The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCORRESPONDENCE - 75A (COMMENT)75A City Council Meeting Correspondence 10/15/2019 PUBLIC HEARING - APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2019-30 AND AMENDMENT TO VARIANCE NO.2018-10 TO ALLOW A CAR WASH AT 301 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2019-31 Date of Name Correspondence Representative of In Favor In Opposition Comment of RA*. of RA.* 1 10/14/2019 Andrew Sales Yes 2 10/14/2019 Kara Grant Yes 3 10/15/2019 Chase Russell Russell Fischer Yes 4 10/15/2019 Phil Bacerra Yes 5 10/14/2019 Kara Grant ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Yes S')bto-t-o • 5 1 10/14/2019 Cora Chu & Mike Deng Santa Ana Business owner Yes 2 10/14/2019 Yoon Hee Choe Santa Ana Business owner Yes 3 10/15/2019 Phung Truong Yes 4 10/15/2019 Ebony Acosta Yes 5 10/15/2019 Cedric Mendosa Yes 6 10/15/2019 David Ezra Vinson Yes 7 10/15/2019 Angel Girm Yes *RA - Recommended Action Wednesday, October 16, 2019 Page 1 of 6 Date of Name Representative of In Favor In Opposition Comment Correspondence of RA*. of RA.* 28 10115/2019 Shanney Magana Yes 29 10/15/2019 Ana Miranda Yes 30 10/15/2019 Norma Vasquez Yes 31 10/15/2019 Dulce Leiva Yes 32 10/15/2019 Jose Montes De Oca Yes 33 10/15/2019 Jonathan Navarro Yes 34 10/15/2019 James Ruiz Yes 35 10/1512019 Giselle Herrera Yes 36 10/15/2019 Cindy Lopez Yes 37 10/15/2019 Steven Flores Yes 38 10/15/2019 Jaquelin Sanchez Yes 39 10/15/2019 Sebastian Garcia Yes 40 10/15/2019 Omar Navarro Yes 41 10/15/2019 Evelyn Navarro 4 Yes 42 10/15/2019 Francesca Andrade Yes 43 10/1512019 Nathalle Bran Yes 44 10t15/2019 Devan Rodarte Yes 45 10/15/2019 Max Chahla Yes 46 10/15/2019 Rosa Tran Yes 47 10/1512019 Yoon Hee Choe Yes *RA - Recommended Action Wednesday, October 16, 2019 Page 3 of 6 Date of Name Correspondence 48 10/15/2019 Brenda Gutierrez 49 10/15/2019 Gabriel Fuerte 50 10/15/2019 Isaac Fuentes 51 10/15/2019 Leslie Gomez 52 10/15/2019 Angie Karoplan 53 10/15/2019 Vicky Pederson 54 10/15/2019 Khalil Chahle 55 10/15/2019 Rae Davis 56 10/15/2019 Luke Thourburgh 57 10/15/2019 Ramsey Bilbeisi 58 10/15/2019 Angela Pine 59 10/15/2019 Mark Apepe 60 10/15/2019 Jesus Peres -Soto 61 10/15/2019 Terry Quarterman 62 10/15/2019 Isabel Jimenez 63 10/15/2019 Samuel Martinez 64 10/15/2019 Aurora Penaloza 65 10/15/2019 Janet Perez 66 10/15/2019 Victoria Cananas 67 10/15/2019 Jesus Avila *RA - Recommended Action Wednesday, October 16, 2019 Representative of In Favor In Opposition of RA*. of RA.* Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Comment Page 4 of 6 Date of Name Representative of In Favor In Opposition Comment Correspondence of RA*. of RA.* 68 10/15/2019 Elizabeth Wagensteen Yes 69 10/15/2019 Sam Oagir Yes 70 1011512019 Cora Chu Yes 71 10/15/2019 Cecilia Espitla Yes 72 10/15/2019 Marla Kamilez Yes 73 10/15/2019 Irma Deniz Yes 74 10/15/2019 Alicia Reyes Yes 75 10/15/2019 Celiz Garcia Yes 76 10/15/2019 Alebarda Alvarez Yes 77 10/15/2019 Francisco Arreola Yes 78 10/15/2019 Juan Ramos Yes 79 10/15/2019 Raissa Schurawel Yes 80 10115/2019 Alma Gonzalez Yes 81 10/15/2019 June Lee Yes 82 10/15/2019 Patricia Hoiles Yes 83 10115/2019 Robert Hervath Yes 84 10/15/2019 Silvia Canchola Yes 85 10/15/2019 Daniel Rodriguez Yes 86 10/15/2019 Marcia Uribe Yes 87 10/15/2019 Douglas Miller Yes *RA - Recommended Action Wednesday, October 16, 2019 Page 5 of 6 Date of Name Representative of In Favor In Opposition Comment Correspondence of RA*. of RA.* 88 10/15/2019 Annette Debs Yes 89 10/15/2019 Joel Bruce Yes 90 10/15/2019 James Craig Yes 91 10/15/2019 Marquerite Berry Yes 92 10/15/2019 ChristalOrozco Yes 93 10/15/2019 Alice Echevarria Yes 94 10115/2019 Diego Garcia Yes 95 10/15/2019 Jose Antonio Soto Yes 215 TOTAL: 100 *RA - Recommended Action Wednesday, October 16, 2019 Page 6 of 6 10/15/19 City Council Meeting Item 75A COMMENT (5) '7Gft Lopez, Kenia From: Andy Salas < Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 11:33 AM To: eComment Cc: Administration Gabrieleno Indians; Matthew Teutimez; gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com Subject: URGENT: City Council Meeting, October 15th - Regarding 301 Tustin Ave Attachments: 301 Tustin Ave -City of Santa Ana_ Appeal_10-2019.pdf Dear City Council, Please see the attached letter of concern from the Tribal Council of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation. We respectfully request review of our letter of concern and would like to be contacted for further discussion. Sincerely, Andrew Salas, Chairman website: www,gabrielenoindians.org to GA5KIE:LE,N(D SAND OF MISSION INDIANS - KIZH NATION Historicallt) Lnown as The San Gabriel band of Mission Indians recognized fry the State of California as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles basin City of Santa Ana Clerk of the Council ecomments@santa-ana.org City Council Meeting - Re: Project located at 301 North Tustin Ave As the Tribal Chairman of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, we have grave concerns regarding the proposed amendment to the project site. In good faith, the City and our Tribal government engaged in a government - to -government consultation as mandated by SB18. We provided historical maps, ethnographic and historical documentation, and our oral history showing the sensitivity of the area. As a result, the City concurred for "the implementation of the mitigation measures for Cultural Resources, Hazards, and Tribal Cultural Resources." Now that the applicant has changed the scope of the project, it appears the City has deemed the project no longer meets the criteria for mitigating measures. We completely disagree with that rational. Ground disturbance is ground disturbance, regardless what CEQA criteria the project is categorized. Whenever there is ground disturbance, the potential for cultural resources is always a concern. For the City to presume our Tribal Cultural Resources are no longer at risk due to a categorical change is an insult to our Native rights. We have always tried to impress upon lead agencies "we are here to work alongside of you, not against you." Our goal is to avoid any adversarial relationship as we know our paths will cross in the future. We respectfully request the City to reinstate the mitigating measure on the project site. Our only concern is during ground disturbance. Once the ground disturbance phase is completed, we will sign off on the project so your project can move forward. Our sole intent is the protection and preservation of our Tribal Cultural Resources. Respectfully, Andrew Salas, Chairman Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation (626) 926-4131 Andrew Salas, Chairman Nadine Sales, Vice -Chairman Albert Pere , treasurer I Martha Gonzalez Lemos, treasurer II Dr. Christina Swindall Martinez, secretary Richard Gradias, Chairman of the council of Elders PO box393 Covina, CA 9172) www wa6rielenoindians@yakoo.com "7S A Lopez, Kenia From: Kara Grant < Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 11:27 AM To: eComment Cc: Kelaher, Selena Subject: CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/15 - Comments Submitted re Appeal Application No. 2019-03 Attachments: Comments re Appeal Hearing - re CEQA - 101419 FINAL.pdf, CEQA- Notice of Intent to File CEQA Petition - FINAL - 101319.pdf,, City - EIR re Transit Zoning Code.pdf Please find the attached comments submitted for the appeal hearing before the City Council on October 15, 2019, regarding Appeal Application No. 2019-03 (Russell Fischer Commercial Center Project). Please confirm receipt of these comments (3 documents in total). Thank you, Kara Grant KARAI.GRANT Attorney at Law This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney -client privilege and attorney work -product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message, KARA GRANT LAW 17595 Harvard, Suite C-202 39 Irvine, California 92614 tel 1 949.579.9330 fax 1 949.769.6689 email I kara@grant-law.net VIA E-MAIL October 14, 2019 City of Santa Ana Attn: Clerk of the Council 20 Civic Center Plaza — M30 Santa Ana, CA 92701 eomments@santa-ana.org skelaherC(�sanfa-atut.org RE: Comments for the Hearing Before the City Council on Appeal Application No. 2019-03 — Russell Fischer Commercial Center Project — 325 & 301 North Tustin Avenue. Dear Mayor Miguel A. Pulido and Members of the Council: The City of Santa Ana, along with the project owner/applicant, Russell Fischer, LP, as well as representative of the owner/applicant, Richard Finkel of Bundy -Finkel Associates (collectively, the "Applicant'), have attempted to evade environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") by analyzing and approving a project in piecemeal fashion. In 2016, the Applicant initially applied to obtain changes to the general plan and zoning (for multiple properties) so the Applicant could demolish all existing uses on 301 and 325 N. Tustin Avenue and build a new gas station, convenience store and retail building (the "Original Project'). The results of an Initial Study required the City to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration to comply with CEQA, and granted the approvals requested. The City was required to adopt an MND because absent mitigation measures the Original Project would have a substantial impact on the environment, including due to hazardous materials released during demolition of the existing structures and due to Native American cultural and historical resources during grading and construction. In 2019—at the last minute before development —the Applicant submitted a "revised plan" which proposed to "replace" the proposed retail building on 301 N. Tustin with a massive automated car wash (the "Revised Project'). The City proceeded to ignore the portions of the project that had already been implemented —including the general plan and zoning changes —determined the Revised Project was categorially exempt from CEQA (which was not available because of, among other things, the general plan and zoning changes), and abandoned the previously adopted MND as well as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") adopted to implement the mitigation measures. Such a scheme is prohibited by CEQA. CEQA requires the City to conduct subsequent environmental review following the MND based on the substantial changes to the Original Project by the addition of the car wash. CEQA does not authorize the City to proceed with the project but abandon the MND and MMRP previously adopted simply because they revised a portion of what was previously proposed and approved. Moreover, even if CEQA allowed the City to evaluate the Revised Project anew, the City is required to include the entire project in the review, including the portions already completed such as the general plan and zoning amendments. When the entire project is included, the City is precluded from invoking the categorical exemption selected. Further, the addition of the car wash will have substantial impacts on the environment requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), subsequent EIR, MND or subsequent MND. But even without the impacts from the car wash, the substantial environmental impacts identified as part of the original MND still apply to the Revised Project, which precludes the City from utilizing a categorical exemption for the Revised Project regardless of how it is analyzed. In the attached Notice of Intent to File a Petition for Writ of Mandate for Violations of the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Draft Petition for Writ of Mandate attached as Exhibit A thereto, the Petitioners seek a writ of mandate from the California Superior Court to set aside the Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2019-69 (the "NOE") filed by the City, to set aside the City's determination that the Project, including the Revised Project at 301 N. Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana, in the County of Orange, is categorically exempt from CEQA environmental review as an in -fill development project pursuant to 14 Cal. Code Regs. Sec. 15332, and to order Respondents to conduct environmental review, including the preparation of an FIR, Subsequent EIR, MND, or Subsequent MND, as required by CEQA. The Petition also seeks to set aside all other approvals the City has granted for the Revised Project, including Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-30, Amendment to Variance No. 2018-10, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31, for failing to comply with CEQA. In addition, this Petition requests that the Court compel Respondents to provide public notice of all CEQA determinations, all public hearings or meetings discussing a CEQA determination with adequate time for the public to meaningfully participate, and further to provide notice to businesses and residents within a sufficient radius of the Revised Project so that interested parties may meaningfully prepare and appear to protect their interests, and Respondents may receive important input from the public, including those affected by the Revised Project. On September 9, 2019, Respondents improperly approved the Revised Project and filed the NOE the following day, September 10, 2019. Petitioners requested the City to withdraw the NOE in light of the pending Appeal to the City Council, but the City refused this request. This forced the petitioners to file the CEQA petition to preserve their rights in light of the 35-day statute of limitations prescribed under CEQA section 21167(d). Petitioners opposition to the Project concerning the City's CEQA violations are further discussed in the attached Petition. The attached Notice and Petition are submitted to the City as written comments in addition to this letter for the October 15, 2019 hearing on the Appeal of the Russell Fischer Commercial Center Project (Appeal Application No. 2019-03). The comments are submitted on behalf of Petitioners, Santa Ana Needs Equity (SANE), William Conklin, Karina Conklin, and Yoon Hee Choe. The FIR excerpt from a different City project attached is also submitted in support of these written comments and in support of Appeal Application No. 2019-03. Sincerely, Kara E. Grant Attorney at Law 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 KARA GRANT LAW KARA E. GRANT, SBN 252825 17595 Harvard, Suite C-202 Irvine, CA 92614 t 949.579.9330 e kara@grant-law.net Attorneys for Petitioners SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE SANTA ANA NEEDS EQUITY, an unincorporated association; WILLIAM CONKLIN, an individual; KAREVA RANGEL CONKLIN, an individual; YOON HEE CHOE, an individual, Petitioners, V. CITY OF SANTA ANA; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA; PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Respondents. RICHARD KEITH FINKEL; BUNDY- FINKEL ARCHITECTS; RUSSELL FISCHER, LP; CHASE RUSSEL; and ROES 1 through 20, inclusive, Real Parties in Interest NO. TICE OF INTENT TO FILE RIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF ,NDATE FOR VIOLATION OF THE LIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL ALITY ACT ("CEQA") AND MPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO THE CITY OF SANTA ANA; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that under Section 21167.5 of the California Public Resources Code, Petitioners Santa Ana Needs Equity, an unincorporated association, William Conklin, an individual, Karina Rangel Conklin, an individual, and Yoon Hee Choe, an individual (collectively, the "Petitioners"), intend to file a petition under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") against Respondents the City of Santa Ana, a California Municipal Corporation, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana, and the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, challenging (1) the determination that the commercial development ect at Tustin Avenue and Fourth Street in Santa Ana (including the recently approved development of 325 N. Tustin Avenue and 301 N. Tustin Avenue) (the "Project") is categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA as an in -fill development project pursuant to Section 15332 of CEQA (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15332), (2) the adequacy of the notice of the Planning Commission hearing concerning the Project, and (3) that Respondents may approve the Project without further environmental review under CEQA and/or the preparing a subsequent environmental review document, and without compliance with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program previously adopted for the Project, as more fully described in the Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. DATED: October 1.3, 2019 Respectfully submitted, KARA GRANT LAW By: Kara E. Grant NV Attorneys for Pe i ioners 2 NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE CEQA PETITION CAA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 KARA GRANT LAW KARA E. GRANT, SBN 252825 17595 Harvard, Suite C-202 Irvine, CA 92614 t 949.579.9330 e kara@grant-law.net Attorneys for Petitioners SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE SANTA ANA NEEDS EQUITY, an unincorporated association; WILLIAM CONKLIN, an individual; KARINA RANGEL CONKLIN, an individual; YOON HEE CHOE, an individual, Petitioners, V. CITY OF SANTA ANA; CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA; PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Respondents. RICHARD KEITH FINKEL; BUNDY- FINKEL ARCHITECTS; RUSSELL FISCHER, LP; CHASE RUSSEL; and ROES 1 through 20, inclusive, Real Parties in Interest NO. PETITION FOR WRIT OF FOR VIOLATION OF THE VIA ENVIRONMENTAL ACT ("CEQA") AND NT FOR INJUNCTIVE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Petitioners Santa Ana Needs Equity (SANE), William Conklin, Karina Rangel Conklin and Yoon Hee Choe (collectively, "Petitioners"), allege the following: I. The City of Santa Ana, along with the developer, have attempted to evade environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") by analyzing and approving a project in piecemeal fashion. In 2016, the developer initially applied to obtain changes to the general plan and zoning (for multiple properties) so the developer could demolish all existing uses on 301 and 325 N. Tustin Avenue and build a new gas station, convenience store and retail building (the "Original Project"). The City was required to adopt a Mitigated Negative to comply with CEQA and granted the approvals requested. The City was required to adopt an MND because absent mitigation measures the Original Project would have a substantial impact on the environment, including due to hazardous materials released during demolition of the existing structures and due to Native American cultural and historical resources during grading and construction. In 2019—at the last minute before development —the developer submitted a "revised plan" which proposed to "replace" the proposed retail building on 301 N. Tustin with a massive automated car wash (the "Revised Project"). The City proceeded to ignore the portions of the project that had already been implemented --including the general plan and zoning changes — determined the Revised Project was categorially exempt from CEQA (which was not available because of, among other things, the general plan and zoning changes) and abandoned the adopted MND as well as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") 21 adopted to implement the mitigation measures. Such a scheme is prohibited by CEQA. 22 2. CEQA requires the City to conduct subsequent environmental review following the 23 MND based on the substantial changes to the project by the addition of the car wash. CEQA does 24 not authorize the City to abandon the MND previously adopted. Moreover, even if CEQA 25 allowed the City to evaluate the Revised Project anew, the City is required to include the entire 26 project in the review, including the portions already completed such as the general plan and zoning 27 amendments. When the entire project is included, the City is precluded from invoking the 28 categorical exemption selected. Further, the addition of the car wash would have substantial 2 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 21 31 4 impacts on the environment requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR" ), subsequent EIR, MND or subsequent MND. But even without the impacts from the car wash, the substantial environmental impacts identified as part of the original MND still apply to the Revised which precludes the City from utilizing a categorical exemption for the Revised Project 5 11 regardless of how it is analyzed. 10 11 12 13 14 Petitioners seek a writ of mandate from this Court to set aside the Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2019-69 (the "NOE") filed by the City of Santa Ana, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, and Does 1 through 20 (collectively referred to as, "Respondents" or the "City"), to set aside Respondents' determination that the Revised Project, including the Revised Project at 301 N. Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana, in the County of Orange, is categorically exempt from CEQA environmental review as an in -fill development project pursuant to 14 Cal. Code Regs. Sec. 15332, and to order Respondents to conduct environmental review, including the preparation of an Subsequent EIR, MND, or Subsequent MND, as required by CEQA. 15 4. This Petition also seeks to set aside all other approvals Respondents have granted 16 for the Revised Project, including Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-30, Amendment to Variance 17 No, 2018-10, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31, for failing to comply with CEQA. 18 5. In addition, this Petition requests that the Court compel Respondents to provide 19 public notice of all CEQA determinations, all public hearings or meetings discussing a CEQA 20 determination with adequate time for the public to meaningfully participate, and further to provide 21 notice to businesses and residents within a sufficient radius of the Revised Project so that 22 interested parties may meaningfully prepare and appear to protect their interests, and Respondents 23 may receive important input from the public, including those affected by the Revised Project. 24 6. On September 9, 2019, Respondents improperly approved the Revised Project and 25 filed the NOE the following day, September 10, 2019. Accordingly, this Petition is filed within 26 the 35-day statute of limitations prescribed under CEQA section 21167(d). 27 /// 28 3 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 3I 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE Petitioner, Santa Ana Needs Equity (SANE), is an unincorporated association made up of residents, business owners and businesses in the City of Santa Ana with a geographic nexus Ito the proposed Revised Project. SANE is comprised of individual members, including the individual petitioners who reside, own property, or work in the vicinity of the Revised Project and are affected by the Project's environmental impacts as well as other impacts. SANE is organized seek fairness and comprehensive economic and environmental equity in Santa Ana's urban planning, including protecting the interest of the residents, businesses and property owners from the environmental impacts of the Revised Project and the failure to assess and mitigate environmental impacts. 8. Petitioners William Conklin and Karina Rangel Conklin are concerned citizens who together own commercial property in Santa Ana, located at 2035 N. Tustin Avenue. Petitioners are also co -owners of a business at that property, called Speedie Clean Express Car Wash ("Speedie Wash"). Speedie Wash is located only 1.1 miles from the proposed Project on the same side of the same street. The Conklins and their business will be adversely affected by the Revised Project, including its environmental impacts. Petitioners' interests are unique and will be directly impacted by the Project. The Petitioners as well as the general public will suffer direct harm if are permitted to approve the Project without first conducting environmental review in violation of CEQA. 9. Petitioner Yoon Hee Choe, DDS, is a concerned citizen who owns the property located at 171 N. Tustin Avenue, which is immediately adjacent to the proposed Revised Project. Petitioner Choe is a licensed dentist and operates a dental and medical practice in the office building on her property. Petitioner Choe has one tenant who operates a massage business. Petitioner Choe's interests are unique because of the extremely close proximity of the car wash tunnel to her building, where she operates a sensitive use, which cannot tolerate vibrations or noise, and thus will be directly and severely impacted by the environmental impacts of the Revised Project. According to the plans for the Revised Project, the 4,354-square foot car wash tunnel that is part of the Revised Project will run the entire length of the property boundary shared 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 with Petitioner Choe, and the distance between the exterior wall of the car wash tunnel on 301 N. Tustin Avenue, and the exterior wall of Petitioner Choe's dental office building on 171 N. Tustin Avenue is inches away, as shown in Real Party in Interest's elevations for the new massive car wash below. Petitioner Choe's building and dental office M 10. Respondents are the lead public agency that erroneously issued the challenged NOE, and subsequently took discretionary actions to approve the Revised Project. 11. Petitioners are ignorant of the true names and capacities of the respondents named herein as DOES 1 through 20, and therefore, names those respondents by such fictitious names. Petitioners will amend this Petition and Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. The City of Santa Ana, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, and Does 1 through 20 are collectively referred to herein as "Respondents" or the "City". 12. Real Party in Interest, Richard Keith Finkel of Bundy -Finkel Associates is identified as the "Applicant" on the challenged NOE. 13. Real Party in Interest, Bundy -Finkel Associates is also identified as the "Applicant" on the challenged NOE. 14. Real Party in Interest, Russell Fischer, LP, is identified as the "Applicant" on PUK WKrl VN N ANDAIL zI various other Project documents, including but not limited to, the Notice of Public Hearing Before the Santa Ana Planning Commission, for the September 9, 2019 hearing on various entitlements 3 11 for the Project. 4 10 11 12 15. Real Party in Interest, Chase Russell is also identified as the "Applicant" on certain City documents in connection with the Project. 16. Petitioners are ignorant of the true names and capacities of the real parties in interest named herein as ROES 1 through 20, and therefore, names those real parties in interest by such fictitious names. Petitioners will amend this Petition and Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Richard Keith Finkel, Bundy -Finkel Associates, Russell Fischer LP, Chase Russell, and ROES 1 through 20 are collectively referred to herein as "Real Parties." 17. Venue is proper in this Court as this lawsuit arises out of findings that the Project exempt from environmental review under CEQA, that decision occurred within the County of 13 Orange, by Respondents City of Santa Ana, and the Project at issue is located at 325 & 301 N. 14 Tustin Avenue, in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange. 15 18. Respondents' actions and failures to act, which gave rise to this Petition, occurred in 16 Orange County, California. The Project is located within Orange County, California. The 17 environmental effects resulting from the Project will impact businesses and residents of the City of 18 Santa Ana, located in the County of Orange. 19 19. Petitioners provided Respondents written notice of the commencement of these 20 proceedings prior to filing this Petition for Writ of Mandate in compliance with section 21167.5 of 21 1 the Public Resources Code. A true and correct copy of the proof of service for that notification is 22 attached to this Petition as Exhibit A. 23 III. STANDING 24 20. Petitioners have standing to assert the claims alleged in this Petition because they 25 are beneficially interested in this matter, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1086. 26 Petitioners have a direct and beneficial interest in Respondents' compliance with laws bearing 27 upon approval of the Project. These interests will be directly and adversely affected by the 28 Project, which violates the law as set forth in this Petition and would cause substantial harm to the PETITION FOR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 environment and the quality of life in the surrounding community and economic viability of surrounding businesses. In addition, unless the relief requested herein is granted, the environment will be adversely affected and injured by Respondents' failure to perform any environmental review of the Project under CEQA, and by approving the Project. 21. Petitioners actively participated in the City's administrative approval process in an attempt to ensure Respondents complied with CEQA and all other applicable laws prior to the close of the September 9, 2019 public hearing on the Project, and before issuance of the NOE, and thus fully exhausted administrative remedies. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21177, subd. (a).) 22. CEQA allows a petitioner who objected to a project to allege in a writ petition all deficiencies asserted by others. (Citizens for Clean Energy v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191.) Petitioners and other interested individuals and businesses made oral and comments that were submitted to the City before and at the September 9, 2019 Planning Commission hearing at which Respondents approved the Project. IV. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 23. A challenge to a determination that a project is exempt must be filed within 35 days after the notice of exemption was filed. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167(d); 14 Cal Code Regs § 15112(c)(5).) 24, Petitioners filed an appeal of Respondents NOE and Project approvals on September 19, 2019, which will be heard by the City Council on October 15, 2019. Although Petitioners' Appeal is still pending, Respondents filed aNOE concerning the Project on September 10, 2019, and thus triggered the 35-day statute of limitations to challenge a determination that the Project is exempt. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167(d).). Accordingly, Petitioners filed the instant Petition to their rights to challenge the NOE and related determinations. 25. Thus, Petitioners filed this Petition prior to the expiration of any applicable statute 26 of limitations. 27 /// 28 N PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 11 2 3 V. PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOCTRINE 26. Petitioners bring this action as private attorney generals pursuant to Code of Civil section 1021.5, and any other applicable legal theory, to enforce important rights 4 affecting the public interest. 5 27. Issuance of the relief requested in this Petition will confer a significant benefit on 6 the general public by requiring Respondents to carry out their duties under CEQA and other 7 applicable laws before approving the Project. 8 28. Issuance of the relief requested in this Petition will also result in the enforcement of 9 important rights affecting the public interest by compelling Respondent to engage in a legally 10 adequate analysis of the Project, and to ensure that the public has a meaningful opportunity to 11 review and comment on the impacts and mitigation measures for the Project. 12 29. The necessity and financial burden of enforcement make an award of attorneys' fees 13 appropriate in this case. Without this Petition, Respondents and Real Parties will proceed with 14 development of a Project that will cause significant, unmitigated environmental impacts that might 15 otherwise have been reduced or avoided through legally adequate environmental review, and the 16 adoption of feasible mitigation measures. 17 18 V1. STATEMENT OF FACTS 19 A. Uses of 301 And 325 N. Tustin Avenue Before the Proposed Project 20 30. Real Parties in Interest and project applicant have had a development project 21 pending for the neighboring properties located at 325 N. Tustin Avenue and 301 N. Tustin Avenue 22 since 2016. These properties are located in between the intersection of N. Tustin Avenue and 23 Fourth Street and the 55 Freeway offramp into Santa Ana. Currently, a gas station with a small, 24 attached automated car wash, and a convenience store is located on 325 N. Tustin Avenue, as 25 shown below. 26 27 28 8 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 31. Until approximately June 2019, a single building operated as a restaurant was located on 301 N. Tustin Avenue. A photo of 301 N. Tustin Avenue with the restaurant and the adjacent properties (the gas station to the left, and a dentist's office and massage business to the right) is shown below. W 1// PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 271 28 1 B. Russel Fisher Proposes the Original Project 32. In 2016, Real Party in Interest, Richard Finkel, representing Real Party in Interest and Project Applicant, Russell Fischer LP — a car wash owner and developer that has "been in the car wash industry for 30 years and operates six locations in Orange County" — originally submitted applications to the City for the following: a. "a general plan amendment to re -designate the property at 301 North Tustin Avenue from Professional and Administrative Office (PAO), to General Commercial (GC), and amendment application to rezone the properties at 301 and 325 North Tustin Avenue from Professional (P) to General Commercial." b. To demolish the restaurant at 301 North Tustin and build a "multi -tenant commercial building with a drive -through window service." c. To demolish the existing uses at 325 North Tustin —a small gas station, convenience store and small car wash — and build a larger gas station and large convenience store (hereinafter, the "Original Project'). 33. Meetings were held to explain the Original Project to the public, particularly nearby businesses and residents. A Sunshine Ordinance Community Meeting for the Original Project was held on December 13, 2016, because approval of that project required a General Plan Amendment to re -designate 301 N. Tustin Avenue from Professional & Administrative Office to General Commercial, and a Zoning Amendment to rezone 301 N. Tustin Avenue and 325 N. Tustin Avenue from Professional to General Commercial (C2). The Sunshine Meeting notice provided as follows: FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRRTN EKSNIf Russell Fischer Partnership 16061 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (714)842-4453 Cordially Invites yo� a Community Information meeting for: 301 & 325 N Tustin Ave. A proposed new commercial center Including a Gas Station with a 2,80L ..' s.f. Convenience Store and a 7,500 s.f. Multi -tenant Retail Building. 's Meeting Information Date: Tuesday, 12/13/16 Location: El Ranchito Restaurant .+ 2201 E First St, Santa Ana Tlmo- 5-1n ry m to R nn n m 34. Respondents posted the following mockup for the Original Project on its website: 11 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 101 11 12 13 14 C. The City Conducts CEQA Environmental Review for the Original Project 35. In a letter to Respondents dated June 12, 2018, Mr. Andrew Salas, Chairman of the Gabrieleho Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation (the "Mission Indians Letter"), requested a consultation regarding the Original Project pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), Government Code Section 65352.3. The Mission Indians Letter states in pertinent part, that the Original Project "lies within our ancestral tribal territory, meaning descending from, a higher degree of kinship than traditional or cultural affiliation. Your project is located within a sensitive area and may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of our tribal cultural resources ... to avoid adverse effects to our triable cultural resources, we would like to consult with you and your staff to provide you with a more complete understanding of the prehistoric use(s) of the project area and the potential risks for causing a substantial adverse change to the significance of our triable cultural resources." 36. Respondents conducted environmental review of the Original Project, and finding project could have a significant environmental impact on tribal cultural resources at 325 and 15 301 N. Tustin Avenue, Respondents adopted the MND and MMRP to safeguard those resources 16 during construction of the Revised Project. The Gabrielefio Mission Indians identified 301 & 325 17 N. Tustin Avenue as a sensitive location in light of their oral and written history, identified it as 18 such for Respondents, and informed' Respondents that "to avoid adverse effects to [their] tribal 19 cultural resources," through mandatory environmental review and a mitigation monitoring and 20 reporting program to avoid "the potential risks for causing a substantial adverse change to the 21 significance of [their] tribal cultural resources." 22 37. Respondents prepared an Initial Environmental Study in connection with the 23 Original Project. The Initial Study found "at least one impact that is either `Potentially Significant 24 Impact' or `Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" including Cultural Resources, 25 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Tribal Cultural Resources and Mandatory Findings of 26 Significance. In August 2018, Respondents made a determination based on the Initial Study that 27 "the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a 28 significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have 12 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 21 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared." (italics added.) 38. Respondents found that there were a number of items that would result in a significant impact on the environment and it was only less than significant with mitigation measures that would be imposed as part of the MND. Respondents found that absent the mitigation measures the project would "cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource," "directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature," and "disturb any human remains including those interred outside of formal cemeteries." Respondents also found that absent required mitigation measures, the project would "create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials," "create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment" and "emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within on -quarter mile of an existing proposed school." 39. As part of the Original Project (as part of the Revised Project), 325 and 301 North Tustin were to be graded and the MND and MMRP required Real Parties to hire an expert to a CEQA analysis for any archaeological, paleontological or geologic discoveries and to excavate them appropriately. Similarly, Real Parties were required to allow an archaeologist to evaluate and perform any required analysis of any discovered burial sites or sacred lands. In addition, prior to commence of construction, Real Parties were required to "retain a Native American Monitor to conduct a Native American Indian Sensitivity Training for construction personnel' and "retain a Native American Monitor to be on -site during all project related, ground disturbing construction activities (e.g. pavement removal, auguring, boring, grading, excavation, potholing, trenching, and grubbing)." 40. Prior to demolition, Real Parties were required to conduct an asbestos survey, to remove all asbestos as required and prepare an abatement report. Real Parties were also required to remove all lead -based paint as specified. FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 41. Further, as part of the Initial Study, Respondents were required to evaluate whether the project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibrations or noise levels, if the project would expose people or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, and whether the project would create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Respondents conducted these evaluations as part of the Initial Study for the retail building, not the car wash. Based on the retail building (and without considering a car wash), Respondents found these items to have a less than significant impact. D. Respondents Approve the Original Project Along with a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program 42. In 2018, two years after the Original Project was proposed, Respondents prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Review No. 2016-156 for the Original Project (the "MND"), as well as a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (the "MMRP"). The MND concluded that the Original Project would have a less than significant environmental impact with implementation of mitigation measures to address tribal and cultural resources, and hazards, including asbestos and lead -based paint: i. "The [Original] Project site will be graded prior to construction, and if during grading, it is revealed that previously unidentified archaeological, paleontological or geologic deposits exist, an expert appropriate to the nature of the find must be afforded the opportunity to evaluate any additional finds and to complete an analysis in accordance with CEQA guidelines, as amended." ii. "If future activities in project site adversely impact previously unidentified cultural resources, including burial sites or sacred lands, an archaeologist will be afforded the opportunity to evaluate any additional finds and to complete an analysis in accordance with CEQA guidelines, as amended." iii. "Due to the age of the existing building, there is a potential that asbestos 14 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 61 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 containing materials (ACM) and, perhaps, lead- based paint (LBP) may be present. Exposure to either ACM or LBP may expose construction workers and people in the vicinity of the project site to potential health risks." 43. Respondents adopted the MND and MMRP on or about November 20, 2018, and approved the Original Project. Respondents specifically approved: (a) a resolution approving general plan amendment No. 2018-05 to re -designate 301 N. Tustin Avenue from Professional & Administrative Office (PAO) to General Commercial (GC), per Real Parties' request; (b) an ordinance approving General Plan amendment 2018-08 to rezone 301 and 325 North Tustin Avenue from Professional to General Commercial (C2); (c) a conditional use permit to allow an eating establishment with drive -through service at 301 N. Tustin Avenue; and (d) certain variances that pertained to 325 N. Tustin Avenue only. E. The Developer Demolished the Restaurant on 301 N. Tustin Avenue which Disrupts Petitioner's Dental Business 44. Petitioners are informed and believe that in or about February 2019 and May 2019, City approved permits to demolish the restaurant on 301 N. Tustin Avenue and Real Parties the restaurant thereafter. 17 45. Months ago, and with no prior notice to Petitioner Choe, Real Parties began 18 demolition of the restaurant building on 301 N. Tustin Avenue. The building was located roughly 19 in the middle of the site. The demolition caused such severe, jarring vibrations inside Petitioner 20 Choe's building, and such loud noise inside her building, that patients were scared and decided not 21 to continue their treatment, Petitioner Choe could not perform the exams or use sensitive, delicate 22 dental treatments because of the jarring vibrations, and because it prevented Petitioner Choe from 23 being able to focus on the precise medical tasks she was performing. During demolition, 24 Petitioner Choe was forced to close her dental practice early, start late, or was unable to take any 25 patients at all because the severe vibrations and noise made it impossible to do so. 26 46. Petitioners' tenants who operate a massage business in Petitioner Choe's building 27 on 171 N. Tustin Avenue, were also prevented from operating their business on several occasions 28 during the restaurant demolition on 301 N. Tustin Avenue, due to the extreme noise and vibrations 15 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 heard and felt from inside the building. After one day of demolition, Petitioner Choe found a vertical crack in an interior wall in an exam room that spans from the ceiling to the floor. This crack was not there prior to the demolition of the restaurant building. 47. Petitioners are informed and believe that the demolition was done without compliance with the mitigation measures imposed pursuant to the NIND. Further, neither the City nor Real Parties have provided any evidence of such compliance. F. With Only 10 Days -Notice to a Handful of Properties, the City Proposes to Approve the Developer's Revised Project with a Massive Car Wash Instead of a Retail Building and Find The Revised Project Categorically Exempt from CEQA 48. Nine months after the Original Project was approved, Respondents posted and mailed to only a handful of properties a "Notice of Public Hearing before the Santa Ana Planning Commission," dated August 30, 2019 (the "August 30th Notice"). Respondents' August 30' Notice was the very first time Respondents informed the public that the project referred to by Respondents as the "Russell Fischer Commercial Center" and approved for 325 and 301 N. Tustin Avenue the year prior, no longer included the Retail/Restaurant development on 301 N. Tustin Avenue, but instead, "[s]ince the zone change, the property owner has revised the project" to "substitute" a massive, automated carwash on 301 North Tustin, including a 4,354 square foot car tunnel and 20 vacuum bays, for the approved retail building. The service station and convenience store plans for 325 N. Tustin Avenue were unchanged. 49. The August 30th Notice stated that the Planning Commission would hold a Public Hearing on September 9, 2019, and take action on three items for the "revised" project, which was described as follows: "The applicant proposes to demolish the existing service station, car wash, and convenience store to construct a new service station with 3,040-square foot convenience store and new automated car wash. The project includes a request for (1) Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-30 to allow a car wash, (2) amendment to Variance No. 2018-10 to allow a reduction in the City's yard standards, and (3) Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31 to allow a convenience store to operate 24 hours a day." 16 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 50. The August 30" Notice also stated that the Revised Project was categorically exempt from CEQA environmental review as an in -fill development project: "[T]he project is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Class 32, In -fill Development Projects. This exemption applies to in -fill development provided it is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designation. The combined development site is 1.46 acres and surrounded by urban uses. The site was previously developed with commercial uses and has no habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The project will not result in any significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality according to the traffic impact analysis and with implementation of water quality requirements." 51. Thus, even though Respondents determined in late 2018 that the Original Project for 301 N. Tustin Avenue required environmental CEQA review and adopted the MND and MMRP, in part because 301 N. Tustin Avenue was found to be located "within a sensitive area and may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of [the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation's] tribal cultural resources," Respondents determined that the Revised project by substituting a massive car wash in the place of the retail building on 301 N. Tustin Avenue would have no significant effect on the environment and did not need to comply with the previously adopted MND. Accordingly, Respondents both posted and filed the Notice of Exemption for the Revised Project on September 10, 2019. G. The City Concealed the Revised Project From Petitioners and the Public 52. Prior to Respondents publishing and distributing the August 301 Notice, certain Petitioners inquired about the project development at 301 N. Tustin Avenue because it was well that the property owner, Real Party in Interest Russell Fischer, LP, owned six (6) car washes in Orange County, and Real Party in Interest Richard Finkel of Bundy -Finkel Associates, is a car wash developer that sits on the board of the Irvine Advisory Group — Carwash Consultants - "a consultancy headed by Paul Dadgar that has specialized in all facets of the carwash industry for over 25 years." Accordingly, astute residents and business owners like Petitioners found it curious that a car wash owner and a car wash developer would tear down the existing car wash on 325 N. Tustin Avenue, and develop on 301 N. Tustin Avenue a multi -tenant commercial retail center with restaurant. WRIT OF MANDATE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 53. Petitioner, Karina Conklin, visited the City Planning Department in person in early July 2019, and specifically inquired as to whether the development at 301 N. Tustin Avenue had changed from the Original Project approved by Respondents to a project involving a car wash. Respondents informed Ms. Conklin that only the 2018 Original Project was before the City, and referred her to the information page for the "Russell Fischer Commercial Center" on the City's website. (See https;//www.sauta-ana.orR/pb/planning-divisionhnalor-Ianning_projects-and- documents/russelI-Fischer-commercial-center). Petitioner Conlin, as a concerned Santa Ana business owner, requested Respondents to inform her if the project changed. Despite Petitioner Conklin's request, Respondents did not include her in the notification list for the August 30th which was distributed only to those within 500 feet of the Revised Project. 54. Contrary to the City's representation to Petitioner Conklin, Respondents received new development plans replacing the Retail/Restaurant portion of the project on 301 N. Tustin Avenue with the massive Revised Project on April 26, 2019. Respondents also received payment from Real Party in Interest and applicant Russell Fischer for review of the Revised Project on April 26, 2019. Moreover, Respondents' Planning Department submitted a "Discretionary Action New Submittal" memo to various City departments on May 1, 2019 regarding the newly proposed Revised Project for 301 N. Tustin Avenue. Respondents also received a "Revised Focused Traffic Impact Analysis Report" from Real Parties in Interest for the Revised Project on or about May 17, 2019. Respondents' project page for the "Russell Fischer Commercial Center" on the City's website reflected the Original Project until August 29, 2019, when the Revised Project was finally displayed — four months after Respondents received development plans and payment for the 22 Revised Project. 23 55. Respondents took active measures to conceal the evolution of the project at 301 N. 24 Tustin Avenue from the Original Project that, for over three (3) years, had been explained to the 25 public, discussed at numerous City meetings and hearings, shown to the public with site plans and 26 project mock ups, and displayed on the project page on the city's website as the Russell Fischer 27 Commercial Center up until ten (10) days before the September 9t' hearing. Moreover, 28 Respondents should have informed Petitioners that the project at 301 N. Tustin Avenue did in fact 18 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 6I 71 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 include a car wash when Petitioner expressly inquired in early July. These factors evidence that the ten day notice distributed only to those within 500 feet of the Revised Project was not intended to inform the public, but rather to conceal the drastic change in the project for 301 N. Tustin Avenue. If Petitioners were provided adequate notice, they could have obtained experts, had necessary studies conducted regarding the Revised Project, submitted Public Records Act requests for project documents and materials, and had time to review and analyze the documents and plans I for the newly proposed Revised Project, before the September 9` hearing. Respondents denied Petitioners of this opportunity and the result was prejudicial to them. H. Petitioners Submit Written Oppositions and Speak at the Hearing in Opposition 56. Prior to the September 9, 2019 hearing on the Revised Project before Respondent's Planning Commission, Petitioner Choe submitted written comments opposing the Revised Project stating her concerns over the impact of noise and vibrations on her dental practice because of the sensitive nature of her work and her medical equipment, as well as her tenant's massage business. 57. Petitioners William Conklin and Karina Conklin also timely submitted written comments in opposition prior to the hearing addressing, among other things, Respondents' violation of CEQA. Petitioners also objected that the August 301 Notice was insufficient to afford interested persons like themselves an adequate opportunity to prepare and protect their interests. Petitioners requested that the hearing being continued so that interested parties may have sufficient time to obtain and review the project materials for the newly Revised Project, but Respondents' Planning Commission denied that request. 58. Petitioner Choe appeared in person at the September 9, 2019 Planning Commission hearing and voiced her concerns to the Board of Commissioners over the significant environmental impacts the Revised Project will have on her property and business as an immediately adjacent, and uniquely sensitive use. 59. Petitioners William and Karina Conklin spoke in opposition to the Revised Project at the September 91' hearing through their representative. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 2 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I. Respondents' Planning Commission Approves the Revised Project and Finds it Exempt From CEQA 60. At the September 9, 2019 hearing, the City's Planning Commission approved the Project by granting two conditional use permits, amending a variance issued for the Original Project, and adopting Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2019-69, finding the Revised Project categorically exempt from CEQA environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 for certain infill developments. J. The City Posts and Files a Notice of Exemption for the Revised Project 61. On September 10, 2019, Respondents both filed and posted the NOE for the Project, which stated the Project was categorically exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15332. The NOE states the following under "Reason(s) Why Project Is Exempt From CEQA:" "The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designation. The site is 1.46 acres and surrounded by urban uses. The site was previously developed and has no habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The project will not result in any significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality or or [sic] water quality." Respondents did not make a single to the potential for cultural resources or tribal cultural resources on 325 and 301 N. 17 Tustin Avenue, after August 30, 2019,.when the project proposed with the car wash publicly 18 became the Revised Project. Respondents also did not mention the hazardous substances that 19 could be released into the air from demolition, including asbestos and lead -paint. 20 K. Petitioners File an Appeal to the City Council but the City Refuses to 21 Withdraw the NOE Pending the Hearing 22 62. On September 19, 2019, Petitioners filed an appeal of the City's Planning 23 Commission's approvals of the Revised Project, including the categorical exemption 24 determination to the City Council. 25 63. California Public Resource Code section 21151 requires the City to provide an 26 appeal of the Planning Commission's categorical exemption determination to the City Council. 27 The City's CEQA guidelines provide for such an appeal as well. 28 /// ?n FOR WRIT OF 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 64. Petitioner requested that the City withdraw the NOE in light of the appeal to the City Council, but the City refused. 65. The City's refusal to withdraw the NOE pending the hearing on the appeal necessitated this writ petition in light of the 35-day statute of limitation to challenge an NOE pursuant to Section 21167(d) of the Public Resources Code. L. The City Engages in Prohibited Piecemealing and Fails to Conduct Subsequent Environmental Review 66. "The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act `to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within reasonable scope of the statutory language."' (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 [citing Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1975) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259].) 67. To that end "`CEQA forbids `piecemeal' review of the significant environmental impacts of a project." (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Comrs. (2001) 91 Cal.AppAth 1344, 1358.) "This standard is consistent with the principle that `environmental considerations do riot become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones —each a minimal potential impact on the environment —which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences."' (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 396.) 68. Respondents engaged in unlawful piecemealing of the Project in blatant violation of CEQA by omitting portions of the project for which an MND and MMRP were previously adopted, approving modifications to the Original Project without further environmental review, and then carving out handpicked portions from the Revised Project. Respondents then defined those handpicked selections as the "project" in order to avoid necessary further environmental as well as compliance with the mitigation measures Respondents required for the Original Project via the MND and MMRP. The Petitioners as well as the general public will suffer grave harm if Respondents are permitted to continue morphing the Project, via piecemeal modifications, and ultimately permit development of that Project without necessary mitigation measures, as they have currently attempted and actually begun to do. 21 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE I 2 31 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 69. For purposes of CEQA coverage, a "project' is defined as comprising "the whole of an action" that has the potential to result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical I change to the environment. (14 Cal Code Regs § 15378(a).) Thus, the term "project' refers to the I activity for which approval is sought, not to each separate governmental approval that may be for the activity to occur. (14 Cal Code Regs §15378(c).) Accordingly, the lead agency describe the project to encompass the entirety of the activity that is proposed for approval to ensure that all potential impacts of the proposed project will be examined before it is approved. (14 Cal Code Regs § I5378(a), (d).) An initial study that fails to describe the entire project is fatally deficient: "[A] correct determination of the nature and scope of the project is a critical step in complying with the mandates of CEQA." (Nelson v County of Kern (2010) 190 Cal.AppAth 252, 267 [county violated CEQA by not including new surface mining as part of project when county was required to approve mining in addition to reclamation plan].) 70. In the August 9, 2018 Initial Study completed for the for the Project, Respondents defined the originally proposed project, which was the evaluated for environmental impacts, to include five (5) actions: (1) Development Project Approval for 325 N. Tustin Avenue and 301 N. Tustin Avenue; (2) Conditional Use Permit for drive through services on 301 N. Tustin Avenue; (3) Variance application for reduced landscape setback at 325 N. Tustin Avenue; (4) General Plan Amendment to revise land use designations of two parcels from Professional Administration Office to General Commercial; and (5) Amendment Application to change the zoning of four parcels from Professional to General Commercial (C2). (Initial Study, p. 10.) Respondents described the Original Project as follows: "The proposed project will facilitate the redevelopment of a site with a 2,778-square foot gas station convenience store, a 2,117-square foot gas pump canopy, and a 7,417-square foot multi -tenant retail building on two parcels totaling 1.46 acres in the City of Santa Ana. The project also includes a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Plan Map, an Amendment Application (zone change) to the Zoning Map on two properties of the Tustin Avenue Retail Development Project site (1.46 acres) and three adjacent properties (2.78 acres), which together will be known as the Tustin PETITION FOR 5 61 10 11 12 13 Avenue Retail Project site and total approximately 4.24 acres." (Initial Study, p. 4.) 71. Respondents expressly describe the Original Project to include "the demolition of the existing gas station, gas canopy, and carwash at 325 N. Tustin Avenue and demolition of the existing restaurant building at 301 N. Tustin Avenue." (Initial Study, p. 10.) 72. Respondents September 24, 2018 staff report to the Planning Commission concerning the Original Project recommended approval of the General Plan Amendment sought by Parties in Interest because it would "create an approximately 4-acre General Commercial area at the northeast and southeast corners of Tustin Avenue and Fourth Street," and the zone change because it would "create a continuous block of commercial uses that will stimulate the economy in the area." (Staff Report, September 24, 2018.) 73. The "Determination" reported by Respondents in the Initial Study was that the Original Project would have a less than significant effect on the following environmental areas mitigation measures incorporated: cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and 14 11 tribal cultural resources. It follows then that without these mitigation measures, the Original 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 will have a significant effect on these environmental areas. The specific mitigation measures adopted for the Original Project are discussed supra in this Petition. 74. Thereafter, Respondents prepared the MND for the Original Project,' as well as the MMRP (SCH # 2018081033). Respondents (City Council) adopted Resolution No. 2018-081 adopting the MND and MMRP on November 20, 2018. The Resolution states that the MND "concluded that the [Original] [P]roject would have a less than significant environmental impact with implementation of mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are included to address cultural resources, hazards, and tribal and cultural resources." The Resolution further states that the "City Council has, as a result of its consideration and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ' To date, Petitioner have been unable to review the MND because Respondents have failed to produce the MND in response to a Public Records Act Request submitted by Petitioners on September 12, 2019, as well as several other informal requests. The MND is not available on the City's website, nor is it available on the State Clearinghouse Website. I A 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 and the State CEQA Guidelines, the MND adequately addresses the expected environmental impacts of this [Original] [P]roject." 75. On or about May 20, 2019, Real Parties in Interest applied for, and Respondents issued, a demolition permit for the demolition of the restaurant building on 301 N. Tustin Avenue. The demolition occurred in approximately June 2019 and has since been completed. 76. On September 10, 2019, Respondents filed and posted the NOE (Notice of Environmental Review No. 2019-69), which states the "project" is categorially exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section t5332 of the CEQA Guidelines, as in -fill development project. In the NOE, Respondents now define the "proposed project" as: "Demolition of the existing service station, car wash and convenience store to construct a new service station with 3,040-square foot convenience store and new automated car wash." 77. The "project" as defined in the NOE deviates significantly from the Original Project, for which the Initial Study, MND and MMRP were adopted. The revised "project" adds the following: (1) Application for Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-30 to allow a car wash on 301 Tustin Avenue; (2) Application for Amendment to Variance No. 2018-10 to allow a reduction 16 II in the City's yard standards for 301 N. Tustin Avenue because Variance No. 2018-10 only applied 17 to 325 N. Tustin Avenue — the retail/restaurant development on 301 N. Tustin Avenue did not 18 require a variance; and (3) Application for Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31 to allow a 19 convenience store to operate 24 hours a day. The project location is identified in the NOE as 301 20 N. Tustin Avenue and 325 N. Tustin Avenue, which are now referenced as within "the General 21 Commercial (C2) zone." 22 78. Respondents improperly omit the following major components of the Original 23 Project from the revised project description: (1) General plan amendment No. 2018-05 to change 24 the designation of the 301 N. Tustin Avenue, 431 N. Tustin Avenue, and 2321 East Fourth Street 25 to General Commercial; (2) Zoning Amendment Application No. 2018-08 to change the zoning of 26 the properties at 301 N. Tustin Avenue, 325 N. Tustin Avenue, 401 N. Tustin Avenue, and 2320 27 East Fourth Street to C2; (3) the retail and restaurant development on 301 N. Tustin Avenue; (4) 28 Variance No. 2018-10 to allow a reduction in the City's yard standards; and (5) demolition of the 24 2 31 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 restaurant building on 301 N. Tustin Avenue. 79. Respondents' revised project definition set forth in the NOE is a blatant attempt to circumvent CEQA by piecemealing the project, and by avoiding subsequent environmental review by CEQA when a project undergoes significant modifications after initial NIND approval. unlawful and prejudicial efforts are evident from the record. For instance, Respondents erroneously assume that the project is located on properties zoned C2, and with a General Plan designation of General Commercial, when these applications and approvals were major components of the Original Project. In fact, development of the proposed car wash on 301 N. Tustin Avenue could not occur without those approvals. 80. Per the NOE, Respondents improperly abandoned the MND and the MMRP adopted for the Original Project only months before, and claim as of September 10, 2019, that the revised project is categorially exempt from CEQA review as an in -fill development project. Accordingly, Respondents are permitting Real Parties to proceed with development of the revised project without complying with any of the mitigation measures identified in the MND and MMRP for cultural and tribal and cultural resources, as well as hazards. 81. Because the Revised Project for purposes of CEQA must include all of the component parts, including the general plan amendment and zone change already completed, the Revised Project cannot qualify for the infill categorical exemption. As discussed above, the in -till development exemption is subject to five limitations including that the project must be consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies, as well as with any applicable zoning designation and regulation (14 Cal Code Regs §15332(a)). As a matter of law, a project that includes a general plan amendment or a zone change —as was the case here —is not eligible for the exemption. 82. Respondents actions constitute piecemeal project approval prohibited under CEQA, and negate Respondents' determination that the project is categorically exempt as an in -fill development project because Respondents cannot carve out the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment from the project in order to rely on the result of those approvals to satisfy the requirements for the in -fill exemption. The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment are PETITION FOR WRIT OF 31 51 6 a significant part of the Revised Project, which includes the proposed modifications to develop a car wash on 301 N. Tustin Avenue instead of the retail center, because the car wash could not have been developed on the property without those changes. Commercial development of those properties is the exact reason Real Parties applied for the General Plan Amendment and the Zoning Amendment because the neither the Original Project, nor the Revised could be developed those initial approvals. 7 83. The revised project is also inconsistent with the City's General Plan Goals and 8 Policies because the car wash development will not promote economic growth, sales tax revenue, 9 or jobs, and it is aesthetically unappealing at an identified gateway to the City. 10 84. In addition, Respondents were required to determine whether subsequent 11 environmental review of the Original Project was required in light of the modifications Real 12 Parties requested in 2019 as part of the Revised Project—i.e. the substitution of the car wash for 13 the retail building. If Respondents determined that no subsequent environmental review was 14 mandated by the modifications, then the MND and MMRP remained in effect and compliance 15 with the mitigation measures set forth therein was required. If Respondents determined that 16 further environmental review was necessary in light of the Modifications, then CEQA required 17 Respondents to adopt a subsequent environmental review document. 18 85. Further environmental review was required here because the addition of a massive, 19 automated car wash in the Revised Project creates environmental concerns that are distinct from 20 those associated with a retail building and were not considered in Respondents' Initial Study in 21 connection with the Original Project, or the MND. For example, the retail building in the Original 22 Project would produce no significant impacts on noise, vibration or traffic. In contrast, the 23 addition of the car wash development on 301 N. Tustin Avenue constitutes a substantial change in 24 light of, among other things, the vibrations, noise and traffic impacts the car wash will generate, 25 and that the car wash tunnel will be constructed merely inches from a highly sensitive use as a 26 dental office on 171 N. Tustin Avenue. 27 86. Subsequent environmental review was necessary to analyze whether the Revised 28 Project will have a significant impact on vibrations. PETITION FOR WRIT OF 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 87. Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. Groundborne noise is rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces. According to the EPA's technical guideline on vibrations, the dental office constitutes a "critical area" that requires lower vibration levels to be acceptable. The preferred values for Petitioner Choe's office are: 0.0050 (z-axis), 0.0036 (x- and y-axes), with maximum values of 0.010 (z-axis), 0.0072 (x- and y-axes). Petitioner Choe stated in her written comments opposing the Car Wash Project, that her medical/dental machinery and equipment and highly sensitive hand pieces such as the drill for nerve treatment, will cease to function even at very low vibration levels. 88. The vibrations generated by the car wash are "serious environmental impacts" that Respondents should have evaluated in a subsequent environmental review document when they revised the Original Project to include a car wash. This is particularly true because of the unique location of the 4,354 square -foot car wash tunnel on 301 N. Tustin Avenue, only inches from the dental office building on 171 N. Tustin Avenue, and the opening of the tunnel towards the sidewalk and professional business uses across the street. (See supra, site plan image, p. 5.) A vibration impact assessment needed to be performed and considered before the Revised Project was approved. Similarly, the extremely close proximity of the car wash tunnel to the Petitioner Choe's building is unusual and thus mandates further assessment and evaluation so that mitigation measures may be incorporated into the project, including for construction, if possible, and as conditions to any project approvals. The vibration and noise disturbance Petitioner Choe suffered during the restaurant demolition at 301 N. Tustin Avenue, which was significantly further away from her building than the mere inches to the tunnel of the new car wash, evidences the unusual circumstances of the Revised Project and need for these evaluations prior to any approvals for the Project. 89. The Revised Project will have a significant impact on noise by the addition of a massive, automated car wash. According to the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), Noise levels are generally considered low when they are below 45 dBA, moderate in the 45 to 60 dBA range, and high above 60 dBA. The car wash will operate from 7:00 am to 7:00 or 8:00 pm, seven days per week, and will service up to 30,000 cars per month. Prior to its demolition in 2019, 301 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 N. Tustin Avenue was developed with a restaurant located in the center of the property and had been used as such since 1965. The generation of noise from the industrial equipment used within the car wash tunnel, the twenty (20) vacuum bays, the extremely close proximity of the tunnel to a highly sensitive use, and the location of the car wash primarily surrounded by office/professional uses, is unique. The car wash will have a significant effect on the surrounding environment especially, Petitioner Choe's property and medical and dental practice, as well as her tenant's massage business, pedestrian traffic directly in front of the tunnel, and professional/business office directly across the street. 90. Immediately prior to filing this Petition, Petitioners became informed and on that believe that Respondents disclosed for the first time that a noise study had been performed for the car wash portion of the Revised Project. The LSA Noise Impact Analysis dated July 2019 I (the "LSA Noise Study") cites two (2) of Respondents' conditions of approval for the Revised Project: Conditions of Approval The City requires that the following conditions of approval be met: 21, Submit a technical noise study prepared by a firm specializing in noise studies to the City for review by the Planning Division, Police Department, and Code Enforcement Division that demonstrates that the existing exterior noise levels and that the proposed design and equipment of the car wash will conform to City noise ordinances, and the General Plan, and will minimize noise impacts on adjacent properties. 22, A condition of approval for the project will include a requirement for the applicant to submit a noise study based on updated field measurements within one month of commencement of operations (issuance of a certificate of occupancy), and again on the one-year anniversary of the commencement of operations, to ensure compliance with the City's noise ordinances. (LSA Noise Study, p. 8.) 91. The LSA Noise Study goes on to state: "This analysis has been prepared to satisfy Condition of Approval 21." (LSA Noise Study, p. 10.) The LSA Noise Study determines that there are no surrounding sensitive uses because they are all commercial and office uses. (Id. at p. 11.) The City's general plan noise element provides that the desirable maximum noise level for commercial land use is 65 decibels and the maximum acceptable noise level is 70 decibels. "The City of Santa Ana does not currently have specific requirements for commercial and medical 28 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 31 41 51 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 office uses within its Municipal Code." (LSA Noise Study, p. 19.) 92. The LSA Noise Study found that the "noise levels measured at the end of the car wash tunnel' alone would be 81.9 dBA 13 feet away in the direction of the businesses across the street and 73.7 dBA 20 feet from the end of the tunnel "90 degrees off-center"—i.e. on the other side of Petitioner Choe's dental office. No noise analysis was performed from the interior of Choe's building, or to assess the noise impact on the interior of her building from noise emanating through the wall of the tunnel, which is only inches away. The LSA Noise Study also failed to consider the vibrations that would be generated, and how they would be felt inside her building. 93. Petitioners are informed and believe that Respondents have never before cited to or disclosed the LSA Noise Study because since its creation in July 2019, Respondents removed Condition 21 to the CUP approval. The Condition of Approval for the car wash as set forth in the attachments to the staff report for the September 9, 2019 Planning Commission hearing on the Revised Project only require compliance with "City noise ordinance standards," and no longer the General Plan (the Noise Element) as it did when LSA prepared the Noise Study in July .11 "Prior to Building & Safety Division plan check submittal, the Applicant shall submit a technical noise study prepared by a professional firm specializing in preparation of noise studies to the City for review by the Planning Division, Police Department, and Code Enforcement Division that demonstrates that the proposed design and equipment of the car wash will conform to City noise ordinances and will minimize noise impacts on adjacent properties. The Applicant shall, to the best of his or her abilities and at his or her sole cost, utilize the same noise specialists employed at the Applicant's other location(s) to prepare the noise readings and studies. Prior to issuance of a permanent certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall hold a "soft opening" to test all noise -generating equipment onsite and make adjustments as necessary to bring the equipment into compliance with City noise ordinance standards, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Agency and Police Department. The Applicant shall submit an updated and revised noise study based on updated field measurements within one (1) month of commencement of operations, and again on the one-year anniversary of the commencement of operations, to ensure compliance with the City's noise ordinances." (CUP 2019-30, Condition to Approval, No. 11) 94. Accordingly, with respect to noise, Respondents' have conditioned approval of the 29 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE I 21 CUP for the car wash on compliance with nothing because, as LSA pointed out, the Noise Ordinance does not have "specific requirements for commercial and medical office uses." (LSA 3 11Noise Study, p. 19.) 4 95. There will be a significant impact on noise for the surrounding environment, 5 including but not limited to, business uses and pedestrian traffic, as there is no specific 6 requirement that noise remain below any certain level or comply with any specific standard. 7 96. Petitioners' expert conducted a peer review of Real Parties' traffic analysis and 8 found it deficient in that it used outdated and incomplete data that, when corrected, would show 9 the Revised Project will have a significant impact on traffic, including increasing the collision rate 10 at the intersection of N. Tustin Avenue and Fourth Street beyond what it currently is, which is 11 significantly higher than would be expected for this type of intersection. Specifically, "[t]he ten 12 year average collision rate at this intersection is 0.37 collisions per million entering vehicles ... 13 [and] the most recent collision rate during the past three years (2016-2018) the collision rate has 14 increased to 0.43 collisions per million entering vehicles." (Id.) Significantly, RKE found that 15 "any increase in traffic generated by the proposed [Car Wash] [P]roject could potentially increase 16 the collision rate at this intersection." (RK- Engineering, Peer Review of the Revised Project 17 revised Traffic Study, dated May 17, 2019, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Appendix B, 18 SWITRS data for Intersection of N. Tustin Ave. and 4r' Street.) 19 M. The Revised Project does not Qualify for the Infill Exemption 20 97. Respondents violated CEQA by erroneously finding the Revised Project 21 categorically exempt as an in -fill development project pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA 22 Guidelines. 23 98. CEQA section 15332 specifies the five requirements for a project to qualify for the 24 in -fill development exemption, which are: 25 (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation 26 and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning 27 designation and regulations; 28 (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of 30 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.)" 99. The Revised Project does not qualify for the in -fill categorical exemption because the project, within the meaning of CEQA, includes the general plan amendment and zone change, were part of the Original Project and are necessary for the development of the Revised 12 100. The Revised Project also does not qualify for a categorical exemption because 13 Respondents have already determined that the Original Project —including the portions that 14 remain in the Revised Project —require an MND and mitigation measures to avoid significant 15 impacts on the environment. In addition, CEQA does not permit a project to be modified 16 following the adoption of an MND and then for a categorical exemption to be approved so that the 17 MND can be disregarded. 18 101. The Revised Project also does not qualify for the categorical exemption because the 19 Revised Project would result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, vibrations, and air 20 quality. 21 102. In addition, the Revised Project cannot be approved as categorically exempt because 22 it falls into three exceptions. 23 103. CEQA section 15300.2 contains a list of exceptions to the exemptions. Relevant 24 here: 25 a. "all exemptions ... are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive 26 projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant." (subd. (a).) 27 b. "a categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a 28 reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the 31 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 7 environment due to unusual circumstances." (subd. (b).) c. "a categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource." 104. A categorical exemption is also not available because there are unusual circumstances that will have a significant effect on the environment in connection with the Revised Project, including but not limited to (a) the proximity of the car wash component of the Project to the building on the adjoining property and the noise and vibrations that will 8 impact the sensitive uses on that property, (b) that Respondents previously adopted an MND and 9 MMRP requiring mitigation measures to address significant environmental impacts for the project 10 and have abandoned the MND and MMRP as part of the approval of the Revised Project, (e) the 11 existence of cultural resources and tribal cultural resources on the property, and (d) the additional 12 traffic generated by the Revised Project which will increase the collision rate at the intersection of 13 411 Street and N. Tustin Avenue, which is already significantly exceeds the expected rate for this 14 type of intersection. 15 105. In the alternative, a categorical exemption is also not available because of the 16 cumulative impacts of the implemented portions of the Original Project, including the amendment 17 of the general plan, and zone change and demolition of the restaurant building coupled with the 18 additional elements of the Revised Project will have a significant impact on the environment as 19 evidenced by the previously adopted MND and MMRP. 20 106. Respondents were required to, and failed to, evaluate the environmental impacts of 21 the unmodified portions of the Original Project, as well as the environmental impacts of the work 22 already completed such as the demolition of the restaurant at 301 North Tustin Avenue, along with 23 24 25 26 27 28 environmental impacts of the changes made in the Revised Project. The existence of the MND and MMRP, which required mitigation measures for demolition and during construction of the entire original project, including the parts that have not been changed in the Revised Project, demonstrates that Respondents failed to consider and properly address these cumulative impacts in approving the Revised Project as categorically exempt. 32 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION [Violation of CEQA Against All Respondents] 107. Petitioners reallege and incorporate each of the prior allegations as set forth in full. 108. A court shall issue a writ of mandate ordering a public agency to perform a mandatory duty under CEQA if the court finds the agency committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion. (Pub. Res. Code § 21168.5; Code Civ. Proc. § 1085(a).) In the context of CEQA, an abuse of discretion "means the agency failed to proceed as required by law or there was no substantial evidence to support its decision." (Pub. Res. Code § 21168.5.) 109. Respondents have abused their discretion and failed to act in a manner required by CEQA because they: a. Failed to adequately address, analyze, or otherwise consider the adverse environmental impacts, necessary or foreseeable mitigation measures, or a reasonable range of alternatives to the Revised Project, in an environmental document as required by CEQA. b. Failed to provide adequate notice to Petitioners and the public to allow them to meaningfully prepare and participate in the hearing on the Revised Project as required by the right to due process under the US Constitution and the California Constitution; c. Engaged in prohibited piecemeal environmental review by ignoring the Original Project and abandoning the adopted MND and MMRP; d. Failed to conduct subsequent environmental review after substantial changes were made to the Original Project; e. Found the Revised Project categorically exempt as an in -fill development without meeting the statutory requirements, including consistency with the General Plan and zoning, and no significant impacts relating to traffic, noise, air quality and water quality. f. Found the Revised Project categorically exempt even though (a) the Revised Project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 circumstances, (b) the cumulative impact of successive projects over time is significant, and (c) the Revised Project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources, so that the exception provided by Guideline section 15300.2 applied to the Revised Project; g. Failed to provide an appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission's determination on the Revised Project as required by CEQA and the City of Santa Ana's local CEQA guidelines. 110. In addition, Respondents determinations in approving the Revised Project and the categorical exemption were not supported by substantial evidence. 111. Further, the lack of sufficient notice to Petitioners and the public deprived Petitioners and the public of the ability to meaningfully prepare for and participate in the public hearing regarding the Revised Project. Petitioners were denied sufficient time to hire experts, conduct necessary tests and studies related to the Revised Project, including a traffic study, noise study and vibration study, and to prepare and submit the public comments and materials submitted for the City Council meeting on October 15, 2019. 112. Accordingly, the Court should determine the Revised Project is not categorically exempt from CEQA as an infill development project, and in turn require necessary environmental PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray forjudgment against all Respondents as follows: For a peremptory writ of mandate directing Respondents to: a. Rescind, vacate, invalidate, set aside, void or otherwise annul the approval of the categorical exemption, the notice of exemption, the conditional use permits, variance amendment, and all other approvals granted for the Revised Project; b. Reinstate the MND and MMRP previously adopted and perform subsequent CEQA review for the substantial revisions to the project contained in the Revised Project, including the preparation of a subsequent EIR or subsequent MND if required; c. To include in the Revised Project the portions of the Original Project that have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 already been implemented, including the general plan amendment, zone change, demolition of the structures on 301 N. Tustin Avenue, and variance; d. To otherwise comply with CEQA in any and all actions in connection with approvals for the Revised Project. e. To stay all actions under the conditional use permit and other City approvals regarding the Revised Project pending final resolution of this action; 2. To provide public notice of all CEQA determinations, all public hearings or meetings discussing a CEQA determination in connection with the Revised Project with adequate time for the public to meaningfully participate and to provide notice to businesses and residents within a sufficient radius of the Revised Project so that interested parties may meaningfully prepare and appear to protect their interests, and Respondents may receive important input from the public, including those affected by the Revised Project. 13 3. To provide public notice of all CEQA determinations, all public hearings or 14 meetings discussing a CEQA determination in connection with the Revised. Project to California 15 Native American tribes who have requested notice, including but not limited to, the Gabrieleno 16 Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, with adequate time to meaningfully participate, prepare 17 and appear to protect their interests in their tribal cultural resources. 18 4. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Respondents from 19 taking any further action in connection with the Revised Project pending resolution of this action 20 and until Respondents have fully complied with CEQA; 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. For an award of costs and attorneys' fees, including but not limited to fees authorized under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; and 6. For such other equitable relief that the Court finds just and proper. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (DATED: October 13, 2019 Respectfully submitted, KARA GRANT LAW By: Kara E. Gra Attorneys for inners 36 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I have read the following VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FOR VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF and know its contents. I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own personal knowledge, except as to matters that are stated on information or belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and this Verification was executed on October 13, 2019. William Conklin PETITION FOR WRIT OF AanlffWA 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 17595 Harvard, Suite C-202, Irvine, California 92614. On October 13, 2019, I served the foregoing document described as: NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FOR VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF on the interested parties in this action by placing [XX] the original [ ]a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: City of Santa Ana Cleric of the Council, M-30 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana. CA 92701 [XX] BY MAIL I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Irvine, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am "readily familiar" with this firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date deposit for mailing in affidavit. [ ] BY PERSONAL I caused to be delivered by hand to the above -listed addressees or to the SERVICE addressees on the list attached hereto. A proof of service executed by the delivery person will be mailed under separate cover. [ ] BY OVERNIGHT To expedite the delivery of the above -named document, said document was MAIL/COURIER sent via overnight courier for next day delivery to the above -listed party. [ ] BY FACSIMILE In addition to the manner of proof of service indicated above, a copy was sent ("FAX") by FAX to the above -listed party. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 13, 2019, at Irvine, California. KARA E. G PROOF OF 4.8 Noise 4.8 NOISE This FIR section evaluates the potential effects of noise and groundborne vibration associated with construction and operational activities that could occur as a result of implementation of the proposed Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) area. The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts to occur associated with a substantial temporary and/or permanent increase in ambient noise levels within or around the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) area. Additionally, the Initial Study identified the potential for people to be exposed to excessive noise levels, groundborne vibration, or groundborne noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance. Potential direct and indirect impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed projects are identified, and potential mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce these impacts are recommended, where feasible. Issues scoped out include proximity to, or association with, an airport land use plan or airstrip. While the proposed project area is located outside of the 20,000-foot notification area as required by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), the project must still comply with the Airport Environs Element that was adopted by the City of Santa Ana in 2008, in order to comply with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for Orange County. Refer to Chapter 4.5 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) for analysis of this issue. Data used to prepare this report were taken from the Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared by KOA Corporation for the proposed project, and information obtained by measuring and modeling existing and future noise levels at the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) area and in the surrounding area. Three comment letters associated with noise were received in response to the Notice of Preparation circulated for the proposed project. The comment letters can be found in Appendix A. 4.8.1 Existing Conditions The project is located in the central urban core of Santa Ana and comprises approximately 100 blocks and 450 acres of land. The proposed project is generally bounded by First Street, Flower Street, Civic Center Drive, Grand Avenue, and Interstate 5 (I-5). More specifically, the proposed project is located in the area west of I-5, north of First Street, and between Grand Avenue and Flower Street and south of Civic Center Drive in the City of Santa Ana in Orange County, California. Several roadways provide access to properties within the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) area, including Civic Center Drive, Fourth Street, First Street, and Santa Ana Boulevard, which run east - west through the area, and Flower Street, Main Street and Grand Avenue, which run north -south through the area. The Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) area includes the Government Center, downtown area, the Logan and Lacy neighborhoods, and the industrial parks surrounding the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC). The surrounding land uses include residential, professional, City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 4.8-1 Chapter Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures commercial, industrial, and civic uses and their environs. Specific adjacent (off -site) uses include the following: ■ North: Single-family residential, office, and commercial uses, as well as I-5 ■ East: Commercial and residential uses. I-5 is located immediately adjacent to portions of the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) area ■ South: Institutional (including educational), commercial, industrial, and residential uses ■ West: Residential and commercial uses with open space located further to the west Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency -dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A -weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady "background" noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from, for example, traffic on a major highway. Table 4.8-1 (Representative Environmental Noise Levels) lists representative noise levels for the environment. Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Because environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise upon people is largely dependent upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. The L, is a measure of ambient noise, while the Ld„ and CNEL are measures of community noise. Each is applicable to this analysis and defined as follows: ■ L,g, the equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the L,9 of a time -varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night. ■ L , , the Day -Night Average Level, is a 24-hour average Le7 with a 10 dBA "weighting" added to noise during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. to account for noise sensitivity in the nighttime. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24 hour L, would result in a measurement of 66.4 dBA Ld,,. ■ CNEL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level, is a 24-hour average L,q with a 5 dBA "weighting" during the hours of 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. and a 10 dBA "weighting" added to noise during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and 4.8-2 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 4.8 Noise nighttime, respectively. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24 hour Leg would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL. ■ L,,, the minimum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. ■ L„ „ the maximum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. TableRepresentative Common Outdoor Activities Nofse Level (dBA) Environmental Noise Levels Common Indoor Activities Power Saw —110— Rock Band Jet Fly -over at 100 feet Crying Baby Subway —100— Gas Lawnmower at 3 feet Tractor —g0— Food Blender at 3 feet Diesel Truck going 50 mph at 50 feet —80— Garbage Disposal at 3 feet Noisy Urban Area during Daytime Gas Lawnmower at 100 feet —70— Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Commercial Area Normal Speech at 3 feet Heavy Traffic at 300 feet —60— Sewing Machine Air Conditioner Large Business Office Quiet Urban Area during Daytime —50— Dishwasher in Next Room Refrigerator Quiet Urban Area during Nighttime —40— Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Area during Nighttime —30— Library Quiet Rural Area during Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) —20— BroadcasNRecording Studio —10— Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing —0— Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing SOURCE: League of the Hard of Hearing 2006 Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day or night, or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60 to 70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings that can provide noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban, residential streets that can provide noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate -level noise environments are City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 4.8-3 Chapter 4 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures urban residential or semi -commercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with more noisy urban residential or residential -commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA). According to the City's Noise Control Ordinance, the exterior noise level standard is 55 dBA from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., and 50 dBA from 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. The interior noise level standard is 55 dBA from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., and 45 dBA from 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. Standards for impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, and any other combination are 5 dBA lower than the above standards, and noise levels exceeding these standards are limited to relatively shorter periods of time. When evaluating changes in 24-hour community noise levels, a difference of 3 dBA is a barely perceptible increase to most people. A 5 dBA increase is readily noticeable, while a difference of 10 dBA would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. Noise levels from a particular source decline as distance to the receptor increases. Other factors, such as the weather and reflecting or shielding, also intensify or reduce the noise level at a location. A common method for estimating roadway noise is that for every doubling of distance from the source, the noise level is reduced by about 3 dBA at acoustically "hard" locations (i.e., the area between the noise source and the receptor is nearly complete asphalt, concrete, hard -packed soil, or other solid materials) and 4.5 dBA at acoustically "soft" locations (i.e., the area between the source and receptor is normal earth or has vegetation, such as grass). Noise from stationary or point sources is reduced by about 6 to 7.5 dBA for every doubling of distance at acoustically hard and soft locations, respectively. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The manner in which older homes in California were constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior -to -interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior - to -interior reduction of newer residential units is generally 30 dBA or more. Fundamentals of Environmental Groundborne Vibration Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. Groundborne noise is the rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle velocity in inches per second; in the U.S., this is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB). The background vibration velocity level in residential and educational areas is usually around 50 VdB. The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings, such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel -wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in 4.8-4 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 4.8 Noise fragile buildings. Table 4.8-2 (Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration) describes the general human response to different levels of groundborne vibration velocity levels. Vibration Velocity Level Human Reaction 65 VdB I Approximate threshold of perception for many people. 75 VdB Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible. Many people find that transportation -related vibration at this level is unacceptable. 85 VdB I Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day. SOURCE; HMMH, 2006 Existing Ambient Daytime Noise Levels According to the Noise Element of the City of Santa Ana General Plan, the primary source of noise within the City is traffic noise from major roadways and freeways within the area from mobile sources such as automobiles, buses, trucks, and vehicles associated with construction equipment transport. Secondary noise sources in the City include aircraft operations, railroad operations, and construction activities. Also, stationary sources such as industrial activities, public gatherings, activities in open areas, and the use of equipment in unenclosed spaces, produce a significant amount of noise. Existing daytime noise levels were monitored at twelve locations around the project area, which are depicted in Figure 4.8-1 (Noise Monitoring Locations), in order to identify representative noise levels at various areas. The noise levels were measured using a Larson -Davis Model 814 precision sound level meter, which satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for general environmental noise measurement instrumentation. The average noise levels and sources of noise measured at each location are identified in Table 4.8-3 (Existing Noise Levels around the Proposed Transit Zoning Code [SD 84A and SD 84B] Area). As shown, the daytime noise levels range from a high of 77.0 dBA to a low of 52.9 dBA and are characteristic of a typical urban area. IM Existing Local Noise Environment The Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad (AT&SF) tracks, which are used by Amtrak and Metrolink for commuter train services during most of the day, run along the eastern edge of Santa Ana and through the eastern portion of the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) area. Rail transit traveling at grade typically produces a noise level of 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the tracks while rail transit stopped at a station typically produces a noise level of 65 dBA at a distance of 50 feet (HMMH 2O06). In addition, the sounding of train horns, which is required when approaching at -grade crossings with streets and highways for safety reasons, represents the highest noise levels associated with train services. The sounding of a train horn can generate noise levels in excess of 110 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4,8-5 Chapter 4 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table s Noise Levelsaround a ♦ • - • Transit Zoning and So 848) Area Location Primary Noise Sources Code Noise Level Statistics Lp (dBA) L;;,, (dBA) L. (dBA) 1 Santa Ana Blvd, east of Ross St. Road Traffic 65.3 47.3 78.8 2 Main St. and Third St. Road Traffic 71.9 54.8 90.2 3 Spurgeon St., between Santa Ana Blvd. and Civic Center Dr. Road Traffic 59.0 49.2 70.9 4 1200 Block French St. Road Traffic 57.5 39.9 77.6 5 700 Block 2nd St. Road Traffic 54.2 44.2 71.7 6 Lacy St. and 5w St. Road Traffic/Music 56.2 44.8 66.1 7 6'^ St. and Santiago St, Road Traffic/Truck Yard 68.5 55.3 85.4 8 Rail Station Platform Road Traffic/Trains 77.0 49.3 98.3 9 700 Block Eastwood Ave. Road Traffic 52.9 46.1 63.7 10 2d St., between Grand Ave, and Hathaway St. Road Traffic 58.8 48.4 77.3 11 Logan St, south of 1-5 Freeway Freeway Traffic 74.0 71.0 77.6 12 1400 Block Hathaway St. Freeway Traffic 60.8 58.3 65.9 SOURCE: PBS&J, January 5, 2010. John Wayne Airport is located to the south of the City of Santa Ana and is served by several commercial air carriers and commuter airlines. A small portion of Santa Ana located along the southeast border of the City and not within the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) boundaries is located within the airport's 60 CNEL noise contour. Existing Roadway Noise Levels Off -Site Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for the roadway segments in the project site vicinity that have noise -sensitive uses facing the roadways. This task was accomplished using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and traffic volumes from the project traffic analysis. The model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (energy rates) utilized in the FHWA Model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by Caitrans. The Caltrans data show that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. The average daily noise levels along these roadway segments are presented in Table 4.8-4 (Existing Roadway Noise Levels). As indicated, average daily noise levels along roadways within the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) area range from a high of 74.4 dBA CNEL to a low of 56.5 dBA CNEL. 4.8-6 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.8 Noise Table... Roadway Segment Reference 24-hour dBA CNEL Noise Level at 50 Feet= Flower Street -Santa Ana Blvd to Civic Center Dr 67.6 Flower Street-17th St to Civic Center Dr 67.5 Civic Center Dr -West of Flower St 67.6 Civic Center Dr -Flower St to Ross St 67.3 Flower Street -Santa Ana Blvd to 1st St 67.6 Santa Ana Blvd -West of flower St 63.8 Santa Ana Blvd -Flower St to Parton St 64.7 Santa Ana Blvd -Parton St to Ross St 64.7 Civic Center Dr -Ross St to Broadway 66.8 Santa Ana Blvd -Ross St to Broadway 64.4 Broadway -Civic Center Dr to Santa Ana Blvd 67.7 Broadway -Civic Center Dr to Washington Ave 68.8 Civic Center Dr -Broadway to Sycamore St 66.7 Broadway -Santa Ana Blvd to 5th St 67.1 Santa Ana Blvd -Broadway to Sycamore St 63.6 Broadway-5th St to 4th St 67.0 5th St -Broadway to Ross St 61.0 5th St -Broadway to Main St 61.0 Broadway-3rd St to 4th St 67.0 Broadway-3rd St to 1 st St 67.0 Broadway -South of 1st St 65.5 1st St -Broadway to Ross St 73.8 1 st St -Main St to Broadway 73.6 Civic Center Dr -Sycamore St to Main St 66.7 Santa Ana Blvd -Sycamore St to Main St 63.6 5th St -Sycamore St to Broadway 61.0 5th St -Sycamore St to Main St 61.0 Main St -Civic Center Dr to Santa Ana Blvd 68.7 Main St -Civic Center Dr to Washington Ave 68.8 Civic Center Dr -Main St to Bush St 65.6 Main St -Santa Ana Blvd to 5th St 68.7 Santa Ana Blvd -Main St to Bush St 63.6 Main St-5th St to 4th St 68.7 5th St -Main St to Bush St 59.5 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.8-9 Chapter 4 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures TableRoadway Roadway Segment Reference 24-hour d8A CNEL Noise Level at 50 Feet Main St-3rd St to 4th St 68.2 Main St-1 at St to 3rd St 68.2 Santa Ana Blvd -Bush St to Spurgeon St 63.6 5th St -Bush St to French St 59.4 1 st St -Spurgeon St to Main St 73.7 Santa Ana Blvd -Lacy St to Standard Ave 65.3 Civic Center Dr -French St to Lacy St 65.6 Santa Ana Blvd -Lacy St to French St 65.0 4th St -Lacy St to French St 62.5 1st St -Lacy St to Spurgeon St 73.7 1stSt-Lacy St to Standard Ave 73.7 Santiago St -Washington Ave to Civic Center Dr 64.7 Santiago St -Washington Ave to 17th St 64.6 Santiago St -Santa Ana Blvd to Civic Center Dr 64.3 Civic Center Dr -Santiago St to Lacy St 65.5 Civic Center Dr -Lincoln Ave to Santiago St 56.5 Santiago St -Santa Ana Blvd to Brown St 63.1 Santa Ana Blvd -Santiago St to Lacy St 65.3 Santa Ana Blvd -Santiago St to U-24 68.0 4th St -Santiago St to Lacy St 64.5 Grand Ave-4th St to Santa Ana Blvd 72.1 Grand Ave -Santa Ana Blvd to 17th St 71.4 Santa Ana Blvd -East of Grand Ave 62.8 Grand Ave --1st St to 4th St 71.5 4th St -Grand Ave to Santiago St 64.5 4th St -East of Grand Ave 65.0 Grand Ave -South of 1st St 72.4 1 st St -Standard Ave to Grand Ave 73.8 1st St -East of Grand Ave 73.5 Penn Way -South of 1-5 SB Ramps 63.8 Penn Way -North of 1-5 SB Ramps 66.5 Santa Ana Blvd -West of 1-5 SB Ramps 69.7 Santa Ana Blvd -East of 1-5 SB Ramps 67.7 17th St -West of I-5 NB Ramps 74.4 17th St -East of 1-5 NB Ramps 73.4 4.8-10 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.8 Noise Grand Ave —South of 1-5 NIB Ramps 1 73.0 Grand Ave —North of 1-5 NB Ramos 1 797 SOURCE: PBS&J, 2010 (cc culafion data and results are provided in Appendix F). a. Distances are in feet from roadway centerline. The identified noise level at 50 feet from the roadway centerline is for reference purposes only. It does not reflect an actual building location or potential impact location. Existing Groundborne Vibration Levels The greatest regular source of ground -borne vibration in the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) area and in the immediate vicinity is roadway traffic, bus traffic, and rail traffic. Trucks and buses typically generate noticeable ground -borne vibration velocity levels at the edge of the road and typically produce a vibration level of 65 VdB at a distance of 50 feet from the roadway. Trains typically generate noticeable ground -borne vibration velocity levels at the edge of the right-of-way and typically produce a vibration level of 75 VdB at a distance of 50 feet from the tracks (HMMH 2O06). 4.8.2 Regulatory Framework Federal The U.S. Department of IIousing and Urban Development (HUD) has set a goal of 45 dBA Ldn as a desirable maximum interior standard for residential units developed under HUD funding. While HUD does not specify acceptable exterior noise levels, residential dwellings constructed under Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations typically provide 20 dBA of acoustical attenuation with the windows closed and 10 dBA with the windows open. Based on this assumption, the exterior Ld or CNEL should not exceed 65 dBA under normal conditions. State The California Department of Health Services (DHS) Office of Noise Control has previously studied the correlation of noise levels and their effects on various land uses (DHS no longer exists). The most current guidelines prepared by the State noise officer were issued in 1987. They are contained in the "General Plan Guidelines" issued by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research in 1998. Noise - compatible land use planning depends on the ability to locate noise -sensitive land uses in an acceptable environment. Exterior noise environments are "normally acceptable" for schools and residences if they are below 60 dBA Ldn (or CNEL) and "conditionally acceptable" below 70 dBA Ldn (or CNEL). A "conditionally acceptable" designation implies that new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and after necessary noise insulation features are incorporated into the design of the new land use. By comparison, a "normally acceptable" designation indicates that standard construction can occur without special noise reduction requirements. City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.8-11 Chapter 4 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures The types of land uses addressed by the State standards and the acceptable noise categories for each are presented in Table 4.8-5 (Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Sources). There is some overlap between the categories, indicating the importance of judgment required when determining the applicability of the numbers in certain situations. Table;.. Land Use Category - Sources Noise Exposure (dBA CNEO 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential —Low -Density Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes Residential —Multiple Family Transient Lodging —Motels, Hotels School, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes — Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters Sports Areas, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks Golf Course, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 4.8-12 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.8 Nolse Nolse Exposure (dBA, CNEL) Land Use Cafeaory 55 60 65 70 75 80 Office Buildings, Business, Commercial and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but closed windows and fresh air supply or air conditioning will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. SOURCE: Office of Noise Control, California Department of Healfh Services. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations requires performing acoustical studies before constructing dwelling units in areas that exceed 60 dBA L,,. In addition, the California Noise Insulation Standards identify an interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for new multi -family residential units. Local City of Santa Ana General Plan Noise Element The Noise Element of the General Plan identifies sources of noise in the City and provides objectives and policies that ensure that noise from various sources would not create an unacceptable noise environment. It is a tool that City planners use to achieve and maintain land uses with compatible environmental noise levels. As shown in Table 4.8-6 (City of Santa Ana Standards and Guidelines for Noise Levels by Land Use), the City has established the following standards and guidelines for noise levels for land use. City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD Wand SD 84B) EIR 4.8-13 Chapter 4 Environmental Setting; Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 4.8;-6 City of Land Use Category Santa Ana Standards Noise Levels by and Guidelines Land Use Desirable Maximum (CNEL dBA) Maximum Acceptable (CNEL dBA) Residential, Low Density 55 65 Residential, Medium Density 60 65 Residential, High Density 65 70 Schools 60 70 Commercial, Office 65 70 Industrial 70 75 SOURCE: City of Santa Ana General Plan Noise Element Based on these standards, exterior noise levels of 55 dBA CNEL and lower are desirable for single-family residential uses, while exterior noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL and lower are desirable for high -density multi -family residential uses. Incompatible land uses should not be developed in areas where existing noise levels exceed the maximum acceptable guidelines. All residential uses should be protected with sound insulation over and above that provided by normal building construction when constructed in areas exposed to greater than 60 dBA CNEL. The following goals, objectives, and policies from the Noise Element are relevant to the proposed 'Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B): Goal Prevent significant increases in noise levels in the community and minimize the adverse effects of currently existing noise sources Objective 1.1 Prevent creation of new and additional sources of noise. Objective 1.2 Reduce current noise levels of acceptable standards. Implementation Policies ■ Require consideration of noise generation potential and susceptibility to noise impacts in the siting, design and construction of new developments m Require mitigating site and building design features, traffic circulation alternatives, insulation and other noise prevention measures of those new developments which generate high noise levels. ■ Sound insulate and/or buffer sensitive land uses such as housing from adverse noise impacts in noise -prone areas ■ Minimize noise generation in residential neighborhoods through control or elimination of truck traffic and through - traffic from these areas 4.8-14 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.8 Nolse Consistency Analysis As described under Impact 4.8-1, construction -related noise could negatively affect nearby sensitive receptors. However, with the implementation of mitigation measures MM4.8-1 though MM4.8-4, construction -related noise would be reduced. Sources of noise generated by implementation of the proposed project would include new stationary sources (such as rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] systems for the residential and office uses). As discussed under Impact 4.8-2, these noise sources have the potential to impact sensitive uses located both on- and off -site. Mitigation measures MM4.8-5 though MM4.8-7 would reduce exterior noise levels affecting nearby sensitive uses to below the exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL. The primary source of noise in the vicinity of the proposed project is traffic noise. As discussed in Impact 4.8-7, traffic generated by the proposed project would generate noise along nearby road segments; however, the increase attributed to the proposed project would not be substantial and would not affect nearby sensitive uses both on- and off -site. However, portions of the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) area are located within close proximity to the SARTC and the AT&SF rail line. As discussed in Impact 4.8-8, sensitive receptors may be exposed to noise levels from trains in excess of the desired exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL and interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Implementation of mitigation measures outlined below would reduce noise levels but below the standards set by the City. For the reasons listed above, the proposed project is not consistent with Goal 1. City of Santa Ana Municipal Code The City of Santa Ana has also adopted a Noise Ordinance (Chapter 18, Article VI of the Santa Ana Municipal Code), which identifies exterior noise standards, specific noise restrictions, exemptions, and variances for sources of noise within the City. Section 18-311 of the Municipal Code designates the entire City as Noise Zone 1 for exterior and interior noises. Section 18-312 of the Municipal Code establishes exterior noise levels for residential land uses. The exterior noise standards established in the City's Noise Ordinance are identified in Table 4.8-7 (City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance Exterior Noise Standards). If the ambient noise level is greater than the identified noise standards, the noise standard becomes the ambient noise level without the offending noise. TableOrdinance Noise Level That May Not Be Exceeded for More Than Exterior 7:00 A.M.-10.*00 P.M. N 6ise Stanclardi 10:00 P.M: 7.00 A.M. 30 minutes in any hour 55 dBA 50 dBA 15 minutes in any hour 60 dBA 55 dBA 5 minutes in any hour 65 dBA 60 dBA 1 minute in any hour 70 dBA 65 dBA Any time 75 dBA 70 dBA SOURCE: City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 18-312 In the event that the alleged offensive noise consists entirely of Impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music or cry combination thereof, the specified noise limits are reduced by 5 dB(A) City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 4.815 Chapter 4 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Section 18-313 of the Municipal Code establishes interior noise standards that apply to all residential properties within the designation Noise Zone 1. Interior noise levels must not exceed 55 dBA between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. or 45 dBA between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M., as shown in Table 4.8-8 (City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance Interior Noise Standards). As with Section 18-312 of the Municipal Code, if the ambient noise level is greater than the identified noise standards, the noise standard becomes the ambient noise level without the offending noise. Noise Level That May Not Be Exceeded for More Than 7:00 A.M._10:00 P.M. 10:00 P.m,7.,00 A.M. 5 minutes in any hour 55 dBA 45 dBA 1 minute in any hour 60 dBA 50 dBA Any time 65 dBA 55 dBA SOURCE: City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 18-312 Interior noise measurements shall be made within the affected dwelling unit. The measurement shall be made at a point of least four (4) feet from the wall, ceiling, or floor nearest the alleged offensive noise source and may be made with the windows of the affected unit open. In the event the alleged offensive noise consists entirely of impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, or any combination thereof, each of the above noise levels shall be reduced by five (5) dB(A). Section 18-314 of the Noise Ordinance provides special provisions which exempt certain activities from the standards established in the Noise Ordinance. As such, the following activities are exempt: ■ Activities conducted on the grounds of any public or private nursery, elementary, intermediate or secondary school or college ■ Outdoor gatherings, public dances and shows, provided said events are conducted pursuant to a license issued by the City of Santa Ana ■ Activities conducted on any park or playground, provided such park or playground is owned and operated by a public entity ■ Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment used, related to or connected with emergency machinery, vehicle or work ■ Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided said 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 m All mechanical devices, apparatus or equipment which are utilized for the protection or salvage of agricultural crops during periods of potential or actual frost damage or other adverse weather condition ■ Mobile noise sources associated with agricultural operations, provided such operations do not take place between the hours of 8:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday ■ Mobile noise sources associated with agricultural pest control through pesticide application, provided that the application is made in accordance with restricted material permits issued by or regulations enforced by the agricultural commissioner 4.8-16 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 4.8 Noise ■ Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property, provided said activities take place between 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on any day except Sunday or a federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on Sunday or a federal holiday ■ Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by state or federal law Under Section 18-314(e) of the Municipal Code, construction activity noise sources are exempt from the Noise Ordinance standards so long that the activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 P.m. and 7:00 A.M. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. 4.8.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Analytic Method Implementation of the proposed project could result in the introduction of noise levels that may exceed permitted City noise levels. The primary sources of noise associated with the proposed project would be construction activities within the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) area and project -related traffic volumes associated with operation of those projects. Secondary sources of noise would include new stationary sources (such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units) and increased human activity throughout the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) area. In addition, land use allowed under the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) could be affected by noise generated by existing rail operations along the AT&SF tracks, which run through the eastern portion of the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) area. The net increase in noise levels generated by these activities and other sources have been quantitatively estimated and compared to the applicable noise standards and thresholds of significance. Aside from noise levels, groundborne vibration would also be generated during the construction phase of the proposed projects within the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) area by various types of construction equipment. In addition, land uses allowed under the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) could be affected by groundborne vibration generated by existing rail operations along the AT&SF tracks. Thus, the groundborne vibration levels generated by construction equipment have also been quantitatively estimated and compared to applicable thresholds of significance. Construction Noise Levels Construction noise levels were estimated by data published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Potential noise levels are identified for on- and off -site locations that are sensitive to noise, including residences and schools. The EPA has compiled data regarding the noise -generating characteristics of typical construction activities. These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site, at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 86 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receptor would reduce to 80 dBA at 100 feet from the source to the receptor, and reduce by another 6 dBA to 74 dBA at 200 feet from the source to the receptor. City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.8-17 Chapter 4 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Roadway Noise Levels Roadway noise levels have been calculated for various locations in and around the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) area. The noise levels were calculated using the FHWA-RD-77-108 model and traffic volumes from the project traffic study. The average vehicle noise rates (energy rates) utilized in the FHWA Model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by Caltrans. Traffic volumes used in the FHWA model are derived from the project traffic study, which is provided in its entirety Appendix G and summarized in Section 4.11 (Transportation/Traffic) of this document. Railway Noise Levels Railway noise levels resulting from railway operations occurring within the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) area were estimated using data published by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH 2O06) for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Vibration Levels Associated with Construction Equipment Groundborne vibration levels resulting from construction activities occurring within the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) area were estimated using data published by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH 2O06) for the FTA. Potential vibration levels are identified for on- and off -site locations that are sensitive to vibration, including residences and schools. Vibration Levels Associated with Railway Operations Groundborne vibration levels resulting from railway operations occurring within the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) area and were estimated using data published by Harris Miller M ller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH 2O06) for the FTA. Potential vibration levels are identified for on -site locations that are sensitive to vibration, including residences and schools. FA Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on noise if it would result in any of the following: ■ Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies ■ Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels ■ Cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project ■ Cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project 4.8-18 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.8 Nolse ■ Expose people residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels from a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport ■ Expose people residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels from a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip The CEQA Guidelines do not define the levels at which temporary and permanent increases in ambient noise are considered "substantial." As discussed previously in this section, a noise level increase of 3 dBA is barely perceptible to most people, a 5 dBA increase is readily noticeable, and a difference of 10 dBA would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. Based on this information, the following thresholds would apply to the operational characteristics of the proposed project: ■ Less than 3 dBA: not discernable, not significant ■ Greater than 3 dBA but less than 5 dBA: noticeable, but not significant, if noise levels remain below 65 dBA CNEL noise level standard at sensitive land uses including residential uses ■ Five dBA or greater: potentially significant, if the noise increase would meet or exceed 65 dBA CNEL noise level standard at sensitive land uses including residential uses ■ Five dBA or greater: potentially significant - The CEQA Guidelines also do not define the levels at which groundbome vibration or groundborne noise is considered "excessive." For the purpose of this analysis, groundborne vibration impacts associated with human annoyance would be significant if the proposed project exceeds 85 VdB, which is the vibration level that is considered by FTA to be acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day (as described in Table 4.8-2 [fIuman Response to Different Levels of Gooundbotne Vibration]). In terms of groundborne vibration impacts on structures, this analysis will use FTA's vibration damage threshold of approximately 100 VdB for fragile buildings and approximately 95 VdB for extremely fragile historic buildings (HMMH 2O06). Effects Found to Have No Impact Threshold If the project is located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airstrip, would it expose people residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels? As discussed in Section 4.6 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), the proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public airport to the project is the John Wayne Airport, which is located approximately 5.0 miles south of the proposed project. Further, the proposed project is located over 5,000 feet from the 60 CNEL noise contour for John Wayne Airport. Thus, no impact related to the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport related noise levels is anticipated, and no further analysis is required in this FIR. City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.8-19 Chapter 4 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Threshold If the project is located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would it expose people residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels? The Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) area is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Thus, no impact related to the exposure of people residing or working in the project site to excessive airstrip -related noise levels is anticipated, and no further analysis is required in this EIR. Effects Found to Be Less Than Significant Threshold Would the project result in the 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? Impact 4.8-1 Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate noise levels that exceed the noise standards established by the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.8-1 through MM4.8-4 would reduce this impact, but noise levels could still be substantial. However, the project's construction noise impacts would be temporary and would be consistent with the exemption for construction noise that exists in the Municipal Code. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. The proposed project has the potential to result in events that may exceed permitted noise levels. The primary sources of noise associated with the proposed project would be construction activities and project -related traffic volumes. Secondary sources include increased human activity throughout the sites. Noise limits for sensitive uses established in Section 18-311 and 18-312 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code are shown in Table 4.8-7 and Table 4.8-8. Development of projects under the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) would require the use of heavy equipment for demolition, site excavation, installation of utilities, site grading, paving, and building fabrication. Construction activities would also involve the use of smaller power tools, generators, and other sources of noise. During each stage of construction there would be a different mix of equipment operating, and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location of the activity. The EPA has compiled data regarding the noise generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment and typical construction activities. These data are presented in Table 4.8-9 (Noise Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment) and Table 4.8-10 (Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels). These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 86 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receptor would reduce to 80 dBA at 100 feet from the source to the receptor, and reduce by another 6 dBA to 74 dBA at 200 feet from the source to the receptor. 4.8-20 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.8 Noise TableRanges: 4.8-9 Noise Equfpmenf Equipment Noise Levels in dBA L, of 50 Feet Front Loader 73 to 86 Trucks 82 to 95 Cranes (moveable) 75 to 88 Cranes (derrick) 86 to 89 Vibrator 68 to 82 Saws 72 to 82 Pneumatic Impact Equipment 83 to 88 Jackhammers 81 to 98 Pumps 68 to 72 Generators 71 to 83 Compressors 75 to 87 Concrete Mixers 75 to 88 Concrete Pumps 81 to 85 Back Hoe 73 to 95 Pile Driving (peaks) 95 to 107 Tractor 77 to 98 Scraper/Grader 80 to 93 Paver 85 to 88 SOURCE: U.S. EPA 1971 a. Machinery equipped with noise control devices or other noise -reducing design features does not generate the same level of noise emissions as that shown in this table. Noise that would be experienced by sensitive uses due to development associated with implementation of the proposed project is determined at their property lines. While the nearest sensitive uses vary at different locations in and around the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) area and as specific development plans have not yet been determined at individual sites, for the purpose of this analysis it is assumed that sensitive receptors could be as close as 50 feet from where construction would take place. Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity could experience noise levels up to 86 dBA Leg as a result of construction activities, or as high as 107 dBA L.9 in the event that pile drivers are used. The City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 18-314(e) allows for noise resulting from construction activities to be exempt from noise limits established in the Code. In accordance with the Noise Ordinance, construction activities would also be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday, and is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. As construction would not occur except during the times permitted in the Noise Ordinance, and as the Municipal Code, Section 18-314(e) of the Municipal Code allows construction noise in excess of standards to occur between these hours, the proposed project would not violate established standards. City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 4.8-21 Chapter 4 Environmental Setting, Impaots, and Mitigation Measures TableOutdoor Construction Phase Noise Levels at 50 Feet(dBA L. J Noise Levels at 50 Feet with Mufflers (dBA L«J Ground Clearing 84 82 Excavation, Grading 89 86 Foundations 78 77 Structural 85 83 Finishing 89 86 SOURCE: U.S. EPA 1971 The following mitigation measures shall be implemented as part of the proposed project: MM4.8-1 All construction activity within the City shall be conducted in accordance with Section 18-314(e) of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code. MM4.8-2 Each project applicant shall require by contract .rpecications that the following construction best managementpractices (BMPs) be implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels: ■ Two weeks prior to the commencement of construction, notification must be provided to property owners within 300 feet of a project site disclosing the construction schedule, including the various types of activities that would be occurring throughout the duration of the construction period ■ Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards and be in good working condition ■ Place noise -generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive uses, where feasible ■ Schedule high noise producing activities between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. to minimitie disruption on sensitive uses ■ Implement noise attenuation measures, which may includz, but are not limited to, temporay noire barriers or noise blankets around stationary construction noise sources ■ Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, where feasible ■ Construction -related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than 30 minutes ■ Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job super ntendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow for surrounding owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. If the City or the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reportingpardy. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. MM4.8-3 Each pr ject applicant shall require by contract spec -cations that construction staging areas along with the operation of earthmoving equipment within the project area would be located as far away from vibration and noise sensitive sites as possible. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed 4.8-22 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 4.8 Noise project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. MM4.8-4 Each project applicant shall require by contract specifications that heavily loaded trucks used during construction would be routed away from residential streets. Contract specfications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.8-1 through MM4.8-4 would ensure that impacts associated with construction -related noise would be minimized. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant Impact 4.8-2 Operation of the proposed project could expose noise -sensitive land uses to noise levels that exceed the standards established by the City of Santa Ana General Plan. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.8-5 through MM4.8-7 would reduce this impact to a less-than-signiitcantlevel. Sources of noise generated by implementation of the proposed project would include new stationary sources (such as rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] systems for the residential and office uses). The proposed project would also introduce new activity and noise to the area as part of the development of a new mix of uses under the proposed project. As shown in Table 4.8-3 (Existing Noise Levels Within and Around the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) Area), noise monitoring in the project area indicates that existing noise levels on site currently exceed the 65 dBA "desirable maximum" noise standard for high density residential uses. Development of new residences in areas where existing noise levels are over 65 dBA could constitute a significant impact. As the noise levels monitored on -site exceed the 65 dBA thresholds, the project site would not meet acceptable noise levels for a residential use. It should be noted that some monitoring locations such as Santa Ana Street, east of Ross St., and the intersection of Main Street and Third Street, are located in institutional and commercial areas, respectively, and contain uses that typically do not qualify as sensitive receptors. Further, impacts related to substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels that could potentially result with implementation of the proposed project are discussed below under Impact 4.8-8. The City of Santa Ana General Plan states that all residential uses should be protected with sound insulation over and above that provided by normal building construction when constructed in areas exposed to greater than 60 dBA CNEL. As such the following rrtigation measures shall be implemented to all residential development within the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) area where the existing noise levels exceed the 60 dBA CNEL standard established in the General Plan. MM4.8-5 lFhen residential uses would be located in areas with noise levels in excess of 60 dBA CNEL (either through conversion of uselstructure or new construction), the pr ject applicant shall provide noire barriers around private open space areas, includa'ng patios and balconies, as necessary. The height and density of the barriers shall be sufficient to reduce the exterior noise levels within private open space areas to a CNEL of 65 dBA or less. City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 4.8-23 Chapter 4 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures A&14.8-6 Prior to issuance of building permits, building plans shall sped the STC rating of windows and doors far all residential land uses. Vindow and door ratings shall be sufficient to reduce the interior noise level to a CNEL of 45 dBA or less, and shall be determined by a quaked acoustical consultant as part of the f nal engineering design oj'the project. As previously discussed, implementation of the proposed project would lead to the development of high - density residential uses in areas that exceed the 65 dBA CNEL "Desirable Maximum," and this would be considered a significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.8-5 would ensure that exterior living spaces, such as porches and patios, are constructed in a manner that noise levels do not exceed the 65 dBA CNEL. Further implementation of mitigation measure MM4.8-6 would ensure that interior living spaces of the residential units do not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. Therefore, this impact would be reduced to a level of less than significant. In addition, the HVAC systems that would be installed for the new residential development associated with the proposed project can result in noise levels that average between 50 and 65 dBA Lq at 50 feet from the equipment. As 24-hour CNEL noise levels are about 6.7 dBA greater than 24-hour Leg measurements, this means that the HVAC equipment associated with the retail -commercial buildings could generate community noise levels that average between 57 to 72 dBA CNEL at 50 feet when the equipment is operating constantly over 24 hours. These HVAC units would be mounted on the rooftops of the proposed buildings and would be screened from view by building features. However, the installation of shielding around these HVAC systems would be required as part of the proposed project, as stated in mitigation measure MM4.8-7 below. MM4.8-7 Each project applicant shall provide proper shielding for all new HVAC systems used by the proposed residential and mixed use buildings to achieve an attenuation of 13 dBA at 50 feet from the equipment. The shielding installed around these systems would typically reduce noise levels by approximately 15 dBA, which could reduce HVAC system noise to approximately 50 dBA Lrq at 50 feet from the equipment, which would be approximately 56.7 dBA CNEL. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.8-7 would ensure that impacts related to the HVAC systems would remain below the 65 dBA CNEL "Desirable Maximum" exterior noise level guideline established in the City's General Plan for high density residential uses. As such impacts to residents of the proposed project relating to HVAC systems would be less than significant. Threshold Would the project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Impact 4.8-3 Operation of the proposed project would not generate and expose sensitive receptors on site or off site to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This is considered a less -than -significant impact. During operation of the proposed project, background operational vibration levels would be expected to average around 50 VdB, as discussed previously in this section. This is substantially less than the 85 VdB 4.8-24 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.8 Nolse threshold for people in the vicinity of the project site. Groundborne -vibration resulting from operation of the proposed project would primarily be generated by trucks making periodic deliveries to the proposed Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) area. However, these types of deliveries would be consistent with deliveries that are currently made along roadways to commercial uses in the proposed Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) area and in the proposed project vicinity and would not increase groundborne vibration above existing levels. Because no substantial sources of groundborne vibration would be built as part of the proposed project, no vibration impacts would occur during operation of the proposed project. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors on or off site to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and this impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.8-4 Operation of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority's rail line would not generate and expose sensitive receptors located within the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) area to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This is considered a less -than - significant impact. Implementation of the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) would locate new sensitive land uses within the vicinity of the existing railroad tracks. Problems for residential uses, such as disturbance due to groundborne vibration from these sources, are usually contained to areas with n about 200 feet of the vibration source (HMMII2006). Typically, the main effect of groundborne vibration is to cause annoyances for occupants of nearby buildings. The proposed residential uses in the Logan Neighborhood, Transit Village, and First Street Corridor could be located within 200 feet from the centerline of the railroad. As discussed earlier, trains typically produce a vibration level of 75 VdB at a distance of 50 feet from the tracks during operation and 65 dBA at a distance of 50 feet while stopped at a train station, both of which are below the human annoyance threshold of 85 VdB. Therefore, the occupants of the proposed residential units would not be exposed to potentially significant vibration levels, and th s impact would be less than significant. 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? Impact 4.8-5 Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. However, the project's construction noise impacts would be temporary, would not occur during recognized sleep hours, and would be consistent with the exemption for construction noise that exists in the Municipal Code. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. As discussed in Impact 4.8-1, construction activities associated with the proposed project could reach above 86 dBA Leg within 50 feet of the proposed project site. These construction activities would represent a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. As discussed previously under "Thresholds of Significance," this analysis assumes that an increase of 5.0 dBA or greater over ambient noise levels is substantial and significant. As shown in Table 4.8-3, the highest existing daytime ambient noise level monitored in the project vicinity was 77.0 dBA Leg at the Rail Station Platform. As City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.8-25 Chapter 4 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures such, the noise generated by construction activities for the proposed project could result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels of over 5 dBA at uses adjacent to the project site. However, with implementation of mitigation measure MM4.8-1, the construction activities would only occur during the permitted hours designated in the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 18-314(e), and thus would not occur during recognized sleep hours for residences or on days that residents are most sensitive to exterior noise (Sundays and federal holidays). As such, while the physical impact from an increase in ambient noise levels could occur from the construction activities associated with the proposed project, an adverse effect on the nearby residents would not occur. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.8-2 through MM4.8-4 would also help reduce this impact. Therefore, with mitigation, this impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.8-6 Operation of the proposed project would not result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels. There would not be a substantial temporary or periodic increase and, thus, this impact would be less than significant. Operation of the proposed project would not include special events or temporary activities which would cause an increase in ambient noise levels. In addition, operation of the proposed project would not require periodic use of special stationary equipment that would expose off -site sensitive receptors to an increase in ambient noise levels above those existing without the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no temporary or periodic noise impacts to on- or off -site receptors due to operation of the proposed project. This impact would be less than sigtzi6cant. Threshold Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Impact 4.8-7 Operation of the proposed project would not generate increased local traffic volumes that would cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. This is considered a less -than - significant impact. The increase in traffic resulting from implementation of the proposed project would increase the ambient noise levels at sensitive off -site locations in the project vicinity. Traffic was analyzed both for near -term project opening year (2030) and long range (2035) General Plan buildout conditions. Traffic analyzed as part of the 2030 traffic analysis was derived from existing traffic, an ambient growth factor of 0.5 percent per year and the traffic that is anticipated to occur based on known development projects within the vicinity of the study area that will contribute some (or all) of their traffic to the various study area roadways and intersections. Traffic analyzed as part of the 2035 traffic analysis was obtained from the OCTA Traffic Demand model. Previous analysis was conducted by using OCTAM 3.2 travel demand forecasting model. KOA conducted screenline analysis for OCTA's later version model OCTAM 3.3. The screenline analysis surrounding the City indicates that OCTAM 3.3 represents about 11 percent higher traffic volumes forecasting for both the AM and PM peak hour models. KOA therefore applied an 11 percent growth factor to the original OCTAM 3.2 traffic volume forecast. The growth in housing, population, and employment included in the OCP-2004 demographic projections is consistent with the 4.8-26 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 4.8 Noise anticipated growth that is expected in conjunction with buildout of the City of Santa Ana General Plan land uses and circulation element. Table 4.8-11 compares near -term (2030) conditions with the project to existing conditions to identify the overall change in future noise levels along study area roadway segments. As discussed previously, a difference of 3.0 dBA between 24-hour noise levels is a barely perceptible increase to most people. A 5.0 dBA increase is readily noticeable, and a difference of 10 dBA would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. Existing traffic noise levels are identified in Table 4.8-4. Noise levels associated with traffic generated from existing conditions within the proposed project area were calculated along study -area roadway segments using traffic data from the traffic study (included in Appendix G). In addition, Table 4.8-10 (Traffic Noise Impacts for Year 2030) also compares near -term (2030) with project conditions to near -term (2030) without project conditions to determine the project's contribution to changes in noise levels along study area roadway segments. Noise Levels In dBA CNEL at 50 feet Increase with Project Year 2030 Year 2030 over Exceeds Existing Without Project With Project Existing Project Significance Significance Roadway Segment Conditions _.._7raific Volumes -TraRc Volumes Conditions Conidbution Threshold= - Threshold? Flower Street -Santa Ana Blvd to Civic 67.6 68.2 68.2 0.6 0.0 3.0 No Center Dr Flower Street-17th St to Civic Center Dr 67.5 67.9 68.0 0.5 0.1 3.0 No Civic Center Dr- West of Flower St 67.6 68.1 68.3 0.7 0.2 3.0 No Civic Center Dr - 67.3 67.8 68.1 0.8 0.3 3.0 No Flower St to Ross St Flower Street -Santa 67.6 68.2 68.3 0.7 0.1 3.0 No Ana Blvd to 1st St Santa Ana Blvd- 63.8 64.2 64.6 0.8 0.4 5.0 No West of Flower St Santa Ana Blvd- 64.7 65.1 65.6 0.9 0.5 5.0 No Flower St to Parton St Santa Ana Blvd- 64.7 65.1 65.6 0.9 0.5 5.0 No Parton St to Ross St Civic Center Dr - 66.8 67.4 67.8 1.0 0.4 3.0 No Ross St to Broadway Santa Ana Blvd - 64.4 64.9 65.4 1.0 0.5 5.0 No Ross St to Broadway Broadway -Civic Center Dr to Santa 67.7 68.3 68.3 0.6 0.0 3.0 No Ana Blvd City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 4.8-27 Chapter 4 Environmental Setting Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Noise Levels in dBA CNEL at 50 feet Increase with Project Year203O Year 2030 over Exceeds Existing Without Project With Project Existing Project Significance Significance Roodway Segment Conditions TraRlc Volumes Traffic Volumes Conditions Contribution Threshold- Threshold? Broadway -Civic Center Dr to 68.8 69.4 69.5 0.7 0.1 3.0 No Washington Ave Civic Center Dr - Broadway to 66.7 67.3 67.7 1.0 0.4 3.0 No Sycamore St Broadway -Santa 67.1 67.6 67.7 0.6 0.1 3.0 No Ana Blvd to 5th St Santa Ana Blvd - Broadway to 63.6 64.3 64.5 0.9 0.2 5.0 No Sycamore St Broadway-5th St to 67.0 67.6 67.7 0.7 0.1 3.0 No 4th St 5th St -Broadway to 61.0 61.4 61.8 0.8 0.4 5.0 No Ross St 5th St -Broadway to 61.0 61.4 61.7 0.7 0.3 5.0 No Main St Broadway-3rdSt to 67.0 67.5 67.7 0.7 0.2 3.0 No 4th St Broadway-3rdSt to 67.0 67.5 67.8 0.8 0.3 3.0 No 1st St Broadway -South of 65.5 66.4 66.5 1.0 0.1 3.0 No 1st St 1 st St -Broadway to 73.8 74.4 74.5 0.7 0.1 3.0 No Ross St 1st St -Main St to 73.6 74.5 74.6 1.0 0.1 3.0 No Broadway Civic Center Dr - Sycamore St to Main 66.7 67.1 67.5 0.8 0.4 3.0 No St Santa Ana Blvd - Sycamore St to Main 63.6 64.1 64.4 0.8 0.3 5.0 No St 5th St -Sycamore St 61.0 61.4 61.7 0.7 0.3 5.0 No to Broadway 5th St -Sycamore St 61.0 61.5 61.8 0.8 0.3 5.0 No to Main St Main St -Civic Center 68.7 69.2 69.4 0.7 0.2 3.0 No Dr to Santa Ana Blvd Main St -Civic Center 68.8 69.4 69.5 0.7 0.1 3.0 No Dr to Washington Ave 4.8-28 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.8 Noise Noise Levels in dBA CNEL at 50 feet Increase with Project Year203O Yecr203O over Exceeds Existing Wdhout Project Wdh Project Existing Project Significance Significance Roadway Segment Conditions Traffic Volumes Traffic Volumes Conditions Contribution Threshold- Threshold? Civic Center Dr -Main 65.6 66.1 66.5 0.9 0.4 3.0 No St to Bush St Main St -Santa Ana 68.7 69.4 69.6 0.9 0.2 3.0 No Blvd to 5th St Santa Ana Blvd- 63.6 64.1 64.4 0.8 0.3 5.0 No Main St to Bush St Main St-5th St to 4th 68.7 69.4 69.6 0.9 0.2 3.0 No St 5th St -Main St to 59.5 60.1 60.5 1.0 0.4 5.0 No Bush St Main St-3rd St to 4th 68.2 68.9 69.2 1.0 0.3 3.0 No St Main St -1st St to 3rd 68.2 68.9 69.2 1.0 0.3 3.0 No St Santa Ana Blvd - Bush St to Spurgeon 63.6 64.1 64.3 0.7 0.2 5.0 No St 5th St -Bush St to 59.4 59.9 60.3 0.9 0.4 5.0 No French St 1st St -Spurgeon St 73.7 74.2 74.4 0.7 0.2 3.0 No to Main St Santa Ana Blvd - Lacy St to Standard 65.3 65.8 65.8 0.3 0.0 3.0 No Ave Civic Center Dr - 65.6 66.5 66.8 12 0.3 3.0 No French St to Lacy St Santa Ana Blvd - 65.0 65.6 66.1 1.1 0.5 3.0 No Lacy St to French St 4th St -Lacy St to 62.5 62.9 63.0 0.5 0.1 5.0 No French St 1stSt-Lacy St to 73.7 74.2 74.4 0.7 0.2 3.0 No Spurgeon St 1 st St -Lacy St to 73.7 74.2 74.4 0.7 0.2 3.0 No Standard Ave Santiago St - Washington Ave to 64.7 65.4 65.9 1.2 0.5 5A No Civic Center Dr Santiago St - Washington Ave to 64.6 65.2 65.6 1.0 0.4 5.0 No 17th St City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 4.8-29 Chapter 4 Environmental Setting Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Noise Levels in dBA CNEL at 50 feet Increase with Project Year2030 Year2030 over Exceeds Existing Without Project With Project Existing Project Significance Significance Roadway Segment Conditions Traffic Volumes Traffic Volumes Conditions Contribution Threshold^ Threshold? Santiago St -Santa Ana Blvd to Civic 64.3 65.2 65.9 1.6 0.7 5.0 No Center Dr Civic Center Dr - 65.5 66.0 66.2 0.7 0.2 3.0 No Santiago St to Lacy St Civic Center Dr - Lincoln Ave to 65.4 66.0 66.0 0.6 0.0 5.0 No Santiago St Santiago St -Santa 63.1 63.5 64.7 1.6 0.2 5.0 No Ana Blvd to Brown St Santa Ana Blvd- 65.3 65.9 66.6 1.3 0.7 3.0 No Santiago St to Lacy St Santa Ana Blvd - 68.0 68.7 69.0 1.0 0.3 3.0 No Santiago St to U-24 4th St -Santiago St to 64.5 64.9 65.0 0.5 0.1 5.0 No Lacy St Grand Ave-4th St to 721 72.7 72.8 0.7 0.1 3.0 No Santa Ana Blvd Grand Ave -Santa 71.4 72.1 72.5 1.1 0.4 3.0 No Ana Blvd to 17th St Santa Ana Blvd -East 62.8 63.5 63.5 0.7 0.0 5.0 No of Grand Ave Grand Ave-1 st St to 71.5 72.0 72.2 0.7 0.2 3.0 No 4th St 4th St -Grand Ave to 64.5 65.0 65.5 1.0 0.5 5.0 No Santiago St 4th St -East of Grand 65.0 65.6 65.8 0.8 0.2 3.0 No Ave Grand Ave -South of 72.4 73.1 73.3 0.9 0.2 3.0 No 1 st St 1 st St -Standard Ave 73.8 74.4 74.6 0.8 0.2 3.0 No to Grand Ave 1 st St -East of Grand 73.5 73.9 74.1 0.6 0.2 3.0 No Ave Penn Way -South of 63.8 64.5 65.0 1.2 0.5 5.0 No 1-5 SB Ramps Penn Way -North of 66.5 66.9 67.2 0.7 0.3 3.0 No 1-5 SB Ramps Santa Ana Blvd - 69.7 70.1 70.8 1.1 0.73.0 No West of 1-5 SB Ramps 4.8-30 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.8 Noise Noise Levels in dBA CNEL at 50 feet Increase with Project Yeor2030 Year203O over Exceeds Existing Without Project With Project Existing Project Significance Significance Roadway Segment Conditions Traffic Volumes Traffic Volumes Conditions Contribution Threshold- Threshold? Santa Ana Blvd -East of 1-5 SB Ramps 67.7 68.2 68.9 1.2 0.7 3.0 No 17th St -West of 1-5 NB Ramps 74.4 74.8 74.8 0.4 0.0 3.0 No 17th St -East of 1-5 73.4 73.8 73.8 0.4 0.0 3.0 No INS Ramps Grand Ave -South of 73.0 73.5 73.8 0.8 0.3 3.0 No 1-5 NB Ramps Grand Ave-Nofth of 72.7 73.2 73.3 0.6 0.1 3.0 No 1-5 NB Ramps SOURCE: PSS&J, 2010 (calculation data and results are provided in Appendix F). a. Significance Thresholds are set as follows: 5.0 dBA CNEL if the noise increase is below the City of Santa Ana standard of 65 dBA CNEL 3.0 dBA CNEL if the noise Increase meets or exceeds the City of Santa Ana standard of 65 dBA CNEL Similarly, Table 4.8-12 (Traffic Noise Impacts for Year 2035) compares long-term (2035) conditions with the project to existing conditions to identify the overall change in future noise levels along study area roadway segments. In addition, Table 4.8-12 also compares long-term (2035) with project conditions to long-term (2035) without project conditions to determine the project's contribution to changes in noise levels along study area roadway segments. Noise Levels in dBA CNEL at 50 feet Increase with Project Year2035 Year 2035 over Exceeds Existing Without Project With Project Existing Project Significance Significance Roadway Segment Conditions Traffic Volumes Traffic Volumes Conditions Contribution Threshold- Threshold? Flower Street - Santa Ana Blvd to 67.6 68.8 68.8 1.2 0.0 3.0 No Civic Center Dr Flower Street-17th 67.5 68.5 68.6 1.1 0.1 3.0 No St to Civic Center Dr Civic Center Dr- 67.6 68.6 68.8 1.2 0.2 3.0 No West of Flower St Civic Center Dr - 67.3 68.4 68.7 1.4 0.3 3.0 No Flower St to Ross St Flower Street - Santa Ana Blvd to 67.6 69.2 69.2 1.6 0.0 3.0 No 1 st St City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.8-31 Chapter Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Noise Levels in dBA CNEL at 50 feet Increase wdh Project Year2035 Year2035 over Exceeds Existing Without Project with Project Existing Project Significance Significance Roadway Segment Conditions Traft Volumes TraRc Volumes Conditions Contribution Threshold- threshold? Santa Ana Blvd - West of Flower St 63.8 64.9 65.3 1.5 0.4 5.0 No Santa Ana Blvd - Flower St to Parton 64.7 65.7 66.1 1.4 0.4 5.0 No St Santa Ana Blvd- Parton St to Ross St 64.7 66.3 66.6 1.9 0.3 5.0 No Civic Center Dr - Ross St to 66.8 68.0 68.3 1.5 0.3 3.0 No Broadway Santa Ana Blvd - Ross St to 64.4 65.6 66.0 1.6 0.4 5.0 No Broadway Broadway -Civic Center Dr to Santa 67.7 68.8 68.8 1.1 0.0 3.0 No Ana Blvd Broadway -Civic Center Dr to 68.8 69.8 69.9 1.1 0.1 3.0 No Washington Ave Civic Center Dr - Broadway to 66.7 68.0 68.3 1.6 0.3 3.0 No Sycamore St Broadway -Santa 67.1 68.1 68.2 1.1 0.1 3.0 No Ana Blvd to 5th St Santa Ana Blvd - Broadway to 63.6 65.0 65.2 1.6 0.2 5.0 No Sycamore St Broadway-5th St to 4th St 67.0 68.1 68.3 1.3 0.2 3.0 No 5th St -Broadway to 61.0 62.0 62.3 1.3 0.3 5.0 No Ross St 5th St -Broadway to Main St 61.0 63.2 63.5 2.5 0.3 5.0 No Broadway-3rd St to 4th St 67.0 68.1 68.3 1.3 0.2 3.0 No Broadway-3rd St to 1 at St 67.0 69.2 69.3 2.3 0.1 3.0 No Broadway -South of 65.5 66.6 66.6 1.1 0.0 3.0 No 1st St 1st St -Broadway to Ross St 73.8 74.8 74.9 1.1 0.1 3.0 No 4.8-32 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 4.8 Nolse Noise Levels in dBA CNEL at 50 feet Increase with Project Year2035 Year2035 over Exceeds Existing Without Project With Project Existing Project Significance Significance Roadway Segment Conditions Traffic Volumes Traffic Volumes Conditions Contribution Threshold- Threshold? 1stSt-Main Stto Broadway 73.6 74.8 74.9 1.3 0.1 3.0 No Civic Center Dr - Sycamore St to 66.7 67.7 68.1 1.4 0.4 3.0 No Main St Santa Ana Blvd - Sycamore St to 63.6 64.7 64.9 1.3 0.2 5.0 No Main St 5th St -Sycamore 61.0 62.0 62.3 1.3 0.3 5.0 No St to Broadway 5th St -Sycamore St to Main St 61.0 62.0 62.3 1.3 0.3 5.0 No Main St -Civic Center Dr to Santa 68.7 69.8 70.0 1.3 0.2 3.0 No Ana Blvd Main St -Civic Center Dr to 68.8 69.9 70.1 1.3 0.2 3.0 No Washington Ave Civic Center Dr- 65.6 66.7 67.0 1.4 0.3 3.0 No Main St to Bush St Main St -Santa Ana Blvd to 5th St 68.7 70.0 70.2 1.5 0.2 3.0 No Santa Ana Blvd - Main St to Bush St 63.6 65.0 65.2 1.6 0.2 5.0 No Main St-5th St to 4th St 68.7 70.0 70.2 1.5 0.2 3.0 No 5th St -Main St to Bush St 59.5 61.7 61.9 2.4 0.2 5.0 No Main St-3rd St to 4th St 68.2 69.4 69.8 1.6 0.4 3.0 No Main St 1st St to 68.2 69.4 69.7 1.5 0.3 3.0 No 3rd St Santa Ana Blvd - Bush St to 63.6 64.7 64.9 1.3 0.2 5.0 No Spurgeon St 5th St -Bush St to 59.4 60.5 60.9 1.5 0.4 5.0 No French St 1 st St -Spurgeon St 73.7 74.8 75.0 1.3 0.2 3.0 Na to Main St City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 4.833 Chapter Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Noise Levels in daA CNEL at 50 feet Increase with Project Year2035 Year2035 over Exceeds Existing Without Project Wth Project Existing Project Signiricance Significance Roadway Segment Conditions Trafic Volumes Traffic Volumes Conditions Contribution Threshold Threshold? Santa Ana Blvd - Lacy St to Standard 65.3 66.5 66.5 1.2 0.0 3.0 No Ave Civic Center Dr - 65.6 66.9 67.2 1.6 0.3 3.0 No French St to Lacy St Santa Ana Blvd - 65.0 66.2 66.7 1.7 0.5 3.0 No Lacy St to French St 4th St -Lacy St to 62. 5 63.6 63.7 1.2 0.1 5.0 No French St 1stSt-Lacy St to 73.7 74.9 75.0 1.3 0.1 3.0 No Spurgeon St 1stSt-Lacy St to 73.7 74.9 75.0 1.3 0.1 3.0 No Standard Ave Santiago St - Washington Ave to 64.7 67.7 68.1 3.4 0.4 5.0 No Civic Center Dr Santiago St - Washington Ave to 64.6 67.1 67.4 2.8 0.3 5.0 No 17th St Santiago St -Santa Ana Blvd to Civic 64.3 67.9 68.3 4.0 5.0 No Center Dr Civic Center Dr - FOA Santiago St to Lacy 65.5 66.6 66.8 1.3 3.0 No St Civic Center Dr - Lincoln Ave to 65.4 66.4 66.5 1.1 0.1 5.0 No Santiago St Santiago St -Santa Ana Blvd to Brown 63.1 64.1 65.2 2.1 1.1 5.0 No St Santa Ana Blvd - Santiago St to Lacy 65.3 67.7 68.2 2.9 0.5 3.0 No St Santa Ana Blvd- 68.0 69.8 70.1 2.1 0.3 3.0 No Santiago St to U-24 4fh St -Santiago St 64.5 65.5 65.6 1.1 0.1 5.0 No to Lacy St Grand Ave-4th St 721 73.3 73.4 1.3 0.1 3.0 No to Santa Ana Blvd 4.8-34 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.8 Noise Noise Levels in dBA CNEL at 5o feet Increase with Project Year2035 Year2035 over Exceeds Existing Without Project With Project Existing Project Significance Signiticance Roadway Segment Conditions TraRC Volumes TFaitic Volumes Conditions Contribution Threshold^ Threshold? Grand Ave -Santa 71.4 73.2 73.6 2.2 0.4 3.0 No Ana Blvd to 17th St Santa Ana Blvd- 62.8 63.9 63.9 1.1 0.0 5.0 No East of Grand Ave Grand Ave -1st St 71.5 72.5 72.7 1.2 0.2 3.0 No to 4th St 4th St -Grand Ave 64.5 65.5 66.0 1.5 0.5 5.0 No to Santiago St St -East of 65.0 66.1 66.2 1.2 0.1 3.0 No Grand Ave Grand Grand Ave -South 724 73.7 73.9 1.5 0.2 3.0 No of 1 at St 1 st St -Standard 73.8 75.1 75.2 1.4 0.1 3.0 No Ave to Grand Ave 1stSt-East of 73.5 74.6 74.7 1.2 0.1 3.0 No Grand Ave Penn Way -South 63.8 66.7 67.0 3.2 0.3 5.0 No of 1-5 SB Ramps Penn Way -North of 66.5 67.6 67.8 1.3 0.2 3.0 No 1-5 SB Ramps Santa Ana Blvd - West of 1-5 SB 69.7 70.7 71.3 1.6 0.6 3.0 No Ramps Santa Ana Blvd - East of 1-5 SB 67.7 68.8 69.5 1.8 0.7 3.0 No Ramps 17th St -West of 1-5 74.4 75:4 75.4 1.0 0.0 3.0 No NB Ramps 17th St -East of 1-5 73.4 74.4 74.4 1.0 0.0 3.0 No INS Ramps Grand Ave -South 73.0 74.3 74.6 1.6 0.3 3.0 No of 1-5 NB Ramps Grand Ave -North 72.7 74.1 74.2 1.5 0.1 3.0 No of 1-5 NB Ramps SOURCE: PBS&J, 2010 (calculation data and results are provided in Appendix F(, a. Significance Thresholds are set as follows: 5.0 dBA CNEL if the noise increase Is below the City of Santa Ana standard of 65 dBA CNEL 3.0 dBA CNEL if the noise increase meets or exceeds the City of Santa Ana standard of 65 dBA CNEL City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 4.8-35 Chapter 4 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures As stated in the Thresholds of Significance, a 3.0 dBA CNEL increase is considered substantial if the noise increase would meet or exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL noise level standard at high density residential uses, and a 5.0 dBA CNEL increase is considered substantial where existing noise levels are below the 65 dBA CNEL standard at high density residential uses. As shown in Table 4.8-11 (Traffic Noise Impacts for Year 2030) and Table 4.8-12 (Traffic Noise Impacts for Year 2035), none of the roadways within the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) area would result in a 3.0 dBA or 5.0 dBA CNEL increase over existing conditions with implementation of the proposed project under both scenarios. Likewise, the contribution of the proposed project to this increase under both scenarios would not exceed 3.0 dBA or 5.0 dBA CNEL. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. Effects Found to Be Significant Threshold Would the project result in the 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? Impact 4.8-8 Operation of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority's (SCRRA) rail line would potentially expose noise -sensitive land uses located within the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) area to noise levels that exceed the standards established by the City of Santa Ana General Plan. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. Under the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413), additional sensitive uses (primarily residential structures) would be located in close proximity (approximately 100 feet) to the SCRRA rail line. As stated previously, typical commuter train noise produces a noise level of 80 dBA at 50 feet from the tracks, while a stopped commuter train would produce a noise level of 65 dBA. Per the Federal Railway Administration, noise levels associated with trains are anticipated to attenuate/reduce at a rate of 4.5 dBA for each doubling of distance. As such, potentially noise -sensitive uses, such as residential structures, would likely experience noise levels ranging from 60.5 to 75.5 dBA due to the physical movement and idling of commuter trains along the SCRRA rail fine. I Iowever, in addition to movement and idling noise levels, trains are required to use horns at any at -grade crossing for safety reasons. Depending on the type of horn used, noise levels could reach 110 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. Under the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413), sensitive uses, both interior and exterior, could be located within areas that may experience excessive noise levels due to train horns. Interior uses would include predominantly residential structures, while exterior uses at new developments adjacent to the rail station and the SCRRA rail line may include communal open spaces, such as pocket parks or pedestrian walkways. It is expected that these uses could be located within the interior of new developments or on the opposite side of the development from the rail station and SCRRA tracks, thereby mitigating some of the noise generated by those transportation facilities. In terms of interior uses and as stated previously, under new construction practices, noise levels inside structures, such as residential buildings, can be expected to be 30 dBA less than exterior noise levels. As such, the instantaneous interior noise levels attributable to residential units located within 100 feet of the SCRRA 4.8-36 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) EIR 4.8 Noise tracks would be reduced to approximately 80 dBA when a train horn blows. However, this noise level would remain in excess of City noise standards as established in Section 18-312 and 18-313 of the Municipal Code by approximately 15 dBA for instantaneous noise. As such, this impact would be considered potentially significant. Implementation of the mitigation measures provided above (MM4.8-5 and MM4.8-6) will reduce potential noise levels at sensitive receptors associated with interior and exterior communal and private spaces but not to levels beneath the standards set in the City's Municipal Code. In addition to the aforementioned mitigation measures, the following mitigation measure would be implemented, MM4.8-8 The City shall provide a written statement to each applicant for projects located within 400 feet of the SCRRA tracks that shall be provided for each residential unit and resident, noting them of potential noise and vibration issues associated with the railroad tracks, including the following: Notice ofDisclosure Each owner's [or renter's] interest is subject to the fact that trains operate at different times of the day and night on the railway tracks immediately adjacent to a prelect site; and that by accepting the conveyance of an interest [or lease agreement] in that project, owner for renter] accepts all impacts generated by the trains. Posting ofNotice ofDisclosure in each residential unit Prior to offering the first residential unit for purchase, lease, or rent, the properly owner or developer shall post a copy of the Notice of Disclosure in every unit in a con picuous location. Also, a copy of the Notice of Disclosure shall be included in all materials distributed for the Preject, including but not limited to: the prospectus, informational literature, and residential lease and rental agreements. Although the above mitigation measure would reduce impacts, it would not serve to fully mitigate the potential impact to nearby residents of the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B). However, it should also be noted that in accordance with the Final Rule for the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway -Rail Grade Crossings, as established by the FRA, local jurisdictions have the ability to prevent trains from using their horns at at -grade crossings through the establishment of Quiet Zones. The establishment of a Quiet Zone involves the installation of additional design features that would limit potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts with moving trains, including four -quadrant gates, advance warning signs, mountable curb medians with channelization devices, programmed enforcement, photo enforcement, and public education and awareness. The City of Santa Ana is currently pursuing the establishment of a Quiet Zone within the City; however, until such time, the use of a train horns would be considered to have a significant and unavoidable impact on sensitive receptors developed as part of the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413). City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 4.8.37 Chapter 4 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Threshold Would the project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Impact 4.8-9 Construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate or expose persons or structures to excessive groundborne vibration. While implementation of mitigation measures MM4.8-1 through MM4.8-4 would minimize this impact, it would not reduce it to a less -than -significant level. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. Although construction -related vibration associated with individual development projects constructed pursuant to the Transit Zoning Code would be temporary there are two potential impacts that could occur. First, vibration at high enough levels can result in human annoyance. Second, groundborne vibration can potentially damage the foundations and exteriors of historic structures. Groundbome vibration that can cause this kind of damage is typically limited to impact equipment, especially pile drivers. Construction activities that would occur pursuant to the Transit Zoning Code have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. Table 4.8-13 (Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment) identifies various vibration velocity levels for the types of construction equipment that would operate within the City during construction. Table- Equipment Approxmmote VdB 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet Large Bulldozer 87 81 77 75 Loaded Trucks 86 80 76 74 Jackhammer 79 73 69 67 Small Bulldozer 58 52 48 46 SOURCE: Federal Railroad Administration 1998 In addition to the construction equipment shown in Table 4.8-13 (Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment), vibration that would be experienced from the use of impact pile drivers could reach as high as 112 VdB at a distance of 25 feet (HMMH 2O06). Like noise, groundbome vibration will attenuate at a rate of approximately 6 VdB per doubling of distance. The groundborne vibration generated during construction activities would primarily impact existing sensitive uses (e.g., residences, schools, and hospitals) that are located adjacent to, or within, the vicinity of specific projects. These sensitive uses could sometimes be located as close as 25 feet to the construction site or as far as several hundred feet away. Based on the information presented in Table 4.8-13, vibration levels could reach up to 87 VdB at sensitive uses located within 25 feet of construction. For sensitive uses that are located at or within 25 feet of potential project construction sites, sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, school children, and hospital patients) at these locations may experience vibration levels during construction activities that exceed the FTA's vibration impact threshold of 85 VdB for human annoyance. So long as construction occurs more than 50 feet from sensitive receptors, the impact associated with groundborne vibration generated by the equipment would be below 85 VdB and thus would be less than significant. However, as specific site plans or constructions schedules for projects requiring impact pile drives are unknown at 4.838 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.8 Nolse this time, it may be possible that construction activities could occur as close as 25 feet from sensitive receptors. This would result in these sensitive receptors experiencing vibration impacts above the threshold of 85 VdB, in which case this impact would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.8-1 through MM4.8-4 would help to reduce this impact, but not to a less -than - significant level; therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidahle. 4.8.4 Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative noise impacts depends on the impact being analyzed. For construction impacts, only the immediate area around the project site would be included in the cumulative context. For operational/roadway related impacts, the context is existing and future development in the City of Santa Ana. This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in conjunction with ambient growth and other development within the vicinity of the proposed project in the City of Santa Ana. Noise is by definition a localized phenomenon, and significantly reduces in magnitude as distance from the source increases. The analysis accounts for all anticipated cumulative growth within this geographic area, as represented by full implementation of the City of Santa Ana General Plan Framework and development of the related projects provided in 'Table 3-3 in Chapter 3.0 (Project Description). Increases in noise at sensitive uses would occur as a result of construction of individual projects pursuant to the Transit Zoning Code the proposed project, along with other construction in the vicinity. Other construction that may occur in the vicinity of the Transit Zoning Code area would contribute noise levels similar to those generated by individual development projects. Where this development adjoins a proposed project's construction, the combined construction noise levels would have a cumulative effect on nearby sensitive uses. Noise is not strictly additive, and a doubling of noise sources would not cause a doubling of noise levels; however, cumulative construction noise levels would be in excess of 65 dBA CNEL at nearby sensitive receptors. As discussed under Impact 4.8-1, Section 18-314(e) of the City Municipal Code limits construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday, and also prohibits construction activities on Sundays and public holidays. Because compliance with this construction time limit is required by the City Municipal Code, the proposed project and all other cumulative development would be exempt, and the cumulative impact associated with construction noise in the Santa Ana area would be considered less than significant. Similarly, because construction -related noise generated under the proposed project would be exempt from established noise standards, the construction of the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable and the cumulative impact of the project would also be less than significant Other development projects within the City of Santa Ana could potentially introduce residential development into areas that currently exceed the 60 dBA CNEL standard for residential uses. However, such residential development would have to be constructed so that noise levels within exterior living spaces do not exceed the 65 dBA CNEL standard as set forth in the Noise Element of the General Plan. Since any potential new residential development within the City would be required to mitigate through site and building design, insulation and other noise preventative measures, the proposed project's impact City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.839 Chapter 4 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures would not be cumulatively considerable and the cumulative impact of the project would also be less than significant As discussed under Impact 4.8-2, all rooftop HVAC equipment would be shielded; therefore, no source would generate maximum noise levels of greater than 57 dBA Leg at 50 feet. Consequently, multiple units would have to be located within 50 feet of a receptor to achieve noise levels that would exceed the City standards. The development types associated with the proposed project and other nearby projects are not so dense that multiple stationary units would be so closely spaced, either on -site or off -site. Consequently, the cumulative effect of multiple HVAC units and other mechanical equipment would be less than significant and the contribution of the project would not be cumulatively considerable. This would be a less than signiitcantimpact. As discussed in Impact 4.8-9, the construction of individual projects pursuant to the Transit Zoning Code would produce temporary vibration impacts. However, as discussed in Impact 4.8-9, the construction vibration impact would be significant and unavoidable. Cumulative development in the City of Santa Ana is not considered likely to result in the exposure of on -site or off -site receptors to excessive groundborne vibration due to the localized nature of vibration impacts, the fact that all construction would not occur at the same time and at the same location, and the largely built -out nature of the City, which would usually preclude the use of heavy equipment such as bulldozers. Other projects listed in Table 3-3 in Chapter 3.0 (Project Description) are proposed in close enough proximity to affect the same receptors as the proposed project. Only receptors located in close proximity to each construction site would be potentially affected by each activity. Construction activities associated with these projects, which are adjacent to or within, the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) area, may overlap with construction activities for other projects for some amount of time. Sensitive uses in the immediate vicinity of the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) area may be exposed to two sources of groundborne vibration. However, for the combined vibration impact from the two projects to reach cumulatively significant levels, intense construction from both projects would have to occur simultaneously within 50 feet of any receptor. As individual development projects under the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) area may be constructed concurrently with each other or other related projects, it is possible that intense construction from two or more projects would simultaneously occur at distances of 50 feet or less from existing nearby receptors. Therefore, vibration from future development could potentially combine with construction vibration of other projects to result in a potentially significant cumulative impact. Nlitigation measures MM4.8-1 through MM4.84 would help reduce this impact, but not to a less than significant level. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed project would be significant and unavoidable. Groundbome vibration could conceivably be generated by operation of projects in the vicinity of the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) area. Since no substantial sources of groundborne vibration would be built as part of the proposed project, no vibration impacts would occur during operation of the proposed project. The same is expected to hold true for other projects in the vicinity of the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) area. Consequently, there would be no cumulative operational groundborne vibration impacts to any on -site or off -site receptor. This impact would be less than significant. 4.8-40 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.8 NO/Se The proposed project and two related projects with residential components identified in Table 3-3 in Chapter 3.0 (Project Description) are located within close proximity to the AT&SF rail line. Problems for residential uses, such as disturbance due to groundborne vibration from these sources, are usually contained to areas within about 200 feet of the vibration source (HMMH 2O06). Typically, the main effect of groundborne vibration is to cause annoyances for occupants of nearby buildings. The effect of vibration at each related project site is site specific and is dependent on existing localized conditions. However, as none of the related projects are located within 100 feet of the railroad right of way, impacts associated with vibration from the tracks are expected to be less than significant. As discussed in Impact 4.8-4, the occupants of the proposed residential units within the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 8413) area would not be exposed to potentially significant vibration levels. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. As discussed in Impact 4.8-7, noise impacts as the result of increased traffic on local roadways was analyzed both for near -term project plan completion (2030) and long range (2035) conditions. The near - term (2030) analysis included both ambient growth and development of the related projects provided in Table 3-3 in Chapter 3.0 (Project Description). The long range (2035) analysis included data obtained from the OCTAM 3.2 travel demand forecasting model which utilizes the latest adopted demographic forecasts for the City. As a result both the near -term (2030) analysis and the long range (2035) analysis are cumulative in nature. As discussed above, cumulative traffic would not result in substantial increases in noise along any roadway segments under either near -term (2030) or long-range (2035) conditions. Roadway noise under either scenarios with the project would not increase roadway noise levels above the 3.0 dBA CNEL significance threshold in areas where existing noise levels meet or exceed the 65 dBA CNEL standard for sensitive uses, or above the 5.0 dBA CNEL significance threshold in areas where existing noise levels are below the 65 dBA CNEL standard. Likewise, the contribution of the proposed project to this increase under both scenarios would not exceed 3.0 dBA or 5.0 dBA CNEL. As a result, the contribution of the proposed project to future roadway noise levels would not exceed the identified thresholds of significance and, therefore, would not be considered cumulatively considerable and the cumulative impact would be less than significant. The proposed project and two related projects with residential components are located within close proximity to the AT&SF rail line. Sensitive receptors, including residential uses with exterior uses such as communal areas consisting of pocket parks or pedestrian walkways and private balconies, may or may not be shielded from noise generated by railroad operations. As a result, noise levels within these areas may exceed the 65 dBA CNEL "Desirable Maximum" standard, and this would be considered a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. Mitigation measures MM4.8-5, MM4.8-6, and MM4.8-8 would reduce noise levels at these receptors but not to a less -than -significant level. Periodic and temporary noise levels would be generated by construction of individual projects along with other construction in the vicinity. As discussed in Impact 4.8-1, these projects by themselves would expose some receptors to noise levels in excess of acceptable City standards. Construction noise impacts are localized in nature and decrease substantially with distance. Consequently, in order to achieve a substantial cumulative increase in construction noise levels, more than one source emitting high levels of City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.8-41 Chapter 4 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures construction noise would need to be in close proximity to a sensitive receptor. As discussed previously, related projects provided in Table 3-3 in Chapter 3.0 (Project Description) are in the vicinity of the Transit Zoning Code area. Construction activity associated with these projects may overlap with construction activity for the proposed project. Thus, the possibility exists that a substantial cumulative increase in construction noise levels could result from construction associated with the projects in the Transit Zoning Code area and related projects. The cumulative impact concerning these projects and the related projects, concurrently emitting high levels of construction noise, would likely be significant and unavoidable. As discussed previously, the City exempts construction noise from the provisions of the Municipal Code as long as construction occurs within certain hours of the day. All of the projects analyzed in the cumulative context that would construct concurrently with the individual projects within the plan area would be required to comply with the same provisions of the Municipal Code described above. Consequently, all projects analyzed in the cumulative context would fall under the Municipal Code exemption, and the cumulative impact of the proposed project would be less than significant Operation of the projects constructed in the Transit Zoning Code area would not include special events or temporary activities which would cause an increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, there would be no temporary or periodic noise impacts to on- or off -site receptors due to operation of the proposed project, and the cumulative impact of the proposed project would be less than significant. 4.8.5 References Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report, May. Hendriks, R. 1998. Technical Noise Supplement: A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Sacramento, California. October. Katz, Okitsu & Associates. December 2006, Traffic Impact Study for the Mixed Use Specfc Plan Area in the City of Santa Ana. KOA Corporation. January 2010. Santa Ana Renaissance Speck Plan Traffic Study. Redden, John P. September 2005. Is train horn noise a problem inyour toum? American Public Works Association website (http://www,apwa.net/Publications/Reporter/ReporterOnHne/ index.asp?DISPLAY=ISSUE&ISSUE_DATE=092005&ARTICLE_NUMBER=1129). Accessed on January 12, 2008. Santa Ana, City of. 1982. City of Santa Ana General Plan Noise Element, 1982. United States Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration, 1980a. Highway Noise Fundamentals. . Federal Highway Administration. 1980b. Fundamentals and Abatement of Iighway Traffic Noises. September. Federal Highway Administration. 1980c. Highway Noise Mitigation. Federal Highway Administration. Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Federal Railroad Administration. 1998. High -Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 4.8-42 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 848) EIR 4.8 Nolse United States Envitonmental Protection Agency. 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances. City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 4.8-48 Santa Ana City Council 9/25/2019 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana CA, 92701 RE: Russell Fischer Project 325/ 301 N Tustin Ave Santa Ana CA, 92705 Dear Kristine Ridge, The intent of this letter is to provide all factual data regarding our pending project to assist Santa Ana City Council in making the correct decision. Our Santa Ana location was purchased in September of 2015. Immediately after our purchase, we began all necessary steps to upgrade the existing location. Over four years later, we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, followed all city requirements and guidelines, and have been approved unanimously by the planning commission. After four years of work and following all city's requirements, we have had no valid opposition. The only opposition that has come forward is an existing competitor (purchased their business in 2017) that aggressively attempts to hurt our company financially and stop our project from happening with the argument that the market is "overly saturated." There are a total of six operating express car washes in the city of Santa Ana, including our existing location. There are over 30 coffee shops, over 20 dry cleaners, over 40 auto repair shops, over 30 oil change centers, over 50 fast food restaurants in the city of Santa Ana. Are we to believe that once a business is established, they are to expect no future competition? Or even worse, that an existing business will be unable to enhance their business after following all city requirements because existing competition doesn't support it? The aforementioned would state otherwise. This is quite the precedent to even consider entertaining for existing or new businesses, no matter what the industry. We understand there is no way around the appeal process set forth by the City and that the appeal process is necessary. However, the company who filed the appeal did so at the 11th hour of the last day of the appeal process in order to inflict the maximum amount of financial loss to our company. Not only did they do so with malicious intent, but they also executed this exact same plan to a previously pending car wash project, (furniture store on 17th and Maybury) which was ultimately approved. Our competitor's egregiously selfish nature and use of government process to inflict financial harm on others without any remorse is appalling. Our business on 325/301 N Tustin Ave has been a fuel station and car wash since the 1970's. Through great cost and effort we jumped through all the required hoops to clean up a dilapidated restaurant site and to enhance an existing business to maximize what can be offered to the community of Santa Ana. Sincerely, Chase Russell 301/325 N Tustin Project Summary Russell Fischer partnership purchased both sites in September of 2015 Car Wash and Fuel station have been on location since 1973 Goal has been to enhance existing business to provide a better product for the community of Santa Ana - Russell Fischer is a small family business run by Chase Russell (after the death of his Father) for his Mother, Jeanie Russell - Immediately after purchase, Russell Fischer started the process with the city to commence improvements on the site - After purchase of the site, the dilapidated and crime ridden restaurant has been demolished, crime and vagrants on the corner have been drastically reduced, and site has been cleaned to highest potential - January 4, 2019 zone change and general plan amendment (C2) became effective - September 9, 2019 planning commission unanimously approved CUP, environmental review, and to facilitate the construction of a new convenience store and new automated car wash. Project supported by staff September 19, 2019 Speedie Clean Car Wash (1.2 Miles away from project site) filed appeal. Staff disagrees with appeal and continues to support car wash project Opposition Dental office to the South of our project has voiced concerns regarding vibration of the car wash. With a car wash or fuel station, there is no vibration. We have it in our plans to overbuild with concrete block construction, while also having three sound studies to meet city requirements to ensure no increase in noise on site. We have worked with the dental office, given them an additional 12" of our land for additional sound buffer and confirmed that our quality construction will ensure no additional noise. Speedie Clean Car Wash, Conklin family, (purchased in 2017 for $8,040,000) stating that the city of Santa Ana cannot support an enhanced car wash that this will hurt them financially. They have filed this appeal to ensure their $8,040,000 investment does not see any upgraded competition, even though our car wash has been on site since 1973, Speedie Clean went through this same appeal process with project at 17th and Maybury, which was ultimately approved We are a small family business that has followed all city requirements and battled this process at a large financial loss over a four year period to enhance our business and provide a better service for the community. The corner will be beautified, over 20 jobs will be added, and taxable income for the city will be over three times what it is today. A selfish competitor costing us a fortune and taking up the city's valuable time should never be allowed to stand in the way of improving the City of Santa Ana. What possible benefit could there be to reconsider the planning commission's decision? We urge you to not grant this continuance and to push the project forward so we and the City of Santa Ana can move forward, together. Sincerely, Chase Russell October 15, 2019 Santa Ana City Council 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: Moratorium on Car Washes Dear City Councilmembers I would like to ask you to adopt a moratorium on new car washes in the City of Santa Ana in order to develop standards that will limit their negative impact on our residents. Currently, there are at least 22 existing car washes in Santa Ana. In Santa Ana's 27 square miles, that is about one car wash per 1.2 square miles. In neighboring Anaheim, there are at least 16 existing car washes within its 50 square miles, which is about one car wash for every 3.1 square miles. There are more car washes in Santa Ana than the total locations for McDonald's, Taco Bell, and Burger King in Santa Ana, and the amount of those fast food establishments in Santa Ana feels overwhelming. The environmental impacts of car washes, such as the harmful chemicals contained in the soap, which becomes mixed with the dirt and grease removed from the cars, ends up contaminating the soil underneath the car washes and our City's underground water supply, which affects our drinking water. I want Santa Ana to continue to make the news for winning awards for having the best -tasting water, not the most contaminated water. Twenty-two is a significant amount of locations for a use that provides our City little economic benefit since there are minimal sales tax revenues generated from car washes. The locations of many of these car washes result in the loss of some of the more desirable commercial sites throughout the City. Multiple cities in San Diego County and the Inland Empire have recognized the impacts of having too many car washes and have passed moratoriums to develop standards that limit their negative impacts. I hope that Santa Ana will do the same. Sincerely, Phil Bacerra Mitre -Ramirez, Norma From: Kara Grant < Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 1:28 PM To: eComment Cc: Kelaher, Selena Subject: City Council Meeting 10/15 - Comments Attachments: RK - Noise Peer Review - 101519.pdf Attached hereto are written comments submitted for the hearing on Appeal Application No. 2019-03 before the City Council tonight, 10/15. Thank you, Kara Grant ICARA E. GRANT Attorney at Law This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney -client privilege and attorney work -product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. S engineering group, inc. October 15, 2019 Ms. Kara E. Grant Law Office of Kara E. Grant 17595 Harvard Suite C-202 Irvine, CA 92614 traffic engineering & design transportation planning parking acoustical engineering au quality & ghg Subject: 301 and 325 North Tustin Avenue Noise Impact Analysis Review, City of Santa Ana Dear Ms. Grant: Introduction RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) is pleased to provide this review of potential environmental noise and vibration impacts from the construction and operation of a proposed express car wash and gas station with convenience market located at 301 and 325 North Tustin Avenue, in the City of Santa Ana (hereinafter referred to as project). This review is based on the information provided in 301 and 325 Tustin Avenue Noise Impact Analysis, prepared by LSA, July 2019 (hereinafter referred to as Noise Study). The purpose of this letter is to review the Noise Study from a noise and vibration impact standpoint and provide comments to help ensure that all potential impacts from the project are adequately identified and the effects mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. RK has over 50 years of combined experience in environmental acoustics and has prepared hundreds of noise impact analyses for public agencies and developers in the State of California, and we are fully aware of the complexity of data gathering, modeling, and the possibility for error within these technical documents. Comments Based upon our review, the following comments are provided: 1. Page 19, Car Wash Operations. The noise level data utilized to predict future noise levels from the car wash tunnel seems low. RK has collected similar noise level data 4000 westerly place, ste. 280 newport beach, ca 92660 0(949) 474-0809 0 rkengineeccont Law Office of Kara E. Grant RK 15591 Page 2 for express car wash sites and has recorded noise levels above 90 dBA Leq and 100 dBA Lmax at the exit of the tunnel, near the blowers. Attachment A shows the manufacture's noise level readings for a Ryko Solutions 3-Fan SlimLine Dryer system installed in a car wash tunnel. As can be seen in the attachment, noise levels of approximately 90 decibels were recorded at 10 feet from the exit of the tunnel. This is significantly louder than the referenced 81.9 dBA noise levels at 13 feet utilized in the Noise Study. The Noise Study also utilizes noise levels of 73.7 dBA at 20 feet for sound propagating from the tunnel exit at 90 degrees off -center. As shown in Attachment A, noise levels at 25 feet at 90 degrees off -center are shown to be 80.5 decibels for typical equipment. This too is significantly louder than what is projected in the Noise Study. As a result, the Noise Study may underestimate future noise level impacts from the car wash tunnel. 2. Page 19, Car Wash Operations. The Noise Study does not discuss or analyze the noise level impacts from the self -serve vacuums. Per RK's understanding, approximately 20 self -serve vacuum stalls will be provided on the project site. The Noise Study should analyze and disclose the noise level impact from all vacuum locations, as they will be a major source of noise. For example, RK has measured noise levels up to 90 decibels near vacuum service areas. As a result, the Noise Study may underestimate future noise level impacts to adjacent land uses. 3. Page 19, Car Wash Operations and Table 1 Car Wash Noise Levels. The Noise Study states, "because noise levels generated by the carwash operations would be similar to those experienced from traffic impacts, the increase would be less than 3 dBA, typically a threshold used to determine if the increase in noise would be perceptible." However, upon looking at the projected car wash noise levels, shown in Table 1, the project noise contribution would be 66.7 dBA Leq at R-6, Medical Office. When the project noise is added to the daytime noise levels at LT-1, reported as being 66 dBA during the 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM hours, the resulting noise level is approximately 69.4, 3.4 decibels higher than the ambient. As stated above, this would typically exceed the threshold of human perception and is frequently considered a substantial permanent increase in the ambient environment; thus triggering a significant impact under CEQA. Although the adjacent medical office land use does contain noise sensitive exterior areas, further analysis and mitigation should be provided to demonstrate that the project would not adversely affect the noise sensitive interior areas of the medical office building. ®onglinnnring group, Inc. rkengineeccom Law Office of Kara E. Grant RK 15591 Page 3 4. General Comment, Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts. The Noise Study does not address the potential temporary increase in ambient noise levels caused by construction activity in the vicinity of the project, particularly at the noise sensitive medical office building located immediately adjacent to the car wash tunnel. Medical equipment, devices and procedures can be particularly susceptible to noise and vibration, and therefore, it is important that the Noise Study identify and disclose any potential noise a vibration impacts cause by the construction of the car wash project. Conclusions Based upon this review, 301 and 325 North Tustin Avenue Noise Impact Analysis may not adequately address all potential noise impacts from the proposed project. Additional analysis and mitigation measures should be provided to ensure the project does not adversely affect the surrounding noise sensitive land uses. RK Engineering Group, Inc appreciates this opportunity to work with the Law Office of Kara E. Grant. If you have any questions regarding our review, or need additional analysis, please call me at (949) 474-0809. Respectfully submitted, RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. zurtA Cu, Bryan Estrada, AICP Senior Associate 8E: aglrk 15591. doc JN:2858-2019-02 ®unpineIRL croup, InG rkengineeccom Attachment A Example of Car Wash Tunnel Sound Level Reading '11 10.,3 40' Jp g6 �" 10' 20' /40 $0.5 50' . 40' - 30' - 20' - T0' - udd 30' .� 40' 50' . 4, 0 60' 70' 75' .�2.2