 3-bedrooms.72% (352) Young Singles/Couples, 13% (66) Families, and 14% (70)Mature Professionals/Empty Nesters make up rental demand withdifferent preferences cumulating to an overall market demand of 50%Studios/one-beds, 45% two-beds, and 5% 3 bedrooms.17590.00 Macro: Dem-SegThe Concord Group11/12/17152-339 EXHIBIT I-7ADEVELOPMENT PIPELINE - LOCATIONCOMPETITIVE MARKET AREANOVEMBER 2017Mkt.Map RateKey Project Name Units1Prisma 1822Eleven10 West 2603Metropolis II 33442851 Alton Pky 1705The Westerly 38862525 Main St 27271666 N Main St 4882055 Main St 1789Santa Ana 60110The Heritage Village 1,22111515 N Sycamore St 401227 Hundred 24713Legado at The Met 27814Chapman 27715City Plaza 33116999 Town And Country Rd26217The Pistoia 371Source: Exhibit I-7BColor = StatusYellow = U/CPurple = Proposed17590.00 Macro: Pipe-LThe Concord Group11/12/17162-340 EXHIBIT I-7BDEVELOPMENT PIPELINE - DETAILCOMPETITIVE MARKET AREANOVEMBER 2017Est.MapMkt. Units % Delivery Projection of Market Rate UnitsKeyProject Name DeveloperStreet AddressElev. Status EntryTotal Mkt. Likely2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 '17-'211PrismaWood Partners301 Jeanette Ln4 U/C 2017 182 182 100% 1821822Eleven10 West The Picerne Group, Inc1110 W Town and Country Rd 5 U/C 2018 260 260 100%2602603Metropolis II Garden Communities Of California 2100 Sullivan4 U/C 2019 334 334 100%33433442851 Alton Pky PLC Apartments, LLC2851 Alton Pky4 U/C 2019 170 170 100%1701705The Westerly StreetLights Residential2772 Main St5 U/C 2019 388 388 100%38838862525 Main St ---2525 Main St5 U/C 2019 272 272 100%27227271666 N Main St ---1666 N Main St5 Proposed 2018 48 48 80%383882055 Main St LBA Realty2055 Main St5 Proposed 2019 178 178 80%1421429Santa AnaWermers Properties1660 E First St7 Proposed 2019 601 601 25%15015010The Heritage Village Alliance Residential Company 2001 E Dyer Rd7 Proposed 2019 1,221 1,221 50%150461 61111515 N Sycamore St ---515 N Sycamore St6 Proposed 2020 40 40 80%32321227 HundredRecupero & Associates2700 N Main St7 Proposed 2020 247 247 80%19819813Legado at The Met Legado Companies200 E First American Way5 Proposed 2020 278 278 25%707014ChapmanGreenlaw Partners3800 Chapman Ave5 Proposed 2020 277 277 80%22222215City PlazaGreenlaw Partners1 City Blvd W5 Proposed 2021 331 331 50%166 16616999 Town And Country RdWestcore Properties999 Town And Country Rd5 Proposed 2021 262 262 50%131 13117The PistoiaGreat Far East2581 Kelvin Ave5 Proposed 2021 371 371 50%186 186Total: 5,460 5,460 65% 182 298 1,607 521 943 3,550Color = StatusYellow = U/CPurple = Proposed17590.00 Macro: Pipe-DThe Concord Group11/12/17172-341 EXHIBIT I-8SUPPLY VS. DEMANDCOMPETITIVE MARKET AREA2017 THROUGH 2021ProjectionAnnual 5-YrYear: 3Q17 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Source: Apartment InventoryStart of Period 37,244 37,426 37,724 39,331 39,852Subject Site Units522522Planned Supply 182 298 1,607 521 943 3,550 Exhibit I-7ATotal Additions 182 298 1,607 521 1,465 4,072End of Period 37,244 37,426 37,724 39,331 39,852 41,316Exhibit I-5AOccupancyStart of PeriodOccupied Units35,754 35,876 36,364 36,851 37,339Additional Demand122488 488 488 4882,072 Exhibit I-6AEnd of PeriodOccupied Units35,754 35,876 36,364 36,851 37,339 37,826Occupancy Rate96.0% 95.9% 96.4%93.7% 93.7% 91.6%Exhibit I-5BOver / Under Supply EvaluationStabilized Occupancy95%95% 95% 95% 95% 95%Stabilized Occupied Units35,382 35,555 35,838 37,364 37,859 39,250(Under) / Over Supply(372)(321) (525)513 521 1,42491%92%93%94%95%96%97%98%99%(2,000)(1,500)(1,000)(500)05001,0001,5002,0003Q17 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021(Under) / Over Supply(Under) / OverSupply - BarOccupancy - Line(Right Axis)Considering large planned product and the concludedapartment demand, the Competitive Market Area willtake a short term dip in occupancy, with a projected lowof 92% in 2021.17590.00 Macro: SDThe Concord Group11/12/17182-342 II. COMPETITIVE SET 11/12/17192-343 EXHIBIT II-1AINVENTORY - LOCATIONCOMPETITIVE MARKET AREANOVEMBER 2017Map YearKey Project Name BuiltCMAAThe Marke 2014BTustin Cottages 2011CMetropolis 2017DResidences on Jamboree 2017ENineteen01 2016FFusion 2017GThe Alton 2016HThe Kelvin Apartments 2014IAMLI Uptown Orange 2016JAmalfi 2014Platinum TriangleKJefferson Platinum Triangle2017Subject SiteColor = LocationYellow = IrvineRed = Remaining CMAGrey = Platinum Triangle17590.00 RecComps: LocThe Concord Group11/12/17202-344 EXHIBIT II-1BRENT POSITIONINGCOMPETITIVE MARKET AREANOVEMBER 2017Project Averages (Size and List Rent)Unit MixOverallOne-Bedrooms Two-Bedrooms Three-BedroomsMapYear(by Bed Count) Unit Base Rent Unit Base Rent Unit Base Rent Unit Base RentKey Project NameCity Elev. Units Built Elev. Occ. 0 1 2 3 Size $ $/sf Size $ $/sf Size $ $/sf Size $ $/sfCompetitive Market AreaAThe MarkeSanta Ana 5 300 2014 5 95% 0% 32% 35% 33% 1,101 $2,918 $2.65 764 $2,205 $2.89 1,133$2,794 $2.47 1,387 $3,724 $2.68BTustin CottagesTustin 4 93 2011 4 98% 0% 0% 0% 100% 1,647 $2,855 $1.73 --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,647 $2,855 $1.73CMetropolisIrvine4 232 2017 4 97% 13% 53% 21% 14% 1,073 $2,772$2.58 905 $2,506 $2.77 1,292 $3,006 $2.33 1,653 $3,855 $2.33DResidences on Jamboree Irvine5 381 2017 5 96% 19% 42% 33% 6%911 $2,593 $2.85 750 $2,327 $3.10 1,151 $2,922 $2.54 1,444 $3,776 $2.62ENineteen01Santa Ana 5 264 2016 5 95% 0% 46% 50% 4% 1,049 $2,553 $2.43 833 $2,144 $2.57 1,187$2,818 $2.37 1,799 $3,940 $2.19FFusionIrvine5 208 2017 5 100% 30% 30% 40% 0% 922 $2,526$2.74 757 $2,284 $3.02 1,145 $2,945 $2.57 --- --- ---GThe AltonIrvine5 344 2016 5 96% 5% 60% 35% 0% 792 $2,450 $3.09 668 $2,212 $3.31 1,041 $2,913 $2.80 --- --- ---HThe Kelvin Apartments Irvine5 194 2014 5 99% 0% 71% 29%0% 900 $2,407 $2.67 788 $2,197 $2.79 1,168 $2,911 $2.49 --- --- ---IAMLI Uptown Orange Orange 5 334 2016 5 95% 5% 49% 43% 4%916 $2,381 $2.60 771 $2,109 $2.73 1,079 $2,651 $2.46 1,413 $3,454 $2.44JAmalfiTustin 3 542 2014 3 99% 6% 75% 18% 0% 797 $2,252 $2.83 747 $2,194 $2.94 1,072 $2,586 $2.41 --- --- ---CMA Total:2,892 201597% 8% 51% 32% 9% 945 $2,523 $2.67764 $2,228 $2.91 1,128 $2,818 $2.50 1,530 $3,442 $2.25Platinum TriangleKJefferson Platinum TriangleAnaheim 5 200 2017 5 74% 14% 25% 51% 11% 986 $2,691 $2.73772 $2,241 $2.90 1,114 $2,869 $2.57 1,366 $3,567 $2.61CMA Total:200 201774% 14% 25% 51% 11% 986 $2,691 $2.73772 $2,241 $2.90 1,114 $2,869 $2.57 1,366 $3,567 $2.61Source: Appendix AColor = LocationYellow = IrvineRed = Remaining CMAGrey = Platinum Triangle17590.00 RecComps: PosThe Concord Group11/12/17212-345 EXHIBIT II-1CINVENTORY - VACANCY BY UNIT TYPECOMPETITIVE MARKET AREANOVEMBER 2017Units VacancyYear BaseUnit SizesUnit CountUnit MixVacancy RateProject NameBuilt Rent Total 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3Vacancy (1)0123The Marke 2014 $2,918 300 --- 764 1,133 1,387 0 95 105 100 0% 32% 35% 33% 5.0% --- 4% 9% 2%Tustin Cottages 2011 $2,855 93 --- --- ---1,647 0 0 0 93 0% 0% 0% 100% 2.2% --- --- --- 2%Metropolis 2017 $2,772 232 784 905 1,292 1,653 29 123 48 32 13% 53% 21% 14% 3.4% 0% 0% 17% 0%Residences on Jamboree 2017 $2,593 381 675 750 1,151 1,444 71 160 127 23 19% 42% 33% 6% 3.7% 1% 3% 6% 0%Nineteen01 2016 $2,553 264 --- 833 1,187 1,799 0 122 131 11 0% 46% 50% 4% 5.3% --- 6% 5% 0%Fusion 2017 $2,526 208 791 757 1,145 --- 63 62 83 0 30% 30% 40% 0% 0.0% 0% 0% 0% ---The Alton 2016 $2,450 344 516 668 1,041 --- 16 207 121 0 5% 60% 35% 0% 4.4% 6% 4% 4% ---The Kelvin Apartments 2014 $2,407 194 --- 788 1,168 --- 0 137 57 0 0% 71% 29% 0% 0.5% --- 0% 2% ---AMLI Uptown Orange 2016 $2,381 334 570 771 1,079 1,413 16 164 142 12 5% 49% 43% 4% 5.1% 0% 6% 1% 42%Amalfi 2014 $2,252 542 584 747 1,072 --- 33 409 100 0 6% 75% 18% 0% 1.3% 0% 0% 5% ---Jefferson Platinum Triangle 2017 $2,691 200 600 7721,114 1,366 27 50 102 21 14% 25% 51% 11% 26.5% 4% 24% 31% 38%Total/Average:2016 $2,534 3,092 680 765 1,126 969 255 1529 1016 292 8% 49% 33% 9% 4.7% 1% 3% 8% 6%(1) Represents availability of units as per leasing agents and community websites and excludes projects in lease-upSource: Appendix A0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%7.0%8.0%Studio 1-Bed 2-Bed 3-BedVacancy (bar, left axis)Mix of Inventory (circle, right axis)Color = LocationYellow = IrvineRed = Remaining CMAGrey = Platinum Triangle17590.00 RecComps: VacThe Concord Group11/12/17222-346 EXHIBIT II-1DINVENTORY - FLOOR PLAN MIX - DETAILCOMPETITIVE MARKET AREANOVEMBER 2017Units by Rent Range (Base)Bed Under $2,000 $2,050 $2,100 $2,150 $2,200 $2,250 $2,300 $2,350 $2,400 $2,450 $2,500 $2,550 $2,600 $2,650 $2,700 $2,750 $2,800 $2,850 $2,900 TotalCount $2,000 $2,050 $2,100 $2,150 $2,200 $2,250 $2,300 $2,350 $2,400 $2,450 $2,500 $2,550 $2,600 $2,650 $2,700 $2,750 $2,800 $2,850 $2,900 Plus Num.Share0 611011020736800120000000000 2558%Share 24% 4% 4% 0% 8% 29% 27% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%1 89 116 85 266 113 245 175 111 193 21 18 34 3 20 24 1 4 0 0 11 1,529 49%Share 6% 8% 6% 17% 7% 16% 11% 7% 13% 1% 1% 2% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 17 8 91 77 54 57 138 59 98 153 260 1,016 33%Share 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%2%1%9%8%5%6%14%6%10%15%26%3 00000000000000000730219 2929%Share 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%25%0%75%Total 150 126 96 266 133 318 243 111 197 50 26 125 80 74 81 139 63 171 153 490 3,092 100%Cumulative 5% 9% 12% 21% 25% 35% 43% 47% 53% 55% 55% 60% 62% 65% 67% 72% 74% 79% 84% 100%Units by Floor Plan Size RangeBed Under 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500 TotalCount 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500 Plus Num. Share0 8509017051120000000000000 2558%Share 33% 0% 35% 7% 0% 20% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%1 33 176 165 350 252 287 144 42 53 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,529 49%Share 2% 12% 11% 23% 16% 19% 9% 3% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 126 200 323 66 95 48 2 7 13 7 15 1,016 33%Share 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 12% 20% 32% 6% 9% 5% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%3 00000000000000056163049141 2929%Share 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%19%5%10%17%48%Total 118 176 255 367 252 338 156 42 167 153 200 323 66 95 48 58 23 43 56 156 3,092 100%Cumulative 4% 10% 18% 30% 38% 49% 54% 55% 61% 65% 72% 82% 85% 88% 89% 91% 92% 93% 95% 100%Source: Appendix A050100150200250300350400450$2,000-$2,050 $2,100-$2,150 $2,200-$2,250 $2,300-$2,350 $2,400-$2,450 $2,500-$2,550 $2,600-$2,650 $2,700-$2,750 $2,800-$2,850 $2,900-PlusUnit Count by Rent Range (Base)Studio1 Bed2 Bed3+ BedThe majority of units in the cma range from 700-1,150 SF and $2,200-$2,800.17590.00 RecComps: MixThe Concord Group11/12/17232-347 EXHIBIT II-1EINVENTORY - AMENITIESCOMPETITIVE MARKET AREANOVEMBER 2017Project:Metropolis The Kelvin Apartments AMLI Uptown Orange Amalfi The MarkeCommunity SummaryCity Irvine Irvine Orange Tustin Santa AnaAddress 2100 Sullivan 2850 Kelvin Ave 385 S Manchester Ave 16000 Legacy Road 100 E MacArthur BlvdYear Built 2017 2014 2016 2014 2014Elevation 4 3s 5 3 5Units 232 194 334 542 300Average Rent ($) $2,772 $2,407 $2,381 $2,252 $2,918Average Rent ($/sf) $2.58 $2.67 $2.60 $2.83 $2.65% 1-Beds 53% 71% 49% 75% 32%% 2-Beds 21% 29% 43% 18% 35%Community AmenitiesFitness Center Yes Yes - 24/hr Yes Yes YesBusiness Center Yes No Yes Yes YesConference Room Yes No Yes No YesOutdoor Common Area Yes Yes Yes Yes YesOutdoor Kitchen/BBQ Yes w/ Chess Clubhouse Yes Yes YesEntertainment Room TV Lounge, Game Lounge & Tech Lounge Shuffleboard & Pool Table Tech Lounge Fireplace courtyardCard tables, Shuffleboard, Table Tennis, etc.PoolSaltwater Resort with small SpaResortSaltwater Resort with small SpaResortSaltwater Resort with small SpaOther AreasBowling AlleyDog RunPet SpaDog park & washOutdoor TheaterPet Spa StationBike repair rooCommon green parkBike StorageLibraryJava bar with StarbucksBowling AlleyTot LotPet SpaInterior SpecKitchenApplianceSSSSSSSSSSCountersQuartzQuartzQuartzQuartzQuartzFloorWood Plank/TileWood Plank/TileWood Plank/TileWood Plank/TileWood Plank/TileCabinetsWoodWoodWoodWoodWoodWasher/Dryer In UnitSide-by-sideStackedStackedStackedStackedFlooring (common)Wood Plank/CarpetWood Plank/CarpetWood Plank/CarpetWood Plank/CarpetWood Plank/CarpetBalcony/PatioYesYesYesYesYesOtherParkingAssigned - UndergroundGarageGarageGarageGarageIncluded in RentYesYesYesYesYesExtra StorageNoYesNoYesYesPicture:The Subject Site will have amenities/interiorspecs on-par with those found at The KelvinApartments and AMLI Uptown Orange.17590.00 RecComps: AmenitiesThe Concord Group11/12/17242-348 III. SITE SPECIFIC ANALYSIS 11/12/17252-349 EXHIBIT III-1LOCAL SETTINGCOMPETITIVE MARKET AREANOVEMBER 2017Subject Site5 Freeway, Southernly taken towards Orange County Major employment areasColor = TypeBlue= RetailYellow= EducationGreen= Parks/RecreationOrange= Transportation/EmploymentMainplace Mall -Macy's, JCPenneySanta Ana CollegeTarget, Smart & Final Extra!CNI CollegeSt. Joseph Hospital OrangeUC Irvine Medical CenterOutlets at Orange -AMC, Dave & Buster'sHart ParkDowntown Santa Ana17590.00 Maps: LocalThe Concord Group11/12/17262-350 EXHIBIT III-2SITE PLANCOMPETITIVE MARKET AREANOVEMBER 2017The Subject Site will be proximate to retail found at MainPlace Mall to the North17590.00 Maps: SPThe Concord Group11/12/17272-351 EXHIBIT III-3PRODUCT RECOMMENDATIONS2525 MAIN STREET, SANTA ANANOVEMBER 2017Project•Located in the Orange County city of Santa Ana, an up-and-coming neighborhood with planned near term developmentDescription:•The area alongside I-5 and 55 moving south until the 405 highway make up the direct competitive area for the site labeled as Competitive Market Area ("CMA")•522-units in an eight story wrapped structure• Project slated to have top-of-market specifications (see lower right corner)Marketing•Strong Market Dynamics- Strong job growth in Orange County ("OC")(2.6% annually over last 5 years)Advantages:- Additionally, 2016 showed high occupancy and strong rent growth (96% and 12.2% respectively) in the CMA•Household Rent Growth-High historical household rent growth, with 1.7% annual CMA growth from 2000 to 2017 in the CMA•Proximity to retail and transit- Adjacent to 5 and 55 freeways, main connectors to regional employment cores- Close to downtown Santa Ana, with nightlife and employmentMarketing•Noise Pollution- Freeway adjacency will have some sound pollution that may be a slight marketing hurdleChallenges:•Future Developments- With large scale of project and projected deliveries, lease up will compete with new and similar location type product.Target• Key demographics for the Project are Young Singles and Couples with some Families and Mature Professionals / Empty NestersRenter- Young Singles and couples are the majority of new demand with 72% (352) of demandProfiles:- Families are projected to be 13% (66) of overall demand with mainly desiring 2 and 3 bedrooms- Mature Professionals / Empty Nesters equate to 14% (70) of projected demand with equal desire for 1 and 2 bedrooms• Based on TCG's detailed demand segmentation analysis, the CMA attracts households with the following housing needs: 50% 1Bs, 45% 2Bs, and 5% 3BsPositioning• Positioned at mid-of-market within the CMA due to location, proximity to retail, and vintageRationale &• Discount to newer large scale product found in the Irvine Buisiness Center ("IBC") due to closer proximity to larger employment coresKey Competition:RentTCG RecommendationsAmenity•Interior: Quartz countertops, full tile backsplashes, basicRecommendations: Bed/ Unit Mix Unit Base Recommendations:stainless still appliances, eco-plank / wood plank flooringBath Num. Perc. Size $ $/sfin-unit washer / dryer, squared-off mid-sized balconies,high-end light fixtures, wide windows0 / 1 73 14% 512 $1,800 $3.521 / 1 290 56% 726 $2,125 $2.93 •Community: Business center / work space, lounge area w/2 / 2 140 27% 1,063 $2,700 $2.54 coffee and TV, pet friendly, secured2 / 2 19 4% 1,311 $3,100 $2.36 self-service package delivery spaceTotal/Avg.: 522 100% 808 $2,269 $2.81Lease-Up• 20-30 units/monthProjection:17590.00 RecComps: RecsThe Concord Group11/12/17282-352 EXHIBIT III-4ARENT TO SIZE POSITIONING - OVERALLCOMPETITIVE MARKET AREANOVEMBER 2017Source: Appendix A$1,800$1,900$2,000$2,100$2,200$2,300$2,400$2,500$2,600$2,700$2,800$2,900$3,000$3,100$3,200$3,300$3,400$3,500400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500TCG Base RecsNineteen01 (2016)Tustin Cottages (2011)Residences on Jamboree (2017)The Alton (2016)The Kelvin Apartments (2014)Amalfi (2014)The Marke (2014)Fusion (2017)AMLI Uptown Orange (2016)Metropolis (2017)Jefferson Platinum Triangle (2017)Color = LocationYellow = IrvineRed = Remaining CMAGrey = Platinum Triangle17590.00 RecComps: RSThe Concord Group11/12/17292-353 EXHIBIT III-4BRENT TO SIZE POSITIONING - STUDIO/ONE-BEDROOMCOMPETITIVE MARKET AREANOVEMBER 2017Source: Appendix A$1,800$1,900$2,000$2,100$2,200$2,300$2,400$2,500450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900TCG Base RecsNineteen01 (2016)Residences on Jamboree (2017)The Alton (2016)The Kelvin Apartments (2014)Amalfi (2014)The Marke (2014)Fusion (2017)AMLI Uptown Orange (2016)Metropolis (2017)Jefferson Platinum Triangle (2017)Color = LocationYellow = IrvineRed = Remaining CMAGrey = Platinum Triangle17590.00 RecComps: RSThe Concord Group11/12/17302-354 EXHIBIT III-4CRENT TO SIZE POSITIONING - TWO-BEDROOMCOMPETITIVE MARKET AREANOVEMBER 2017Source: Appendix A$2,400$2,500$2,600$2,700$2,800$2,900$3,000$3,100$3,200$3,300$3,400$3,5009501,0001,0501,1001,1501,2001,2501,3001,350TCG Base RecsNineteen01 (2016)Residences on Jamboree (2017)The Alton (2016)The Kelvin Apartments (2014)Amalfi (2014)The Marke (2014)Fusion (2017)AMLI Uptown Orange (2016)Metropolis (2017)Jefferson Platinum Triangle (2017)Color = LocationYellow = IrvineRed = Remaining CMAGrey = Platinum Triangle17590.00 RecComps: RSThe Concord Group11/12/17312-355 IV. FISCAL IMPACT 11/12/17322-356 December 7, 2017 Via Electronic Mail John Shumway, Principal THE CONCORD GROUP 369 San Miguel Drive, Suite 265 Newport Beach, CA 92660 2525 N. MAIN STREET, SANTA ANA DEVELOPMENT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Dear Mr. Shumway: RSG, Inc. (“RSG”) was retained by The Concord Group (“TCG”) to perform a fiscal and economic impact analysis for the development of a proposed 5.9-acre multi-family unit project located at 2525 N. Main Street (“Project”) in the City of Santa Ana (“City”). TCG obtained this analysis on behalf of the property owner/developer, 2525 N. Main St LLC (“Developer”), who recently applied for redevelopment with the City’s Planning and Building Services Department. The Developer proposes to demolish the existing two-story vacant office building and construct several five-story type III-A residential apartment buildings (totaling 517 market-rate units) surrounding an 8-story type I-A parking structure with an amenity deck, pool, gym, meeting space, and other resident- serving uses (see Figure 1 on page 9). This letter describes our analysis, methodology, and anticipated recurring fiscal impacts resulting from development of the Project. As is typical at this stage, our conclusions could evolve as the application moves forward though the design and environmental review process. In brief, RSG anticipates the following fiscal outcomes over a 25-year forecast period, presented in both nominal and real value (2017$) discounted at a 4 percent discount rate: • Approximately $33.5 million ($19.0 million in 2017$) in additional City General Fund revenue, including construction period revenues, recurring site-specific tax, and other Project revenues. • Approximately $415,200 (2017$) in property tax revenue per year, as opposed to the current $32,300 (2017$). The site development would generate approximately $16.5 million ($9.4 million in 2017$) after 25 years. • Over the same 25-year period, the City General Fund expenditures associated with the Project total $10.0 million ($5.4 million in 2017$). • As a result, the net new General Fund revenue is projected to be approximately $23.5 million ($13.6 million in 2017$) from the acquisition and development of the Project. 11/12/17 332-357 The following table summarizes the estimated fiscal impacts attributed to the Project. Year-by year projections are included as an exhibit at the end of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project site is located at 2525 N. Main Street in Santa Ana, across from the Orange County Discovery Science Center at the northeast corner of Main Street and Edgewood Road. The P (Professional)-zoned site is approximately 5.9 acres and is currently developed as a single two- story office building and paved parking lot. The building has been vacant for several months, following the closure of the data center operated by Wells Fargo about a year ago. After many years of lower rents and oversupply, Orange County is beginning to see an increase in demand and rents for office space, with some first-tier areas (such as Irvine and Newport Beach) beginning to experience new construction of Class A properties. However, this has not yet occurred in central Orange County and Santa Ana, where rents are not sufficiently high to support the cost of construction. Shortly after acquiring the office building from the Trust that held it for many years, Wells Fargo listed the property for sale in early 2017. By August 2017, the Developer purchased the property for purposes of redevelopment into luxury apartments. The Developer is currently developing another (larger) apartment and commercial project on Dyer Road, just west of Red Hill Avenue in Santa Ana in the location of a former industrial building. Central Orange County has seen a recent growth of infill luxury and market rate apartment construction, particularly in areas where office and other commercial uses are no longer viable. In this case, the Project entails development of 517 units of apartments, an 8-story, 910-space parking structure, and an amenity deck comparable to what is found among many newer apartment complexes built in area. NET NEW RECURRING GENERAL FUND FISCAL IMPACTS 2525 N MAIN STREET, SANTA ANA Revenue Category Nominal NPV 4.0% Property Tax $ 16,461,099 $ 9,439,388 Property Tax In-Lieu 10,730,966 6,153,523 Utility User Tax 3,150,459 1,714,376 Residential Derived Sales Tax 2,554,468 1,390,058 Business Tax 625,203 340,215 Construction Business Tax - - Construction Sales Tax - - Total Revenues $ 33,522,196 $ 19,037,560 Less City Expenditures $ (10,008,990) $ (5,446,563) NET NEW REVENUE TOTAL $ 23,513,206 $ 13,590,997 25-Year Recurring Revenues Sources: City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, California State Board of Equalization, ESRI Business Analyst Online, and RSG, Inc. 11/12/17 342-358 As a part of the application for development with the City, the developer has been asked to provide a fiscal impact analysis of the proposed Project. The City’s fiscal concerns are reasonable given the slow recovery of the Santa Ana General Fund coming out of the Global Financial Crisis. FISCAL IMPACTS METHODOLOGY Property Tax Revenue RSG utilized the current City property tax share as reported by the County of Orange (“County”) Auditor Controller to estimate the City’s share of property tax that would result from development of the Project. The property tax revenues presented in this report are net of any current revenues received from the site (estimated at $32,300 in 2017-18). The net new assessed value as a result of the Project development is approximately $218 million (2017$). The estimated annual property tax revenue upon completion of construction is approximately $415,200 (2017$). RSG assumed 2 percent inflation on property tax revenues over the 25-year projection period, resulting in $16.5 million ($9.4 million in 2017$) in net new property tax revenues for the City General Fund. Please note: discounted projections throughout this report reflect the net present value, or NPV, at a 4 percent discount rate. Property Tax in-lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fee Revenue The City receives property tax in-lieu of motor vehicle license fee (“MVLF”) revenues, as calculated by the County Auditor-Controller. Property tax in-lieu is based on a growth rate in assessed value between 2004-05 and the current year. The City’s growth rate during this period is approximately 48.417 percent. The growth rate is then applied to the City’s MVLF 2004-05 base year value of $19.8 million. As a result of these calculations, the City’s 2017-18 property tax in- lieu is estimated as $29.4 million. The Project is expected to increase the City’s assessed value by approximately 1.06 percent, resulting in a like increase in net new property tax in lieu of MVLF revenues of approximately $312,700, or $10.7 million ($6.2 million in 2017$) over the 25-year projection period. PROPERTY TAX REVENUE 2525 N MAIN STREET, SANTA ANA Current Valuation 16,955,000$ Proposed Project 235,200,000 Net New Value 218,245,000$ City Property Tax Rate 0.190255615 Property Tax Revenues 415,223$ Source: County of Orange Auditor Controller, RSG, Inc. 11/12/17 352-359 Utility User Tax The City assesses a utility user tax of 5.5 percent on electricity, gas, water, and telephone revenues generated in the City. Utility costs were estimated by RSG based on a review of similar projects and utility costs in Orange County. Assumed annual utility expenditures subject to the City’s UUT consist of: Gas at $270 annually ($240 in 2017$), water at $480 annually ($540 in 2017$), electric at $1,351 annually ($1,200 in 2017$), and phone at $878 annually ($780 in 2017$). Based on these assumptions, RSG estimates that utility user tax revenues generated by the Project will be approximately $86,410 per year, or $3.2 million ($1.7 million in 2017$) over the 25- year projection period. Resident-Derived Sales Tax The additional residential households in the City are expected to result in increased sales for retailers and restaurants in the City. RSG obtained average annual household expenditures for households within a 15-minute driving radius of the Project from ESRI Business Analyst Online. By adjusting the household expenditures based on taxable and non-taxable sales, RSG estimates 2525 N MAIN STREET, SANTA ANA 2004-05 City Assessed Value 15,979,631,532$ 2013-14 City Assessed Value 23,716,558,812 Growth 48.417% Santa Ana 2004-05 VLF 19,819,113$ Santa Ana 2017-18 VLF 29,415,019 Project Assessed Value /1 252,143,679$ Increase in Assessed Value 1.06% Property Tax In-lieu Revenue 312,727$ /1 Inflated pursuant to the construction schedule PROPERTY TAX IN-LIEU OF MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE FEES Source: County of Orange Auditor Controller, RSG, Inc. UTILITY USER TAX REVENUE 2525 N MAIN STREET, SANTA ANA Energy Expenditures per Household 3,039$ Number of Households 517 Total Residential Energy Expenses 1,571,098$ City Tax Rate 6% City Tax Revenues 86,410$ Sources: City of Santa Ana Energy Information Administration, RSG, Inc. 11/12/17 362-360 that each household generates approximately $27,000 in taxable sales per year. RSG adjusted this figure to 50 percent as the Project is located in close proximity to several significant shopping centers, including MainPlace Mall, City Place Shopping Center, Centre on 17th Shopping Center, and Downtown Santa Ana, among others, which lie within the city of Santa Ana, although many other shopping destinations existing nearby in other cities (Orange, Tustin, Irvine, and Anaheim). The total residential derived sales tax revenues are approximately $70,000, or $2.6 million ($1.4 million in 2017$) over 25-years. Business Tax The City assesses a business tax on retail, restaurant, and multi-family management companies. Retail and restaurant business taxes are assessed based on annual sales while management company business taxes are assessed based on a base tax rate plus a rate and surcharge per unit. The Project will not involve a retail component, making the entire business tax revenue dependent on the management company business taxes. The combined business tax revenues are approximately $17,100, or $625,200 ($340,200 in 2017$) over 25 years. RESIDENT-DERIVED SALES TAX REVENUE 2525 N MAIN STREET, SANTA ANA Taxable Household Expenditures 27,104$ Number of Households 517 Estimated Transactions within City of Santa Ana 50% City Share of Sales Tax 1% Resident-Derived Sales Tax Revenues 70,064$ Source: California State Board of Equalization, RSG, Inc BUSINESS TAX REVENUES 2525 N MAIN STREET, SANTA ANA Multifamily Business Tax Basic Tax Rate 52$ Disability & Education Fee 4 Registration Fee 31 Per Unit Tax Rate 10 Per Unit Rental Surcharge 23 Number of Units 517 Multifamily Business Tax Revenues 17,148$ Sources: City of Santa Ana, RSG, Inc 11/12/17 372-361 CITY EXPENDITURES RSG utilized the additional population of the Project to estimate the total added expenditures by the City General Fund to service the Project. RSG assumed that each studio would house 1.20 residents, each one-bedroom unit would house 1.75 residents, each two-bedroom unit would house 3 residents, and each three-bedroom unit would house 4.25 residents. Overall, this works out to an average household size of approximately 2.16 residents per unit, which we consider supportable given the unit mix that is more heavily weighted towards one-bedroom configurations (Fig. 2). Figure 2 While Santa Ana as a whole has a much higher average household size, many of the denser residents live south of 17th Street. By comparison, within a 0.5-mile radius of this site, average household sizes are approximately 2.65 persons, which include both single family and multifamily housing, and an overall larger unit sizes with two or more bedrooms. Rent levels and bedroom sizes are often a driver of occupancy, as these units are expected to rent at the top end of the Santa Ana rental market, we anticipate renters to be more affluent and smaller households than what is found elsewhere in the City, and more like what exists in newer complexes being constructed today. RSG gathered data from the US Census and ESRI Business Analyst Online to estimate the equivalent full-time residents of the Project. Approximately 14 percent of Santa Ana residents work within the City, which, in effect means that the City of Santa Ana is servicing these Studio 12% 1 Bd. 59% 2 Bd. 21% 3 Bd. 8% Number of Units Per Type Source: RSG, Inc. Unit Type # of Units % Studio 62 12% 1 Bd.304 59% 2 Bd.108 21% 3 Bd.43 8% TOTAL 517 100% 11/12/17 382-362 resident/employees 100 percent of the time. Thirty-four percent of Santa Ana residents work outside the City. Assuming the residents that work outside of the City are outside the City limits from 9 am to 5 pm, Santa Ana is servicing these residents approximately 76 percent of the time. The City’s remaining residential population (about 52 percent), is serviced by the City 100 percent of the time. Based on the total retail square footage, 86 percent of the retail employees will live outside of Santa Ana and be serviced by the City during the retail hours of operation (24 percent of the day). Accounting for all residents and employees based on the percent of time spent in the City, the Project will generate a daily (24/7) population of 1,011 persons. RSG identified costs in the City of Santa Ana FY 2017-18 Adopted Budget that are variable costs by department, as opposed to fixed costs. Variable costs are expenditures by the City that increase or decrease based on the residential and employee population in the City. The City Manager and City Attorney offices, for example, are fixed costs that will not vary based on population. Meanwhile, Police and Parks and Recreation departments will experience service increases due to the added population. RSG estimated the added City expenditures as a result of the Project at approximately $239,200. Over a 25-year projection period, the Project will add $19.7 million ($5.5 million in 2017$) in City expenditures. SUMMARY OF RECURRING CITY EXPENDITURES 1 CITY OF SANTA ANA 2525 N MAIN STREET, SANTA ANA City Department Current City Expenditures2 Project-derived City Expenditures Total City Expenditures3 Percent Increase City Manager's Office 2,802,902$ -$ 2,802,902$ 0.00% Non-Departmental & Interfund Transfers 14,598,981 - 14,598,981 0.00% Clerk of the Council Office 1,094,794 64 1,094,858 0.01% City Attorney's Office 3,192,300 - 3,192,300 0.00% Personnel Services 1,706,001 251 1,706,252 0.01% Finance & Management Services 5,575,056 577 5,575,633 0.01% Bowers Museum Corporation 1,476,130 - 1,476,130 0.00% Parks, Recreation and Community Services 19,966,850 2,176 19,969,026 0.01% Police Department 115,871,367 163,848 116,035,215 0.14% Fire Services 50,417,145 72,247 50,489,392 0.14% Planning & Building Agency 10,106,101 69 10,106,170 0.00% Public Works Agency 6,847,195 - 6,847,195 0.00% Community Development Agency 547,116 - 547,116 0.00% Total in FY 2017-18 234,201,939$ 239,233$ 234,441,171$ 0.10% Total in 2021-22 (1st Year of Stabilization)274,525$ 3 Sum of current City expenditures and project-derived City expenditures. 2 Current expenditures are based on adopted expenditures in the City of Santa Ana's FY 2017-18 Budget. Sources: City of Santa Ana, RSG, Inc., US Census Bureau 1 For this analysis, RSG identified departmental costs in the City of Santa Ana FY 2017-18 Budget that are variable costs, as opposed to fixed costs. Variable costs are expenditures by the City that increase or decrease based on the residential and employee population in the City. For example, City Council and Human Resources salaries and wages generally are fixed costs that do not vary based on population. Meanwhile, the Fire Services and Parks & Community Services departments will likely experience service cost increases due to the added population. 11/12/17 392-363 25-YEAR NET NEW RECURRING FISCAL IMPACT PROJECTIONS 2525 N MAIN STREET, SANTA ANA Property Tax Property Tax In-Lieu Utility User Tax Residential Derived Sales Tax Business Tax Gross Revenue City Expenditures Net New Total CY1 2019 308,576$ 201,160$ -$ -$ -$ 509,737$ -$ 509,737$ CY2 2020 479,718 312,727 - - - 792,445 - 792,445$ 1 2021 489,312 318,982 86,410 70,064 17,148 981,916 (274,525) 707,390$ 2 2022 499,098 325,361 89,003 72,166 17,662 1,003,290 (282,761) 720,529$ 3 2023 509,080 331,869 91,673 74,331 18,192 1,025,144 (291,244) 733,900$ 4 2024 519,262 338,506 94,423 76,560 18,738 1,047,489 (299,981) 747,508$ 5 2025 529,647 345,276 97,256 78,857 19,300 1,070,336 (308,981) 761,355$ 6 2026 540,240 352,182 100,173 81,223 19,879 1,093,697 (318,250) 775,447$ 7 2027 551,045 359,225 103,179 83,660 20,476 1,117,584 (327,798) 789,786$ 8 2028 562,066 366,410 106,274 86,169 21,090 1,142,008 (337,631) 804,377$ 9 2029 573,307 373,738 109,462 88,755 21,723 1,166,984 (347,760) 819,223$ 10 2030 584,773 381,213 112,746 91,417 22,374 1,192,523 (358,193) 834,330$ 11 2031 596,468 388,837 116,128 94,160 23,045 1,218,639 (368,939) 849,700$ 12 2032 608,398 396,614 119,612 96,984 23,737 1,245,345 (380,007) 865,338$ 13 2033 620,566 404,546 123,201 99,894 24,449 1,272,655 (391,407) 881,248$ 14 2034 632,977 412,637 126,897 102,891 25,182 1,300,584 (403,150) 897,434$ 15 2035 645,637 420,890 130,703 105,978 25,938 1,329,145 (415,244) 913,901$ 16 2036 658,549 429,307 134,625 109,157 26,716 1,358,354 (427,701) 930,653$ 17 2037 671,720 437,893 138,663 112,432 27,518 1,388,226 (440,532) 947,694$ 18 2038 685,155 446,651 142,823 115,805 28,343 1,418,777 (453,748) 965,028$ 19 2039 698,858 455,584 147,108 119,279 29,193 1,450,022 (467,361) 982,661$ 20 2040 712,835 464,696 151,521 122,857 30,069 1,481,978 (481,382) 1,000,597$ 21 2041 727,092 473,990 156,067 126,543 30,971 1,514,662 (495,823) 1,018,839$ 22 2042 741,634 483,470 160,749 130,339 31,900 1,548,091 (510,698) 1,037,393$ 23 2043 756,466 493,139 165,571 134,249 32,857 1,582,283 (526,019) 1,056,264$ 24 2044 771,596 503,002 170,538 138,277 33,843 1,617,256 (541,799) 1,075,456$ 25 2045 787,027 513,062 175,655 142,425 34,858 1,653,027 (558,053) 1,094,974$ TOTAL 16,461,099$ 10,730,966$ 3,150,459$ 2,554,468$ 625,203$ 33,522,196$ (10,008,990)$ 23,513,206$ NPV 4.00% 9,439,388$ 6,153,523$ 1,714,376$ 1,390,058$ 340,215$ 19,037,560$ (5,446,563)$ 13,590,997$ Inflation Rate 2.0%2.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0% Year 11/12/17 402-364 Figure 1 – Site Plan Source: City of Santa Ana 11/12/17 412-365 APPENDIX 11/12/17422-366 APPENDIX A SURVEY - APARTMENTS COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA NOVEMBER 2017 Occ./ Project Name/ Year Floorplans Manager/Units/ Built/ Units Bed/ Unit Base Rent Address Elev. Reno. Mix Avail Bath Size $ $/sf Competitive Market Area Nineteen01 264 95% 3% 1 / 1.0 770 $2,125 $2.76 Lyon Living 5 2016 3% 2 1 / 1.0 773 $2,200 $2.85 1901 E 1st St 15% 4 1 / 1.0 774 $1,949 $2.52 Santa Ana 3% 1 / 1.0 795 $2,206 $2.77 6% 1 / 1.0 826 $2,151 $2.60 2% 1 / 1.0 848 $2,175 $2.56 2% 1 / 1.0 860 $2,125 $2.47 2% 1 / 1.0 864 $2,225 $2.58 2% 1 / 1.0 890 $2,213 $2.49 3% 1 1 / 1.0 948 $2,625 $2.77 3% 1 / 1.0 967 $2,300 $2.38 2% 1 / 1.0 974 $2,256 $2.32 0% 1 / 1.0 982 $2,558 $2.60 3% 2 / 1.0 982 $2,401 $2.45 0% 2 / 1.0 1,034 $2,450 $2.37 2% 1 2 / 1.0 1,058 $2,600 $2.46 0% 2 / 1.0 1,156 $3,050 $2.64 0% 2 / 1.0 1,180 $3,050 $2.58 7% 2 / 2.0 1,081 $2,700 $2.50 6% 2 / 2.0 1,085 $2,662 $2.45 4% 3 2 / 2.0 1,122 $2,700 $2.41 9% 2 2 / 2.0 1,138 $2,725 $2.39 5% 1 2 / 2.0 1,142 $2,700 $2.36 0% 2 / 2.0 1,193 $2,795 $2.34 2% 2 / 2.0 1,195 $2,725 $2.28 2% 2 / 2.0 1,260 $2,900 $2.30 2% 2 / 2.0 1,265 $2,950 $2.33 1% 2 / 2.0 1,315 $3,200 $2.43 0% 2 / 2.0 1,391 $3,307 $2.38 1% 2 / 2.0 1,476 $3,510 $2.38 2% 2 / 2.0 1,639 $3,600 $2.20 2% 2 / 2.0 1,712 $3,599 $2.10 2% 2 / 2.5 1,760 $3,800 $2.16 2% 3 / 2.0 1,510 $3,219 $2.13 0% 3 / 2.0 1,632 $3,471 $2.13 2% 3 / 2.5 2,020 $4,499 $2.23 Tustin Cottages 93 98% 68% 1 3 / 2.5 1,582 $2,830 $1.79 JB Matteson 4 2011 13% 1 3 / 2.5 1,691 $2,955 $1.75 1361 El Camino Real 11% 3 / 2.5 1,715 $2,802 $1.63 Tustin 1%3 / 2.5 1,767 $2,940 $1.66 8%3 /3.5 2,042 $2,966 $1.45 Residences on Jamboree 381 96% 1%0 / 1.0 653 $1,915 $2.93 UDR 5 2017 17% 1 0 / 1.0 677 $2,244 $3.31 2801 Kelvin Ave 10%1 / 1.0 694 $2,244 $3.23 Irvine 3%1 / 1.0 714 $2,352 $3.29 10% 3 1 / 1.0 745 $2,274 $3.05 8% 2 1 / 1.0 776 $2,399 $3.09 10%1 / 1.0 801 $2,399 $3.00 0%1 / 1.0 903 $2,570 $2.85 7% 3 2 / 2.0 1,093 $2,818 $2.58 3% 2 2 / 2.0 1,117 $2,893 $2.59 20%2 / 2.0 1,136 $2,893 $2.55 1%2 / 2.0 1,284 $3,297 $2.57 2% 3 2 / 2.0 1,432 $3,358 $2.34 4%3 / 2.0 1,426 $3,729 $2.62 1%3 / 2.0 1,432 $3,890 $2.72 1%3 / 2.0 1,503 $3,849 $2.56 17590.00 RecComps: Comps The Concord Group 11/12/17 432-367 APPENDIX A SURVEY - APARTMENTS COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA NOVEMBER 2017 Occ./ Project Name/ Year Floorplans Manager/Units/ Built/ Units Bed/ Unit Base Rent Address Elev. Reno. Mix Avail Bath Size $ $/sf The Alton 344 96% 0% 1 0 / 1.0 499 $1,874 $3.76 Equity Residential 5 2016 3% 0 0 / 1.0 502 $2,035 $4.05 2501 Alton Parkway 1% 0 1.0 547 $2,056 $3.76 Irvine 26% 3 1 1.0 638 $2,140 $3.35 3% 1 1.0 640 $2,327 $3.64 12% 3 1 1.0 648 $2,120 $3.27 1% 1 1.0 652 $2,174 $3.33 4% 1 1.0 680 $2,235 $3.29 1% 1 1.0 704 $2,299 $3.27 1% 1 1.0 731 $2,405 $3.29 5% 1 1 1.0 735 $2,355 $3.20 1% 1 1.0 740 $2,447 $3.31 5% 1 1 1.0 742 $2,455 $3.31 1% 1 1.0 762 $2,198 $2.88 0% 1 1.0 820 $2,723 $3.32 0% 1 1 1.0 868 $2,565 $2.96 3% 2 2.0 968 $2,785 $2.88 1% 2 2.0 970 $2,892 $2.98 5% 2 2.0 980 $3,006 $3.07 3% 2 2.0 992 $2,833 $2.86 6% 2 2.0 1,012 $2,841 $2.81 1% 2 2.0 1,045 $2,909 $2.78 1% 1 2 2.0 1,049 $3,015 $2.87 1% 2 2.0 1,050 $2,889 $2.75 1% 2 2.0 1,066 $2,835 $2.66 1% 2 2.0 1,085 $2,910 $2.68 0% 1 2 2.0 1,093 $3,010 $2.75 0% 2 2.0 1,101 $3,377 $3.07 6% 1 2 2.0 1,110 $2,890 $2.60 3% 2 2 2.0 1,132 $3,005 $2.65 0% 2 2.0 1,141 $3,271 $2.87 1% 2 2.0 1,144 $3,325 $2.91 1% 2 2.0 1,146 $2,970 $2.59 The Kelvin Apartments 194 99% 8% 1 / 1.0 602 $1,908 $3.17 Equity Residential 5 2014 4% 1 / 1.0 703 $2,285 $3.25 2850 Kelvin Ave 13% 1 / 1.0 728 $2,060 $2.83 Irvine 7% 1 / 1.0 752 $2,172 $2.89 8% 1 / 1.0 803 $2,140 $2.67 3% 1 / 1.0 811 $2,140 $2.64 11% 1 / 1.0 857 $2,380 $2.78 4% 1 / 1.0 883 $2,249 $2.55 7% 1 / 1.0 898 $2,405 $2.68 4%1 /1.0 942 $2,335 $2.48 1%1 1.0 961 $2,473 $2.57 2%2 2.0 1,010 $2,581 $2.56 6% 1 2 2.0 1,095 $2,710 $2.47 7%2 2.0 1,125 $2,733 $2.43 4%2 2.0 1,135 $2,870 $2.53 3%2 / 2.0 1,138 $2,996 $2.63 2%2 / 2.0 1,265 $3,356 $2.65 3%2 / 2.0 1,267 $3,146 $2.48 1%2 / 2.0 1,294 $3,207 $2.48 3%2 / 2.0 1,461 $3,480 $2.38 17590.00 RecComps: Comps The Concord Group 11/12/17 442-368 APPENDIX A SURVEY - APARTMENTS COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA NOVEMBER 2017 Occ./ Project Name/ Year Floorplans Manager/Units/ Built/ Units Bed/ Unit Base Rent Address Elev. Reno. Mix Avail Bath Size $ $/sf Amalfi 542 99% 6% 0 / 1.0 584 $1,955 $3.35 Irvine Company 3 2014 6% 1 / 1.0 552 $1,960 $3.55 16000 Legacy Road 6% 1 / 1.0 681 $2,030 $2.98 Tustin 7% 1 / 1.0 695 $2,020 $2.91 7% 1 / 1.0 698 $2,075 $2.97 7% 1 / 1.0 730 $2,320 $3.18 7% 1 / 1.0 741 $2,205 $2.98 6% 1 / 1.0 746 $2,220 $2.98 6% 1 1 / 1.0 751 $2,190 $2.92 5% 1 / 1.0 760 $2,265 $2.98 5% 1 / 1.0 800 $2,385 $2.98 5% 1 1 / 1.0 813 $2,310 $2.84 5% 1 / 1.0 906 $2,225 $2.46 5% 1 / 1.0 982 $2,505 $2.55 5% 2 / 2.0 963 $2,510 $2.61 5% 2 2 / 2.0 1,021 $2,525 $2.47 5% 2 2 / 2.0 1,095 $2,710 $2.47 5% 1 2 / 2.0 1,208 $2,600 $2.15 The Marke 300 95% 3% 1 / 1.0 713 $2,073 $2.91 Lyon Living 5 2014 3% 1 1 / 1.0 721 $2,073 $2.88 100 E MacArthur Blvd 3% 1 / 1.0 723 $2,108 $2.92 Santa Ana 3% 1 / 1.0 736 $2,290 $3.11 3% 1 / 1.0 748 $2,239 $2.99 3% 1 1 / 1.0 757 $2,143 $2.83 9% 1 1 / 1.0 804 $2,215 $2.75 1% 1 1 / 1.0 821 $2,510 $3.06 2% 1 / 1.0 876 $2,523 $2.88 4% 3 2 / 2.0 1,089 $2,599 $2.39 4% 1 2 / 2.0 1,094 $2,817 $2.57 4% 2 / 2.0 1,110 $2,745 $2.47 4% 1 2 / 2.0 1,113 $2,755 $2.48 4% 2 / 2.0 1,136 $2,665 $2.35 4% 2 / 2.0 1,137 $2,785 $2.45 4% 2 2 / 2.0 1,140 $2,863 $2.51 1% 2 2 / 2.0 1,181 $3,208 $2.72 5% 2 / 2.0 1,186 $2,900 $2.45 0% 2 / 2.0 1,229 $3,382 $2.75 0% 2 / 2.0 1,251 $3,075 $2.46 0% 2 / 2.0 1,284 $3,369 $2.62 16% 3 / 2.0 1,305 $3,494 $2.68 1% 1 3 / 2.0 1,374 $3,543 $2.58 0% 3 / 2.0 1,455 $3,925 $2.70 16% 1 3 / 2.0 1,470 $3,962 $2.70 Fusion 208 100% 3% 0 / 1.0 688 $1,995 $2.90 360 Residential 5 2017 3% 0 / 1.0 697 $2,065 $2.96 17321 Murphy Ave 25% 0 / 1.0 814 $2,255 $2.77 Irvine 2% 1 / 1.0 731 $2,200 $3.01 25% 1 / 1.0 755 $2,285 $3.03 3% 1 / 1.0 792 $2,345 $2.96 20% 2 / 2.0 1,041 $2,545 $2.44 20% 2 / 2.5 1,246 $3,335 $2.68 17590.00 RecComps: Comps The Concord Group 11/12/17 452-369 APPENDIX A SURVEY - APARTMENTS COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA NOVEMBER 2017 Occ./ Project Name/ Year Floorplans Manager/Units/ Built/ Units Bed/ Unit Base Rent Address Elev. Reno. Mix Avail Bath Size $ $/sf AMLI Uptown Orange 334 95% 5% 0 / 1.0 570 $1,971 $3.46 AMLI 5 2016 6% 2 1 / 1.0 626 $2,100 $3.35 385 S Manchester Ave 7% 1 / 1.0 711 $2,191 $3.08 Orange 0% 1 / 1.0 716 $2,226 $3.11 4% 1 1 / 1.0 745 $2,006 $2.69 1% 1 / 1.0 748 $2,204 $2.95 16% 3 1 / 1.0 802 $2,105 $2.62 1% 1 / 1.0 816 $2,195 $2.69 0% 1 1 / 1.0 823 $2,175 $2.64 10% 3 1 / 1.0 829 $2,036 $2.46 1% 1 / 1.0 837 $2,210 $2.64 0% 1 / 1.0 840 $2,231 $2.66 1% 1 / 1.0 857 $2,330 $2.72 0% 1 / 1.0 862 $2,130 $2.47 6% 2 / 2.0 978 $2,556 $2.61 1% 2 / 2.0 993 $2,631 $2.65 1% 2 / 2.0 1,002 $2,645 $2.64 3% 2 / 2.0 1,010 $2,596 $2.57 2% 2 / 2.0 1,047 $2,446 $2.34 1% 2 / 2.0 1,049 $2,391 $2.28 6% 2 / 2.0 1,050 $2,678 $2.55 1% 2 / 2.0 1,054 $2,606 $2.47 1% 2 / 2.0 1,063 $2,780 $2.62 2% 2 / 2.0 1,122 $2,705 $2.41 9% 2 / 2.0 1,131 $2,587 $2.29 1% 2 / 2.0 1,133 $2,845 $2.51 1% 2 / 2.0 1,142 $2,755 $2.41 1% 2 / 2.0 1,147 $2,980 $2.60 3% 2 / 2.0 1,175 $2,766 $2.35 1% 1 2 / 2.0 1,211 $2,880 $2.38 1% 1 2 / 2.0 1,236 $3,081 $2.49 2% 3 3 / 2.0 1,404 $3,480 $2.48 1% 2 3 / 2.0 1,431 $3,401 $2.38 Metropolis 232 97% 7% 0 / 1.0 720 $2,250 $3.13 Garden Communities 4 2017 5% 0 / 1.0 874 $2,415 $2.76 2100 Sullivan 5% 1 / 1.0 819 $2,275 $2.78 Irvine 5% 1 / 1.0 853 $2,275 $2.67 5% 1 / 1.0 861 $2,375 $2.76 5% 1 / 1.0 864 $2,675 $3.10 5% 1 / 1.0 871 $2,342 $2.69 5% 1 / 1.0 874 $2,350 $2.69 5% 1 / 1.0 889 $2,390 $2.69 5% 1 / 1.0 963 $2,635 $2.74 5% 1 / 1.0 1,010 $2,650 $2.62 5% 1 / 1.0 1,011 $3,050 $3.02 1% 1 / 1.0 1,027 $2,761 $2.69 1% 1 / 1.0 1,037 $2,788 $2.69 1% 1 2 / 2.0 1,198 $3,135 $2.62 1% 2 2 / 2.0 1,236 $2,815 $2.28 7% 2 2 / 2.0 1,238 $2,915 $2.35 6% 2 / 2.0 1,274 $2,971 $2.33 1% 1 2 / 2.0 1,350 $3,015 $2.23 1% 1 2 / 2.0 1,355 $3,125 $2.31 1% 2 / 2.0 1,397 $3,240 $2.32 1% 1 2 / 2.0 1,423 $3,015 $2.12 1% 2 / 2.0 1,445 $3,370 $2.33 1% 2 / 2.0 1,530 $3,375 $2.21 5% 3 / 2.0 1,535 $3,575 $2.33 1% 3 / 2.0 1,559 $3,575 $2.29 2% 3 / 2.0 1,726 $3,575 $2.07 6% 3 / 2.0 1,747 $4,215 $2.41 17590.00 RecComps: Comps The Concord Group 11/12/17 462-370 APPENDIX A SURVEY - APARTMENTS COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA NOVEMBER 2017 Occ./ Project Name/ Year Floorplans Manager/Units/ Built/ Units Bed/ Unit Base Rent Address Elev. Reno. Mix Avail Bath Size $ $/sf Platinum Triangle Jefferson Platinum Triangle 200 74% 10% 1 0 / 1.0 578 $2,160 $3.74 Alliance 5 2017 4% 0 / 1.0 663 $2,205 $3.33 1781 S Campton Ave 4% 3 1 / 1.0 724 $2,225 $3.07 Anaheim 4% 1 1 / 1.0 748 $2,115 $2.83 7% 6 1 / 1.0 750 $2,160 $2.88 4% 2 1 / 1.0 772 $2,280 $2.95 8% 1 1.0 825 $2,365 $2.87 4% 3 2 2.0 958 $2,645 $2.76 4% 3 2 2.0 995 $2,475 $2.49 4% 3 2 2.0 1,062 $2,615 $2.46 4% 3 2 2.0 1,071 $2,865 $2.68 4% 3 2 2.0 1,079 $2,840 $2.63 4% 3 2 2.0 1,081 $2,655 $2.46 4% 3 2 2.0 1,118 $2,780 $2.49 4% 2 2.0 1,128 $2,810 $2.49 4% 3 2 2.0 1,147 $2,885 $2.52 4% 1 2 2.0 1,156 $3,350 $2.90 4% 1 2 2.0 1,160 $3,070 $2.65 4% 2 2 2.0 1,181 $2,955 $2.50 4% 3 2 2.0 1,199 $2,905 $2.42 4% 1 2 2.0 1,275 $3,365 $2.64 4% 3 3 2.0 1,307 $3,420 $2.62 4% 3 3 2.0 1,393 $3,560 $2.56 4% 2 3 2.0 1,398 $3,720 $2.66 17590.00 RecComps: Comps The Concord Group 11/12/17 472-371 APPENDIX B1DEMAND MODEL - DEMOGRAPHIC BASEDORANGE COUNTY2017 THROUGH 2022Percent 2017 Households 2017-2022 Annual GrowthIncome Income to Affordable (2) % (4) T/O % Obs. (2) % New NewRange Rent (1) Rent Households Rent (3) Renters T/O Dem. Obs. Demand HHs Rent (3) Renters DemandOrange CountyUnder $35,00040%Under $1,200 225,972 64% 143,847 65% 93,501 0.5% 468 -1,158 69% 0468$35,000 - $50,00038%$1,200 - $1,600 109,552 56% 61,876 65% 40,219 0.5% 201 -130 61% 0201$50,000 - $75,00036%$1,600 - $2,300 165,912 49% 81,675 65% 53,089 0.5% 265 18 54% 10275$75,000 - $100,00030%$2,300 - $2,500 134,645 42% 56,302 65% 36,596 0.5% 183 596 47% 279462$100,000 - $150,00025%$2,500 - $3,100 189,892 31% 58,973 65% 38,332 0.5% 192 2,580 36% 9301,122$150,000 - $200,00022%$3,100 - $3,700 99,557 16% 15,901 65% 10,335 0.5% 52 2,138 21% 448500$200,000 - $250,00021%$3,700 - $4,400 46,272 16% 7,390 65% 4,804 0.5% 24 2,637 21% 553577$250,000 and Over20%$4,400 and Over 87,976 16% 14,051 65% 9,133 0.5% 46 3,894 21% 817862Total 1,059,778 42% 440,014 65% 286,009 1,430 10,574 29% 3,036 4,466Buildable Demand 833,806 36% 296,167 192,508 963 11,732 26% 3,036 3,999Santa AnaUnder $35,000 40% Under $1,200 23,003 73% 16,680 65% 10,842 0.5% 54 -61 78% 054$35,000 - $50,000 38% $1,200 - $1,600 11,995 66% 7,877 65% 5,120 0.5% 26 18 71% 1339$50,000 - $75,000 36% $1,600 - $2,300 15,624 52% 8,151 65% 5,298 0.5% 26 50 57% 2955$75,000 - $100,000 30% $2,300 - $2,500 10,361 43% 4,415 65% 2,870 0.5% 14 93 48% 4459$100,000 - $150,000 25% $2,500 - $3,100 10,268 30% 3,052 65% 1,984 0.5% 10 262 35% 91101$150,000 - $200,000 22% $3,100 - $3,700 3,594 24% 855 65% 556 0.5% 3 130 29% 3740$200,000 - $250,000 21% $3,700 - $4,400 1,210 24% 288 65% 187 0.5% 1 96 29% 2829$250,000 and Over 20% $4,400 and Over 1,381 24% 328 65% 213 0.5% 1 81 29% 2324Total 77,436 54% 41,646 65% 27,070 135 669 40% 265 401Buildable Demand 54,433 46% 24,966 16,228 81 730 36% 265 346Capture of County 7% 8% 8% 6% 9% 9%CMAUnder $35,000 40% Under $1,200 27,444 74% 20,274 65% 13,178 0.5% 66 -73 79% 066$35,000 - $50,000 38% $1,200 - $1,600 13,492 65% 8,745 65% 5,684 0.5% 28 8 70% 534$50,000 - $75,000 36% $1,600 - $2,300 19,023 58% 11,099 65% 7,214 0.5% 36 47 63% 3066$75,000 - $100,000 30% $2,300 - $2,500 15,231 46% 7,009 65% 4,556 0.5% 23 44 51% 2245$100,000 - $150,000 25% $2,500 - $3,100 18,346 38% 6,881 65% 4,473 0.5% 22 311 43% 132155$150,000 - $200,000 22% $3,100 - $3,700 8,637 20% 1,737 65% 1,129 0.5% 6 187 25% 4753$200,000 - $250,000 21% $3,700 - $4,400 3,776 20% 759 65% 494 0.5% 2 212 25% 5356$250,000 and Over 20% $4,400 and Over 6,761 20% 1,360 65% 884 0.5% 4 280 25% 7075Total 112,710 51% 57,863 65% 37,611 188 1,016 35% 360 548Buildable Demand 85,266 44% 37,590 24,433 122 1,089 33% 360 482Capture of County 10% 13% 13% 9% 12% 12%Sources:(1) TCG estimate, varies by income based on input from American Community FactFinder (US Census, 2015 5-Year Estimates)(2) Spotlight estimate - see Exhibit I-4A(3) American Community FactFinder (variable B25118), Exhibit I-4B; assumes new households entering market have a higher rentership rate (5 percentage points higher)(4) TCG estimate17590.00 Macro: Dem-DThe Concord Group11/12/17482-372 APPENDIX B2DEMAND MODEL - EMPLOYMENT BASEDORANGE COUNTY1995 THROUGH 2021ForecastAnnual5-YrValues in 000s 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Avg.StaticJobs (MMs)Orange County 1.16 1.19 1.24 1.31 1.35 1.39 1.42 1.41 1.43 1.46 1.50 1.53 1.53 1.49 1.39 1.37 1.39 1.42 1.46 1.50 1.54 1.58 1.62 1.64 1.65 1.66 1.67Apartments (000s)Orange County195 198 201 203 204 208 210 211 214 220 225 225 229 230 233 237 240Jobs / Apartment7.2 7.2 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.0 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6GrowthJob Growth (000s)Orange County 25 32 49 65 43 43 25 (10) 26 29 35 29 (3) (31) (106) (16) 16 37 39 34 48 35 40 21 13 3 8 17Cumulative ('00+) 43 67 58 84 113 148 177 174 143 37 20 37 74 112 146 194 229Apartment Deliveries (000s)Orange County1.3 5.1 0.7 2.5 1.6 3.5 1.9 0.8 4.1 8.8 1.2 0.1 3.4 3.0 3.4 3.3 2.9Cumulative ('00+)1.3 6.4 7.1 9.6 11.2 14.6 16.5 17.4 21.5 30.3 31.4 31.5 35.0 38.0 41.4 44.6 47.5Jobs/MF Delivery32.5 10.6 8.1 8.7 10.1 10.1 10.7 10.0 6.7 1.2 0.6 1.2 2.1 3.0 3.5 4.34.8Demand ProjectionScenario 1 (000s) - Employment Based Demand - Jobs/MF DeliveryProjection (5 Jobs per MF Delivery)8.0 4.2 2.7 0.6 1.7 3.4Santa Ana Capture10%10% 10% 10% 10%Santa Ana Demand0.80 0.42 0.27 0.06 0.17 0.34CMA Capture10%10% 10% 10% 10%CMA Demand0.80 0.42 0.27 0.06 0.17 0.34Scenario 2 (000s) - Employment Based Demand - Jobs to Housing RatioNew Jobs40 21 13 3 8 17Jobs / Household (2017)1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5Housing Units Demanded26.1 13.8 8.8 1.9 5.4 11.2% Renter41% 41% 41% 41% 41%Orange County Apartment Demand10.7 5.7 3.6 0.8 2.2 4.6% Income Qualify (Exhibit II-7A)85% 85% 85% 85% 85%Orange County Income Qual Demand 9.1 4.8 3.1 0.7 1.9 3.9Santa Ana Capture10% 10% 10% 10% 10%Santa Ana Demand0.91 0.48 0.31 0.07 0.19 0.39CMA Capture10% 10% 10% 10% 10%CMA Demand0.91 0.48 0.31 0.07 0.19 0.39Source: CoStar; Moody's010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,000050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,0002000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2017 2019 2021Cumulative Values - 2000+Job Growth - Cumulative (bar)Apartment Deliveries (Historical)Demand - Scenario 1Demand - Scenario 217590.00 Macro: DemEThe Concord Group11/12/17492-373 APPENDIX CPRIZM LIFESTYLE SEGMENTATIONUNITED STATES2017Prizm %Title/ % % w/ No Median Income Income Median Income Producing Age MedianCode Name Own Rent Family Kids HH Income Level Percentile Net Worth Assets (Median) Range Age Education Urbanicity LifestyleYoung Singles / Couples26 Home Sweet Home 79% 21% w/o Kids 100% $67,743 Upper Mid 60%-80% $38,900 $15,000 <55 39.2College Graduate College GraduateOwns a Kia; Eats at Jason's Deli; Shops at Cost Plus World Market; Follows PGA/LPGA; Cruises on Royal Caribbean; Visits PGATour.com; Listens to minor league baseball19 American Dreams 90% 10% Mostly w/o Kids 69% $67,122 Middle 40%-60% $169,400$35,625 25-44 40.4College Graduate College GraduateOwns a Lexus; Eats at The Cheesecake Factory; Shops at Nordstrom Rack; Follows European soccer; Flies JetBlue; Uses Yelp; Listens to Jazz34 Young & Influential 0% 100% Mostly w/o Kids 63% $60,410 Middle 40%-60%$2,350$10,000 25-44 32.8College Graduate College GraduateOwns a Mercury; Eats at Chick-fil-A; Shops at Express; Follows college baseball; Stays at Doubletree; Watches MTV2; Listens to Inspirational35 Urban Achievers 92% 8% Mostly w/o Kids 64% $55,240 Middle 40%-60% $108,000$24,025 25-44 38.4College Graduate College GraduateOwns a Hyundai; Eats at Cold Stone Creamery; Shops at Nordstrom; Follows pro boxing; Flies JetBlue; Watches Telemundo; Listens to Jazz31 Connected Bohemians 0% 100% Mostly w/o Kids 70% $52,071 Middle 40%-60%$4,500$11,600 25-44 32.3College Graduate College GraduateOwns a hybrid vehicle; Eats at Starbucks; Shops at Express; Goes skiing/snowboarding; Visits the Middle East; Uses Yelp; Listens to Alternative45 Urban Modern Mix 52% 48% Mostly w/o Kids 67% $29,158 Lower Mid 20%-40%$4,625$2,975 <55 35.8Some College Some CollegeOwns a Nissan; Eats at White Castle; Shops at Burlington; Follows pro boxing; Flies JetBlue; Watches Telemundo; Listens to Gospel50 Metro Grads 100% 0% Mostly w/o Kids 61% $25,914 Lower Mid 20%-40% $47,075 $3,600 <55 34.7College Graduate College GraduateOwns a GMC; Eats at Jack in the Box; Shops at Books-a-Million; Plays soccer; Stays at La Quinta; Watches Univision; Listens to Adult Contemporary63 Low-Rise Living0% 100% Mostly w/o Kids 72% $24,840 Lower Mid 20%-40%$850$1,950 <55 34.0Some College Some CollegeOwns a Mitsubishi; Eats at Starbucks; Shops at Banana Republic; Follows pro boxing; Flies JetBlue; Watches Telemundo; Listens to Jazz54 Struggling Singles 52% 48% Mostly w/o Kids 66% $22,077 Low 0%-20%$3,000$1,600 <55 34.0 High School High SchoolOwns a Chevrolet; Eats at Papa John's; Shops at Burlington; Follows NASCAR; Stays at Quality Inn; Watches MTV2; Listens to Urban Contemporary47 Striving Selfies6% 94% Mostly w/o Kids 71% $21,567 Low 0%-20%$700$1,900 <55 26.1Some College Some CollegeOwns a Chrysler; Eats at Taco Bell; Shops at Express; Plays tennis; Visits Asia; Watches MTV2; Listens to Urban Contemporary66 New Beginnings 8% 92% Mostly w/o Kids 61% $19,890 Low 0%-20% $600 $1,200 <55 31.0 High School High SchoolOwns a Volkswagen; Eats at Dunkin Donuts; Shops at Burlington; Follows Mexican league soccer; Stays at Ramada; Watches TV One; Listens to Urban Contemporary64 Family Thrifts11% 89% Mostly w/o Kids 66% $9,999 Low 0%-20%$300$300 <55 28.7 High School High SchoolOwns a Mercury; Eats at Long John Silvers; Shops at Burlington; Follows motocross; Stays at Motel 6; Watches Boomerang; Listens to Urban Contemporary68 Bedrock America 22% 78% Mostly w/o Kids 64% $9,999 Low 0%-20%$300$300 <55 30.6 High School High School Owns a Chrysler; Eats at Hardee's; Shops at Eddie Bauer; Follows motocross; Stays at Ramada; Watches MTV; Listens to RockFamilies2 Networked Neighbors 90% 10% Mostly w/ Kids 34% $213,995 Upper Mid 80%-100% $742,000 $498,250 35-54 37.1Graduate Plus Graduate PlusOwns an Acura; Eats at Chipotle; Shops at Banana Republic; Plays tennis; Flies United; Uses Yelp; Listens to Adult Contemporary4 Young Digerati 98% 2% Mostly w/ Kids 40% $128,498 Upper Mid 80%-100% $906,175 $569,400 35-54 38.3Graduate Plus Graduate PlusOwns a Mercedes; Eats at Chipotle; Shops at Banana Republic; Goes hiking/backpacking; Visits Asia; Uses Yelp; Listens to Alternative6 Winner's Circle 90% 10% Mostly w/ Kids 34% $127,255 Upper Mid 80%-100% $397,075 $257,500 35-54 37.2Graduate Plus Graduate PlusOwns a BMW; Eats at The Cheesecake Factory; Shops at Old Navy; Plays soccer; Flies United; Uses Yelp; Listens to Adult Contemporary5 Country Squires 91% 9% Family Mix 49% $114,087 Upper Mid 80%-100% $336,875 $204,000 <55 39.1Graduate Plus Graduate PlusOwns a Volkswagen; Eats at Dunkin Donuts; Shops at Pottery Barn; Plays golf; Stays at Spring Hill Suites; Uses Living Social; Listens to Album Rock22 Middleburg Managers 86% 14% Family Mix 49% $95,850 Upper Mid 80%-100% $372,250 $234,150 <55 38.0College Graduate College GraduateOwns a Subaru; Eats at Chipotle; Shops at Express; Plays softball/baseball; Stays at Hyatt; Visits MLB.com; Listens to Alternative11 Fast-Track Families 87% 13% Family Mix 41% $92,040 Upper Mid 80%-100% $151,750$73,600 35-54 40.8College Graduate College GraduateOwns a GMC; Eats at Qdoba; Shops at Books-a-Million; Goes skiing/snowboarding; Flies Frontier; Visits Pinterest; Listens to New Country14 Kids & Cul-de-Sacs 76% 24% Family Mix 53% $89,357 Upper Mid 80%-100% $45,000$20,000 25-44 37.8College Graduate College GraduateOwns an Acura; Eats at Jason's Deli; Shops at New York & Company; Plays tennis; Flies American; Watches DIY Network; Listens to Inspirational15 New Homesteaders 83% 17% Mostly w/ Kids 29% $88,565 Upper Mid 60%-80% $189,250 $135,750 25-44 35.4College Graduate College GraduateOwns a Subaru; Eats at Cold Stone Creamery; Shops at Justice; Goes hunting; Flies Frontier; Visits NHL.com; Listens to New Country43 City Roots 88% 12% Family Mix 56% $82,422 Upper Mid 60%-80% $361,550 $209,550 <55 38.4Graduate Plus Graduate PlusOwns a Cadillac; Eats at Jack in the Box; Shops at IKEA; Follows MLS; Visits Central/South America; Watches Telemundo; Listens to Jazz21 The Cosmopolitans 95% 5% Family Mix 59% $81,708 Upper Mid 60%-80% $169,750$47,900 25-44 38.2Graduate Plus Graduate PlusOwns a BMW; Eats at Starbucks; Shops at Crate & Barrel; Goes skiing/snowboarding; Stays at Sheraton; Uses Yelp; Listens to Alternative10 Executive Suites 100% 0% Mostly w/ Kids 38% $81,509 Upper Mid 60%-80% $274,125 $171,500 35-54 36.5College Graduate College GraduateOwns a Mazda; Eats at Starbucks; Shops at Express; Plays tennis; Stays at Radisson; Visits NHL.com; Listens to Adult Contemporary13 Upward Bound 55% 45% Family Mix 46% $80,066 Upper Mid 60%-80% $222,175 $173,350 25-44 37.3College Graduate College GraduateOwns a Mitsubishi; Eats at Qdoba; Shops at Express; Goes to yoga/pilates; Visits Asia; Uses Spotify; Listens to Adult Contemporary16 Beltway Boomers 78% 22% Family Mix 58% $78,114 Upper Mid 60%-80% $51,400 $17,800 <55 39.6College Graduate College GraduateOwns a Lexus; Eats at Chick-fil-A; Shops at Stein Mart; Follows motocross; Stays at Spring Hill Suites; Watches Fox Sports 1; Listens to Inspirational27 Big Sky Families 86% 14% Mostly w/ Kids 37% $77,527 Upper Mid 60%-80%$89,850$40,725 35-54 39.6College Graduate College GraduateOwns a Jeep; Eats at Dairy Queen; Shops at Books-a-Million; Goes hunting; Stays at Super 8; Watches CMT; Listens to New Country23 Township Travelers 100% 0% Family Mix 53% $74,552 Upper Mid 60%-80% $48,125 $10,000 <55 37.5College Graduate College GraduateOwns a GMC; Eats at Logan's Roadhouse; Shops at Books-a-Million; Follows college baseball; Stays at Spring Hill Suites; Visits Pinterest; Listens to SEC Football30 Pools & Patios76% 24% Mostly w/ Kids 8% $70,115 Upper Mid 60%-80%$19,350$13,900 25-44 33.9College Graduate College GraduateOwns a Kia; Eats at Wingstop; Shops at New York & Company; Plays soccer; Stays at Spring Hill Suites; Watches Nick Jr; Listens to Classic Country25 Up-and-Comers47% 53% Family Mix 58% $65,201 Middle 40%-60%$8,775$12,100 25-44 36.0College Graduate College GraduateOwns a Volkswagen; Eats at Panera; Shops at Gap Kids; Follows college hockey; Flies Southwest; Watches ESPN Classic; Listens to Inspirational37 Bright Lights, Li'l City 59% 41% Family Mix 43% $64,260 Middle 40%-60%$10,000$11,075 25-44 35.8College Graduate College GraduateOwns a Cadillac; Eats at Taco Bell; Shops at Express; Follows motocross; Cruises on Carnival; Watches Adult Swim; Listens to Rock33 Second City Startups 63% 37% Mostly w/ Kids 32% $63,403 Middle 40%-60%$11,375$9,000 25-44 31.0College Graduate College GraduateOwns a GMC; Eats at CiCi's Pizza; Shops at Ross; Follows motocross; Stays at La Quinta; Watches TV One; Listens to Urban Adult Contemporary29 White Picket Fences 48% 52% Family Mix 52% $59,565 Middle 40%-60%$3,350$7,250 25-44 37.2College Graduate College GraduateOwns an Acura; Eats at Logan's Roadhouse; Shops at Books-a-Million; Follows minor league baseball; Visits the Bahamas; Watches DIY Network; Listens to SEC sports39 Kid Country, USA 63% 37% Mostly w/ Kids 31% $57,722 Middle 40%-60%$5,550$6,250 25-44 34.2College Graduate College GraduateOwns a GMC; Eats at Logan's Roadhouse; Shops at Gap Kids; Follows college baseball; Visits the Bahamas; Watches WWE; Listens to Rock42 Multi-Culti Mosaic 48% 52% Family Mix 56% $38,745 Middle 40%-60%$8,775$5,400 <55 31.4Some College Some CollegeOwns a Nissan; Eats at Church's Chicken; Shops at Ross; Follows Mexican league soccer; Stays at Motel 6; Watches Telemundo; Listens to Urban Adult Contemporary56 Multi-Culti Families 49% 51% Family Mix 47% $38,138 Lower Mid 20%-40%$7,050$4,300 <55 28.9Some College Some CollegeOwns a Mitsubishi; Eats at Jack in the Box; Shops at Ross; Follows Mexican league soccer; Visits Mexico; Watches Telemundo; Listens to Alternative44 Country Strong68% 32% Family Mix 46% $36,934 Lower Mid 20%-40%$15,250$3,800 <55 39.5 High School High School Owns a GMC; Eats at Hardee's; Shops at Books-a-Million; Goes hunting; Stays at Super 8; Watches CMT; Listens to New Country59 New Melting Pot 19% 81% Family Mix 56% $25,213 Lower Mid 20%-40%$925$1,600 <55 30.3 High School High SchoolOwns a Mazda; Eats at Church's Chicken; Shops at Burlington; Follows monster trucks; Stays at Ramada; Watches WWE; Listens to Gospel51 Campers & Camo 100% 0% Family Mix 54% $25,207 Lower Mid 20%-40%$36,900$2,300 35-54 34.9 High School High SchoolOwns a Lincoln; Eats at Little Caesars; Shops at Wal-Mart; Follows Grand Prix; Stays at Quality Inn; Watches Nick; Listens to New Country60Small-Town Collegiates7% 93% Family Mix 53% $22,271 Lower Mid 20%-40%$600$1,200 <55 31.7 High School High School Owns a Dodge; Eats at Sonic; Shops at GameStop; Follows extreme sports; Stays at Super 8; Watches Boomerang; Listens to Rock61Second City Generations49% 51% Family Mix 51% $21,123 Low 0%-20%$1,800$1,400 <55 29.7 High School High SchoolOwns a Cadillac; Eats at Church's Chicken; Shops at Burlington; Follows Mexican league soccer; Stays at La Quinta; Watches Telemundo; Listens to Gospel48 Generation Web4% 96% Family Mix 57% $20,812 Low 0%-20%$600$1,300 <55 33.3 High School High SchoolOwns a Nissan; Eats at Burger King; Shops at GameStop; Plays basketball; Stays at Motel 6; Watches MTV2; Listens to Adult Contemporary55 Red, White & Blue 55% 45% Family Mix 58% $16,340 Low 0%-20%$6,500$3,000 <55 39.9 High School High SchoolOwns a Jeep; Eats at Long John Silvers; Shops at Wal-Mart; Follows monster trucks; Stays at Days Inn; Watches Nick at Nite; Listens to New Country65 Young & Rustic43% 57% Family Mix 58% $11,758 Low 0%-20%$300$300 <55 36.6 High School High SchoolOwns a Ford; Eats at Hardee's; Shops at Books-a-Million; Follows monster trucks; Stays at Days Inn; Watches Boomerang; Listens to NASCAR17590.00 Macro: PrizmPage 1 of 2The Concord Group11/12/17502-374 APPENDIX CPRIZM LIFESTYLE SEGMENTATIONUNITED STATES2017Prizm %Title/ % % w/ No Median Income Income Median Income Producing Age MedianCode Name Own Rent Family Kids HH Income Level Percentile Net Worth Assets (Median) Range Age Education Urbanicity LifestyleMature Professionals / Empty Nesters17 Urban Elders 0% 100% Mostly w/o Kids 80% $64,576 Middle 40%-60% $50,125 $63,500 <55 38.9Graduate Plus Graduate PlusOwns a Lexus; Eats at Starbucks; Shops at Banana Republic; Follows men's tennis; Flies JetBlue; Watches IFC; Listens to Jazz3 Movers & Shakers 94% 6% Mostly w/o Kids 83% $129,828 Upper Mid 80%-100% $779,750 $448,700 45-64 44.7Graduate Plus Graduate PlusOwns a BMW; Eats at The Cheesecake Factory; Shops at The Container Store; Goes skiing/snowboarding; Flies American; Uses Angie's List; Listens to News8 Gray Power96% 4% Mostly w/o Kids 94% $127,740 Upper Mid 80%-100% $912,300 $580,000 55+ 47.3Graduate Plus Graduate PlusOwns a Lexus; Eats at Bonefish Grill; Shops at Chico's; Follows PGA/LPGA; Visits Alaska; Watches Golf Channel; Listens to News1 Upper Crust 95% 5% w/o Kids 96% $113,446 Upper Mid 80%-100% $1,088,900 $637,750 65+ 51.1Graduate PlusSuburban Owns a Lexus; Eats at Bonefish Grill; Shops at Chico's; Follows men's tennis; Visits Alaska; Watches Fox Business; Listens to News7 Money & Brains 99% 1% Mostly w/o Kids 94% $105,505 Upper Mid 80%-100% $1,108,250 $613,900 55+ 45.4Graduate Plus Graduate PlusOwns a Lexus; Eats at Boston Market; Shops at The Container Store; Follows figure skating; Visits Hawaii; Visits AARP; Listens to News9 Big Fish, Small Pond 96% 4% Mostly w/o Kids 94% $95,084 Upper Mid 80%-100% $637,250 $375,750 65+ 49.2Graduate Plus Graduate PlusOwns a Subaru; Eats at Ruby Tuesday; Shops at Lands' End; Follows PGA/LPGA; Stays at Spring Hill Suites; Watches Fox Business; Listens to Classical12 Cruisin' to Retirement 91% 9% Mostly w/o Kids 89% $93,475 Upper Mid 80%-100% $525,000 $320,725 55+ 45.4Graduate Plus Graduate PlusOwns a Volvo; Eats at Bonefish Grill; Shops at Chico's; Follows PGA/LPGA; Visits Alaska; Watches Fox Business; Listens to Talk radio18 Mayberry-ville95% 5% Mostly w/o Kids 91% $89,962 Upper Mid 80%-100% $440,500 $193,750 55+ 50.3Graduate Plus Graduate PlusOwns a Subaru; Eats at Cracker Barrel; Shops at Eddie Bauer; Goes hunting; Visits Alaska; Visits PGATour.com; Listens to Oldies24 Pickup Patriarchs 92% 8% Mostly w/o Kids 70% $82,459 Upper Mid 60%-80% $272,300 $169,000 45-64 41.7College Graduate College GraduateOwns a Kia; Eats at Bob Evans; Shops at Eddie Bauer; Goes boating; Stays at Radisson; Visits NASCAR.com; Listens to NASCAR28 Country Casuals 94% 6% Mostly w/o Kids 91% $73,180 Upper Mid 60%-80% $232,500 $98,750 55+ 47.2Some College Some CollegeOwns a GMC; Eats at Hardee's; Shops at Hobby Lobby; Goes hunting; Stays at Hampton Inn; Watches Sportsman Channel; Listens to Classic Country32 Traditional Times 95% 5% w/o Kids96% $72,838 Upper Mid 60%-80% $454,400 $260,500 65+ 50.6Graduate Plus Graduate PlusOwns a Buick; Eats at Bonefish Grill; Shops at Chico's; Follows PGA/LPGA; Visits Alaska; Watches Fox Business; Listens to Soft Adult Contemporary20 Empty Nests92% 8% w/o Kids96% $62,979 Middle 40%-60% $443,250 $270,000 65+ 51.6College Graduate College GraduateOwns a Buick; Eats at Bonefish Grill; Shops at Stein Mart; Follows PGA/LPGA; Cruises on Royal Caribbean; Watches Golf Channel; Listens to Soft Adult Contemporary36Toolbelt Traditionalists78% 22% Mostly w/o Kids 84% $61,815 Middle 40%-60%$49,750$12,000 55+ 44.9Some College Some CollegeOwns a Buick; Eats at Bob Evans; Shops at Chico's; Follows PGA/LPGA; Cruises on Royal Caribbean; Visits AARP; Listens to Gospel38 Hometown Retired 83% 17% Mostly w/o Kids 84% $54,549 Middle 40%-60% $49,800 $7,000 55+ 45.7Some College Some CollegeOwns a Chrysler; Eats at Cracker Barrel; Shops at Books-a-Million; Follows NASCAR; Stays at Quality Inn; Watches CNN Headline News; Listens to Classic Country46 Heartlanders87% 13% Mostly w/o Kids 92% $33,518 Lower Mid 20%-40% $117,600$31,550 55+ 45.5Some College Some CollegeOwns a Subaru; Eats at Denny's; Shops at JoAnn Fabric; Follows NASCAR; Flies Frontier; Watches Reelz; Listens to Classic Country52 Simple Pleasures 90% 10% w/o Kids 96% $32,227 Lower Mid 20%-40% $151,375 $38,900 65+ 51.9 High School High School Owns a Buick; Eats at Bob Evans; Shops at Chico's; Follows figure skating; Visits Alaska; Watches Fox News; Listens to Classic Country41 Domestic Duos 73% 27% w/o Kids 97% $27,154 Lower Mid 20%-40% $108,400 $30,000 65+ 57.2Some College Some CollegeOwns a Mercury; Eats at Bob Evans; Shops at Stein Mart; Follows PGA/LPGA; Cruises on Royal Caribbean; Watches Golf Channel; Listens to Soft Adult Contemporary49 American Classics 64% 36% w/o Kids96% $26,499 Lower Mid 20%-40%$70,375$25,000 55+ 40.4Some College Some CollegeOwns a Buick; Eats at Bob Evans; Shops at Stein Mart; Follows figure skating; Visits Alaska; Watches Hallmark Channel; Listens to Oldies62 Crossroad Villagers 67% 33% w/o Kids97% $22,344 Lower Mid 20%-40%$34,725$3,000 65+ 53.5 High School High SchoolOwns a Buick; Eats at Bob Evans; Shops at Stein Mart; Follows figure skating; Visits Alaska; Watches Hallmark Channel; Listens to Classic Country40 Aspiring A-Listers 0% 100% Mostly w/o Kids 81% $21,489 Low 0%-20%$300$900 55+ 38.2Some College Some CollegeOwns a Volkswagen; Eats at Boston Market; Shops at Express; Follows men's tennis; Flies JetBlue; Watches Univision; Listens to Jazz53 Lo-Tech Singles 100% 0% w/o Kids 96% $20,921 Low 0%-20% $40,500 $700 65+ 39.1 High School High School Owns a Lincoln; Eats at Church's Chicken; Shops at Stein Mart; Follows IndyCar; Stays at Motel 6; Watches WGN; Listens to Gospel58 Golden Ponds 55% 45% Mostly w/o Kids 93% $19,516 Low 0%-20% $7,125 $1,600 55+ 41.2 High School High SchoolOwns a Buick; Eats at Golden Corral; Shops at Kmart; Follows horse racing; Stays at Motel 6; Watches CNN Headline News; Listens to Classic Country57 Back Country Folks 70% 30% Mostly w/o Kids 92% $19,334 Low 0%-20%$12,750$600 55+ 46.8 High School High School Owns a GMC; Eats at Hardee's; Shops at Books-a-Million; Follows pro rodeo; Stays at Super 8; Watches Reelz; Listens to Classic Country67 Park Bench Seniors 9% 91% Mostly w/o Kids 94% $16,684 Low 0%-20%$300$600 55+ 42.0 High School High School Owns a Buick; Eats at Long John Silvers; Shops at Stein Mart; Follows figure skating; Stays at Motel 6; Watches WGN; Listens to GospelNote: Highlighted selections indicate target Cohorts. See Exhibit I-8 for percentage distribution of highlighted target cohorts17590.00 Macro: PrizmPage 2 of 2The Concord Group11/12/17512-375 This page left blank intentionally. 2-376 EXHIBIT 9 2-377 This page left blank intentionally. 2-378 11/19/2018 . http://apps.spatialstream.com/production/dashboard/8/9/0/CurrentBuild/html/Reporting.html 1/1 EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-062525 North Main Street Multi-family Residential Project Exhibit 9 - Vicinity Zoning and Aerial View © 2018 Digital Map Products. All rights reserved. Zoning Labels: Zoning 250 feet 2-379 This page left blank intentionally. 2-380 EXHIBIT 10 2-381 This page left blank intentionally. 2-382 EXHIBIT 10 SITE PHOTO 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-383 This page left blank intentionally. 2-384 EXHIBIT 11 2-385 This page left blank intentionally. 2-386 EXHIBIT 11 SITE PLAN 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-387 This page left blank intentionally. 2-388 EXHIBIT 12 2-389 This page left blank intentionally. 2-390 EXHIBIT 12 TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-391 EXHIBIT 12 TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-392 EXHIBIT 12 TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-393 EXHIBIT 12 TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-394 EXHIBIT 13 2-395 This page left blank intentionally. 2-396 EXHIBIT 13 ELEVATIONS 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-397 This page left blank intentionally. 2-398 EXHIBIT 14 2-399 This page left blank intentionally. 2-400 EXHIBIT 14 RENDERINGS 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-401 EXHIBIT 14 RENDERINGS 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-402 EXHIBIT 15 2-403 This page left blank intentionally. 2-404 EXHIBIT 15 LANDSCAPE PLAN 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-405 This page left blank intentionally. 2-406