Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout75E - 2909 S BRISTOLREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2009 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING-RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF A PORTION OF REAL PROPERTY AT 2909 S. BRISTOL & MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SAN LORENZO SEWER LIFT STATION ~~c-- /`~ CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 1ST Reading ^ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER 1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the condemnation of a portion of the real property located at 2909 S. Bristol Street and declaring the public necessity and interest therefore. 2. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Lorenzo Sewer Lift Station Improvements. DISCUSSION The City is proposing to construct a new sewer lift station at the end of San Lorenzo Avenue, just east of Bristol Street (Exhibit 1). To accommodate the construction of the lift station, acquisition of 292 square feet of property located at 2909 S. Bristol is required (Exhibit 2) . The public interest and necessity requires the proposed acquisition. A good faith offer was made to the property owner on October, 6, 2008 for an amount of $25,000 for the purchase of the property. Negotiations continue with the property owner, however in order to meet the project schedule, it is necessary to commence eminent domain proceedings. Staff is requesting adoption of this resolution of necessity and initiation of condemnation proceedings. 75E-1 Resolution Authorizing Condemnation and Mitigated Negative Declaration for San Lorenzo Sewer Lift Station February 2, 2009 The sewer lift station will replace an existing lift station located beneath Bristol Street approximately 700 feet to the west of the proposed lift station. The new lift station will include updated equipment and additional pumps to reduce the chance of a sewer spill. The consulting firm of T & B Planning, Inc. was retained to do the environmental assessment for this project. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an environmental checklist was completed. All checklist items were determined to have either "No Impact or "Less than Significant Impact with the exception of possible odors emanating from the site and traffic congestion due to lane closures during construction. These items will be mitigated by incorporating an odor control system into the design and requiring the contractor to provide traffic control, signage, and detour routes to minimize disruption of the normal flow of traffic. In accordance with CEQA requirements, the "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration" was advertised in the Orange County Register on December 22 and December 23, 2008, as well as posted at the site. The review period was from December 23, 2008 to January 12, 2009, and no public comments were received. Staff recommends approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT There are no significant environmental impacts with the implementation of the mitigation measures. FISCAL IMPACT Funds for the proposed acquisition are available in the Sewer Connection Fees Fund (account no. 55-532-6631, project no. 06-3510). APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: _.~ ,( _ _ ames G. R\ovs,s xecutive Director Public Works Agency ~ ~~ ~~ Francisco Gutierrez Executive Director Finance and Mgmt. Services Agency 75E-2 75E-4 ... MAYOR lld Mi l A P •~,~ '~~'" CITY MANAGER David N Ream o gue u ~'~ "`r MAYOR PRO TEt~4 Claudia C. Alvarez CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W Fletcher GOUNCILMEMBERS ~ S2'f „~ CLERK OF THE COUNCVL P. David Benavides Patricia E Healy Carlos Bustamante Michele Martinez Vincent F Sarmiento CITY OF SANTA ANA Sal Tinajero PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY M-85 220 S. Daisy Avenue, M85 - P O. Box 1988 Santa Ana. California 92702 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This is to inform the general public that the City of Santa Ana proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the following project: Project Title: San Lorenzo Lift Station Project Description: The City of Santa Ana is proposing to construct a new sewer lift station, to be located at the end of San Lorenzo Avenue just east of Bristol Street. The proposed sewer lift station would replace an existing lift station located beneath Bristol Street approximately 700 feet to the west of the proposed new lift station. The new lift station is proposed to update the equipment and to provide additional redundancies in order to reduce the chance for a sewer spill. The new lift station would not increase the capacity of the existing sewer system in the vicinity. During construction of the proposed. project atemporary construction easement is proposed to the west and north of the proposed facility and would comprise an approximate 900 s.f. area to facilitate the removal of an existing block wall and to allow for site improvements. Features proposed as part of the project include: a wet well of sufficient size and depth to prevent back up and surcharging of the upstream sewer mains; a below ground dry pit to house the pumps, motors, associated equipment and appurtenances; a small above- ground block building (approximately 8 feet by 30 feet in size) to house the electrical panels; a stairway access into the dry pit; and new landscape and hardscape improvements around the building for that area within the public right-of-way (sidewalk, curb and gutter, street trees, shrubs, and ground cover). As part of the proposed project, the City of Santa Ana would be required to acquire approximately 292 s.f. of area located along the northwestern portion of the site. The area proposed for acquisition would overlap with a portion of the proposed temporary construction easement. The project also proposes the construction of 1,300 lineal feet of new 15-inch to 18-inch sewer main and appurtenances to connect several existing sewer mains to the new lift station. Project Location: Bristol Street, Segerstrom Avenue, and San Lorenzo Avenue in the City of Santa Ana. Project Number: Public Works Agency Project No. 06-3510 Public Review Period: December 23, 2008 to January 12, 2009 Hearing Date: Not applicable. The proposed project would require only administrative approval from the City of Santa Ana, and no public hearing is required. Hearing Location: Not Applicable The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study as well as all referenced documents will be available for public review at the City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency, located at 220 South Daisy Avenue, Santa Ana, California. Please submit any comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City on or before January 12, 2009. Please direct your comments to: Mr. Steve Worrall, Senior Civil Engineer, City of Santa Ana, P.O. Box 1988, M-85, Santa Ana, CA 92702. If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please contact Steve Worrall at (714) 647- 3319. Page 1 of 64 75E-5 MAYOR lid l A P Mi ~• '~~ "` . u o gue ~~ ~ MAYOR PRO TEM Claudia C. Alvarez GOUNCILMEMBERS ~ ~ ~' P David Benavides Carlos Bustamante Michele Martinez VincentF Sarmiento CITY OF S/-~NTA ANA Sal Tinajero PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY M-85 220 S. Daisy Avenue; M85 - P O Box 1988 Santa Ana. California 92702 CITY MANAGER David N Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W Fletcher CLERK OF THE COUNCIL. Patricia E Healy MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the Procedures of the City of Santa Ana for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Evaluator has completed an Initial Study for the project described below: Project Number: Public Works Agency Project No. 06-3510 Applicant: City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency, Water Resources Division Project Location: Bristol Street, Segerstrom Avenue, and San Lorenzo Avenue in the City of Santa Ana. Project Title/Description: San Lorenzo Lift Station. The City of Santa Ana is proposing to construct a new sewer lift station, to be located at the end of San Lorenzo Avenue just east of Bristol Street. The proposed sewer lift station would replace an existing lift station located beneath Bristol Street approximately 700 feet to the west of the proposed new lift station. The new lift station is proposed to update the equipment and to provide additional redundancies in order to reduce the chance for a sewer spill. The new lift station would not increase the capacity of the existing sewer system in the vicinity. During construction of the proposed project a temporary construction easement is proposed to the west and north of the proposed facility and would comprise an approximate 900 s.f. area to facilitate the removal of an existing block wall and to allow for site improvements. Features proposed as part of the project include: a wet well of sufficient size and depth to prevent back up and surcharging of the upstream sewer mains; a below ground dry pit to house the pumps, motors, associated equipment and appurtenances; a small block building (approximately 8 feet by 30 feet in size) to house the electrical panels; a stairway access into the dry pit; and new landscape and hardscape improvements around the building for that area within the public right-of-way and construction of anew block wall along the motel property and adjacent to the proposed lift station (sidewalk, curb and gutter, street trees, shrubs, and ground cover). As part of the proposed project, the City of Santa Ana would be required to acquire approximately 292 s.f. of area located along the northwestern portion of the site. The area proposed for acquisition would overlap with a portion of the proposed temporary construction easement. The project also proposes the construction of 1,300 lineal feet of new 15-inch to 18-inch sewer main and appurtenances to connect several existing sewer mains to the new lift station. And does hereby find: That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of mitigation measures placed on the project and agreed to by the project proponent would reduce identified impacts to a level below significant. Signature: Date: Steve Worrall, Senior Civil Engineer This determination is not final until adopted by the decision-making body or administrative official, and a Notice of Determination is filed. Page 2 of 64 75E-6 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance PLANNING DIVISION Project Title: San Lorenzo Lift Station II. Project Numbers: Public Works Agency Project No. 06-3510 III. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency/Water Resources Division; Corporate Yard, M-85 220 S. Daisy Avenue Santa Ana CA 92702 IV. Contact and Phone Number: Mr. Steve Worrall, (714) 647-3319 V. Project Location: Existing sewer lift station located along the eastern side of Bristol Street approximately 250 feet north of the intersection of Bristol Street and Seaerstrom Avenue in the City of Santa Ana. Proposed San Lorenzo Lift Station to be constructed at the west end of San Lorenzo Avenue iust east of Bristol Street. Refer to attached Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 USGS Map, and Figure 3, Aeriai Photo. VI. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Santa Ana Water Resources Division• Corporate Yard, M-85, 220 S. Daisy Avenue Santa Ana CA 92702 VII. General Plan Designation: N/A VIII. Zoning: N/A IX. Description of Project: The City of Santa Ana is proposing to construct a new sewer lift station, to be located at the west end of San Lorenzo Avenue just east of Bristol Street. The proposed sewer lift station would replace an existing lift station located beneath Bristol Street approximately 700 feet to the west. During construction of the proposed lift station, the existing lift station would remain in operation. The new lift station would not increase the capacity of the existing sewer system in the vicinity. The new lift station is proposed to update the equipment and to provide additional redundancies in order to reduce the chance for a sewer spill. Upgrades to the current sewer lift station are necessary because the redundancies associated with the existing lift station are inadequate in that two pumps are frequently Page 3 of 64 75E-7 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance operated near capacity without a third standby pump. The lack of redundancies is particularly an issue because trash and rags frequently enter the pump and render them inoperable. Additionally, ventilation in the dry pit of the existing lift station is inadequate, and the dry pit access is prone to flooding during rain events which requires the City to maintain sand bags around the access cover from November to February each year. Furthermore, the access to the dry pit is located in the middle of a pedestrian sidewalk which must be closed for extended periods of time during entry. In addition, the pumps, motors, and other equipment have exceeded their design life. The existing lift station within Bristol Street is composed of a packaged station measuring 12 feet in diameter and 10 feet in height, with an entry tube measuring approximately four feet in diameter. Demolition of the existing lift station would involve the abandonment in place of the existing lift station, which would include removal and disposal of all pumps, suction, and discharge piping, valves, fittings, control panels, conduits, wiring, miscellaneous piping, exhaust fans, duct piping and ladder. The lift station would then be filled with sand. Demolition also would require the abandonment in place of the existing four-foot diameter by 20-foot deep wet well manhole, which also would be filled with sand. The upper 15 inches of the existing 8-foot diameter by 16-foot deep wet well also would be removed and filled with sand. An existing generator, located southerly of the existing lift station, would remain in place and would serve as a back-up power source for the proposed lift station. Finally, some removal and replacement of existing sidewalk and roadway pavement would occur in association with proposed demolition activities. Please refer to Figure 4, Existing Lift Station Demolition Plan, for a graphical depiction of the proposed demolition activities. The proposed facility would be constructed at the western end of San Lorenzo Avenue, immediately north of Segerstrom Avenue and south of an existing alley. As part of the construction of this proposed facility, some demolition activities would occur, as depicted in Figure 5, Proposed Lift Station Demolition Plan. Demolition activities would include the removal and disposal of existing pavement, curb, and gutter (both within the existing alley, the western end of San Lorenzo Avenue, and the northern edge of Segerstrom Avenue); the removal of existing trees and landscaping; the removal of an existing six-foot tall block wall; and the removal of an existing power pole. During construction activities a temporary construction easement is proposed to be located within an adjacent parcel (APN No. 410- 411-19) comprising approximately 900 s.f. in size. Figure 6, Temporary Construction Easement, depicts and describes the area proposed for the temporary construction easement. The temporary construction easement is necessary to allow for the removal of the existing solid block wall and to facilitate the construction of a new wall along with backfill and removal of shoring. Additionally, during construction of the proposed project the driveway of the property located at 2909 Bristol Street (Studio Inn) will be impacted periodically, but the access to the property will be maintained at all times and the construction of the driveway will be done one half at a time. Driveways along Segerstrom Avenue as well as the main entrance to the site from Bristol Street will not be impacted. Figure 7, Proposed Lift Station Site Plan, depicts the physical improvements proposed as part of the project. As shown, the project would require the repaving of a portion of the western end of San Lorenzo Avenue, portions of the existing alley, and a portion of Page 4 of 64 75E-8 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Segerstrom Avenue, along with the construction of new sidewalks in areas where demolition is to occur. As part of the site plan, the existing wall separating the site from the existing motel use would be replaced with asix-foot tall tan block wall. The proposed lift station also would be constructed and housed within an approximate 8-foot by 30-foot block building, measuring approximately 17 feet in height. The structure would be composed of tan brick walls, with two doors providing access to the interior. The roof material would be composed of metal roofing with a simulated Spanish the pattern. Within the structure, the following facilities would be constructed: electrical panels and control center; abelow- ground wet well of sufficient size and depth to prevent back up and surcharging of the upstream sewer mains; abelow-ground dry pit to house the pumps, motors, associated equipment and appurtenances; and a stairway access into the dry pit. As part of the design for the facility, an odor control system would be installed to preclude odors from the site. Figure 8, Proposed Lift Stafion Landscaping Plan, depicts landscaping that would occur once site improvements are completed. As shown, some existing landscaping along Segerstrom Avenue would remain. Proposed landscaping would be concentrated in a triangular area located between the proposed lift station and the sidewalk along Segerstrom Avenue, and would include the planting of several 24-inch Brisbane Box trees, along with shrubs and groundcover (including Silverberry and Autumn Sage). Figure 9, Proposed Lift Stafion Visual Simulation, provides a graphical depiction depicting the site under existing conditions and provides a comparison to what the site would look like upon completion of the improvements proposed by the project. As part of the proposed project, the City of Santa Ana will acquire title to approximately 292 s.f. of private property for the proposed project, which is currently owned by Santa Ana California Lodge, LLC (Studio Inn, APN No. 410-411-19). An exhibit showing the private property to be acquired for the proposed project is included as Figure 10, Acquisition Area. The private property would be acquired by the City in any manner authorized by law, which in proper circumstances could potentially include adoption by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana of a resolution of necessity. Additionally, it should be noted that the area proposed for acquisition would overlap with a portion of the area proposed for the temporary construction easement shown on Figure 6 and described above. The project also proposes the construction of 1,300 lineal feet of new 15-inch to 18-inch sewer mains and appurtenances. Construction of these new facilities would occur within the right-of-way of Bristol Street and Segerstrom Avenue, and would be necessary to re- connect several existing sewer mains to the new pump station at San Lorenzo Avenue. X. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is located within an urban developed portion of the City of Santa Ana. East of the proposed lift station site, and north of Segerstrom Avenue, land uses are dominated by single-family residential uses. South of Segerstrom Avenue and east of the site is the Saddle Back High School, with residential uses located adjacent to the high school on the west side. Immediately west of the proposed lift station site is an existing motel (Studio Inn). Land uses north and south of Segerstrom Avenue westerly of the proposed lift station site include primarily commercial retail land uses. Commercial land uses also characterize Page 5 of 64 75E-9 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance the area adjacent to the existing lift station site that is proposed to be abandoned as part of the project. Under existing conditions, the proposed lift station site consists of an empty parcel of land that has been improved with concrete sidewalks that are in need of repair or replacement. An existing power pole also is located within the proposed improvement area. The site is currently an unimproved dirt area at the abandoned end of San Lorenzo Avenue. The sidewalk along Segerstrom Street also is in need of repair, and includes an existing manhole that is raised above the sidewalk by approximately four inches. XI. Other agencies whose approval is required. There are no other agencies whose approval is required. Page 6 of 64 75E-10 ^• SAN LORENZO LIfT STATION IVIND . ~' ~ r _ " se/ t _~ __ ~__ ._-~ t f _ , Or n e -- -- a g ~39; 1 ~ _ - _ .~ . f y r~ ~ 55 E . ffi~ J ' --- ._. _~ r j t':~E~, thills E __.- - i r d dl ~ a yl ' V l __ -_ - ~ 'We trrn~s~er 5.. ~ ~, _ '' ._ i ~.1, Santa An ~ ,.- .r~'- ~ 1. -- i ,~Jr ! ~ ~\ r F unt 'n alley ~, ~ _ -- , /~ ~/r a C Tu tfr7 Marine; orp. _ Au S'tafion ,~ ~~~ l' _ , t ~, ,y . -,, ;~~ / , _ ~ohn, Wa yrie Airport ~.~s ` Costa ~,, esa ',, ~ -'~ I i rv , e ~.~ r ~' r r _ ,~`s=• ~' ~ ~ ^~ `,,J h a \ - ' ~ ewport - ea h ''~ ~ N ~ SOUR<[: ESR, US CENSUS BUREAU 'j, ro FIGURE ~ ~ VICINITY MAP PAGE 7 of 64 75E-11 ^n^ SAN LORENZO LIFT STATION MND .I ~ ~:, -- :r , i - ,h B ;, -°:r k e ~ ~" Ik 3~ ^ { r y, ~~' ` i ~] .br !' r ai .-- i s ~ C' $ _, ; ~ ~ .~ -~ PAC C p r ~ ,' ..n'Z~~ _ .- ~McFa4den -2 •.• ! ~ ~ ~ ~,• 1 ~vs. i ~ ~.. ~r i1fRh9rb,tn • ~ ~ ~~± .• ~ ` _ f SEE ~ Existing `;, ~ : ~ t;,fir ~ Prop . ' :1 ;ti _i • e .~T~ - " • ' ';~~-r5' ~ `fit '`~ r.~ San L~ nz _~' ~"-~ .i• ~~ ~ :tt y ~~ ~~,~r ~ S ~ ,,,~ o ,..~ ~ ~ ~ ,Lifer tati Lift. bu. r,e~ ~~~ ~r~ .. ~ - F.:,>. ~ . ~~ ~~, ~ ~ ~. ~a ~ i ~ ~~ ' catio~1, Location I o ~, '' ' =~~:~ ,. , ~t~' ~wctdr,r - wvE 'A~ ~ ~ '~~ ~ ~ ~, ~.. ~ ._~ ~~ M ~ _ ~. 1 ~a , b,. ~- ~ _ ~! ? r ~ ~ G ~ ~ .,. ,~ _ , - .__ ..T_. r w + ~ -.~ - I P _ r .~ _ , t. -. suitown .'"':ive 5u~lrtwn 4.~1,;' ~ ~! _ ~ ~ti I i ~: _>`~ r,'' ` P ~ x.. N ~ ~ ~~~ COSTA MESA '' ,~.''~~;= , ~ 3 5K~ t ., i ~ • ~,~ 1) _- I~ i . • '~ r1 . .,' OS) i ~~ ~ ~-, ' _. R _~ ~~ g -~.. -a. ,.r.m 'N...~c-- - ' J ~ .a.wsr-~y.^- - -- ~j~;*.-. \ `'4t~lie7erwrr yy ,:. ~x - ^ 1°~~NP~ '~ ~ YS~b Sok ~ ie~ ~ ~ If -~-s~! ~ ~• 1~ ~!` F,' - • . Souaee: USGS ro FIGURE 2 USGS MaP PAGE 8 of 64 75E-12 ^^ SAN LORENZO LIFT STATION MND ^~ AERIAL PHOTO PAGE 9 of 64 75E-13 SOURCE'. AERIAL GOGGLE EARRI 2007 rG FIGURE .3 ~ Z 3 a ~- z 0 s~ z~ t ~v &c ~~ °~ y+ Y' „ ~ ~ 4 ~ G g: 9 ~ ad ~ ~ ~F a ~ = ~ s a _ O e4~"~4 ~ ~~ r n a~$d~'tn ~~~ ~,~ ~~ ~ ~ Ma j :€C~ L'b~ey=~ '.$ « e y y ~ € ~ ~x w ~~ ' ri ~~ 3 ¥F ~~~3 i ~ W~ r u~ i~ I N z G n ~~~~~~~ £.. e - ~I r- ~` ry ~w G C~ L~5 C ~ ~~ ~" ~v&£y~£ ~~ tS ~~ ~~ '~ ~~ tl~ ! ' ~I ' ~ i o~ ~4 d b ~}}o`~ ~~LffS~ I f - - ~ 4 ~ I ~~ ~ ~~ . g ~ / /_ ~ £~ ~ x~ ~~ F ~ ~ ~, ~ d ~g $4 _ i ~ ~ Y' f F '~d ~'~ .., ke _ _. li y P ~b a ~~ ~~ _.._ z ~~ ~ ~ \ i ~ i dlz <., ~ x I Z 1 r~' ~ e ~ ~, ~ ~~ I ~ Q oa J , - ` / l ~ I ._... < w~ ~; ~ - ~ i __ -- -- °~ .- ~ e"A ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ g Y~ pE' ~43 = j 4°s j ~ ~ ~ 1 I __~ n€ L ~ i (n ~ (a ` ~ I ~ " $ S k ~x_ \ ` i ~ h g a~8~ ,\ ~ & ~~ Z S le ~8i„ ~ ~'§ ~ ~'~v ; :Fa ~y C I ) n p~ n ~ G %3 ~ F- ~ t.~~„-`. ~~~ ~ I. tl)i d h: ~~ '. E gg 3o ~ ~ ~ S~ ~ ~y ~a ~ ^ ~~~ "~ 1 i g 33 e9= E~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ e.~ ~ ~ ~ } I ~ Y~~ ~ ~~ W a ~ , 55 _ ~~y _ y x RG _ ~ lac r ^ f ~ ~ ~ ~ tl ~ E ~~ £ ~ ~~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~. , E ~ 8y „3 a VEY y ~ ~ ~ ~ XaY e~ H ~ ~ = i ~g 4 '~" ~ ~ r G~ ~'~j } 3~3 ~°~9 '~ y~ ~~~y ~~ r: ~' g a 5i ~ q Bp ~ g€ yq~ o ^^"4 5 33 ~` ~ S~ 4 ~ ~. tl~$d € y g 5 yy y d~ ~tl c1~4u ~s { $ _ V7 0 W Z 0 LL C9 Z N X 0 6 a ay Z Q Z K J IV1 ^i~ ^^ 75E-14 N Z g a LL z 0 0 Z O 0 Z 0 J Z Q N ^~ ^^ °" ~,~ ~ S R _ g Y r s~ €~ a $~v r ~e g~g Y~" . ~ ~, ¢ ~ ~g~ i a 4 a$ ~ ~~~Y i ¢ ~a ~ F` G ~ ~~ ~ she I ° ; ~ N° ~ Y e r g 3 L t~ 3 3 ~~°~ ° 5fi ' ~ ~- c~a i ~ §q J~3 a a¢6 ~~ ~ E ~ Y°~ y ~ ~'~~ Fg '~ `{' 3 3 I 3 ~ ~ 'P' ~ ~ 5 5 3 ~~ .g,{5 y o ~ t yg°yg ~ G^ ~'{ 3 pp ~ E °/ yq yy yYy Y ~ Y E Y g '~kn ~ ~~e ~D~ ~g~' 4~£ 35 a'~~t ~~_ L~b ~~ $ 3~aS ~ ° 5~$ ~~'' U'J ~UUUJ~~UU~~O ~U §~ ~- ~s e .~~ /~ 2~6 ~~ ~ gg ~ ~ sgs a ~ ~;~z§i /~ ;a"°i/ ~' '^~ ~~ ~° 6 ego cY \ ~P y17 ~ ~\\ ~ wca"i` ~i7~JiP '~~ YR~ ~.b~~8~ 7Q -. ~ ~~ ~~ r~ s~ ~7 ~~'~3 /~ ~ cx yid . ~ ~ ~~~c~' \~ o>< \~ / s~~s~ ~: n~ ~, ~~. /' ~ J ~,~ --~----~c~ / \ ~N ~ ~a\. ~~ °4\ ~~~ .,~ C ~\ ~ \~ 4~t\ ~~ a~ \ \\ ~\ z\ U ~\ 1~ ~\ ~ \ ~~ a J ~ 5\ ~ ~I a \ \ 1,1;~ ------ ~-\- \ ~..- ~ b . ~ ~ - ~-r~ ` ` ~ ~ ~g~ °~ ,, ~ x o rv ~~ i ~ ~ _ ~~~ &.= E ~ gaa s ,e e ~ ~ ooC'k~l II i ~~~gY ~ ~~ ~_ ~~~ I Iii ~~~ ~ I fi Y ~ ~~ k~ a ~ }l iy LX~s~ ~ A ~a~~ZY~[ai = b gr ~- -. YY e~ '~ _ _. _. _._ _..._ .. _._ __ . _. _. .__ % ~Yw S~Y ~ I _'~ -- ~ _ - - -- - ~ a ~ a w pZyF- ~ Z ~ ~~S o C ~ N d . ~1 lr~ ~ ~ -,-~ I \/ • / ~ w ~ ~`\ / ~ ~~~ F ~~ ~ ~~ ~ k I" + ~ ~ e ~~ ~p ~/.~ ~' , W ~ ~g@I ' M Y ~~ Y g k G4 ~~~ ~° ~~~ I ~ ~ ': °s~5 ~3 gs4 ~~~o ~ w O z Z O LL I J p W ~ ~ ~ H W', o O N~ ~ a W z o_ o~ ~Z ~ z~ w~ ~ ~J ~ ZW UQS a s U~ Z_ =g U s: ~ ~ €P~t )~s~SS d~ T° Y~~ Xi 0 a a 75E-15 •^ SAN LORENZO LIFT STATION MND ^ ~ - HEMLOCK WAY i L 2I0' i -- ® ~ W II I I~ r + J t ~ i ~ J i tiy- ~ ~~J i a i i ~ L~ ~~ ~ ' Q 10~~ G -'I ~ ~ ~ P ~ m ° P.O.B. ' Q rn~ ~~ O ~`' PA CEL ~ i o N B J ~ ~ Q I ~ cn / x. ~ I ~~ ~ - ~, NEE ,~- ~ ~ , ~ ERSIROM ~ -j9 k P.O.B. ~,--~- ~ _ SEG ~ ~ / ~ / ----~-- _ -_ _ - DETAIL L2 - - ~ N TS L4 P C O . . . .,~ ~ v , / PARCEL ~ ,~ ,> B ~> J J L L7 ~ ~ ~ - J , ~~~ ~ - P.O.C. /" EXHIBIT B SANTA ANA q. P . N 0. 410 - 411-19 P^ TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION `~`~`~ ~~~ EASEMENT SOU,RCC: PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY (OGi. ZOOS) j o FIGURE 6 T TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT PAGE 12 of 64 LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 N01'43'58"E 92.32 L2 N88'16'02"W 10.00 L3 S34'45'49"W 1.89 L4 N88'16'02"W 27.47 L5 S01'43'58"W 43.58 L6 S09'57'23"W 13.38 L7 N88'16'02"W 19.36 L8 S01'43'58"W 23.05 75E-16 ~O Z ' ~ g' a LL fN Z a z a z n J L a O a a \ '~= e \ ~~\ e ' : e €~ fie i $ ~ ?g a 8q y - y ~§eags ~ y _ s k =#_~ ~ ~' ayey a: ~ s!"3~ ~ p3 S x ~ ~ - ~ 3m ~~ a~~i a g ~~ S&&§a c} a 2 ~___` S I}e NM 'I~ Y ~ ' m 3 ~ o 4K ~ ~ y ~~ c~ '3x~"a $~g9 ay fir= 94 b ; ~S ~ 98 nl u"u I '~C 7]~ .. ~ = Y ~ 5 ~~~u B~ `°~` 3G T ~ 5.~ ~~.\ is ._ (~ ~ ~ S ~ yv k~ ~g 4 a ~I ~~ ~~b G ~~ ~ 3g~~ ~g~ ~~ B ~Y ~ 9~w ~R~ Z ~ ~ O [ 6 c ~$ €C Lib ~E. .~~,~ ~ ~ p pp p y 3 g' ~~~ Bm_R~.~' ~ R ~ ,. ~ n 3yaG g ~ U N N b o ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ o~ 0 0 0© ~r ~ ~ ~ c ' / ~q J~ r~l R / ,I i ,~~ i 5~ "li ~. _ L~ `~ _ / f ~ ti --77 ~~ ~ ~^` „ ~ ~ ' ~~ ~= rv I __~_____ '~ Y ~ 4 a .,R ~~ `J~ Z~ x ,~ ri m v ~ ~ ,~ / j q o d s b' ~ r i ~l C ` RI i~ R~y~ u ~ ~ ^~~ `~I _ F ` F _~ a 1 Lf - Z1~~7 ii.- ~C`Lti_ i R ~-- ---- _ ^E ~ ` -u `~ ` _ __._ -- - ~' -- -- --- t ~ - _ m_ _a~ _ ~ Vg ~ R A~ j I~ ~ €~ ~~6 •~~~ ~~ ~~ < < ~, y O _ __. ~'~ = ~Y „ o 3$ ~NH ~ U y ~ Z~ 1 N W ~~ 4 ~ O a~Ca N a ?3 _ #e ~ ~n~° ~ ary „ FW r °Y ~ ~ 1 75E-17 n z a z z ~z9~$„ a r ~ ~ ~ a e ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~°~ ~ ~ ~~~Yyy~~° x~ycy~$~[i[~ygy~ 8 ~~ b F ~` ~gg g~~€4yRC~ ~czRY~°F~ ~ Y ~~ 3 A ~~ 32~~~~f ~~~g~gs ~ bbb `~~ ~ ~s~$~~~ ~~~~~~;~tg°tg ~ ~~ ~" i ~ ff ~ i p ~~ ~~3Y ~~ ~~" ~; ~~ e ~€~ ~~ ~~~ 3 4 ~~~ ~~" ~~ ~ O z 0 z z ^^ ^^ U ~Q J z LL J Q Q. v O a` ~~~~~ ~a ~i R ~ 3 ~,~~ 3 ~t;~~~~ic ~ z f, fat ^ W !~t • ~ ~ a ~ w ~ O N Z N W ~ K - O ~, ~ ~2 F- ~ Z ~\ 76 a ~ r \ / ~ w~ ~ ~f1 ° w o~ ~~ w `\ N ~~ ~ 72~\ i 7~ \ ~ _ cw~~P ~a', ~ kF ____ __ ~~\, n -~ ~311`d ~ --- --~ -- 1~_ -~ ~' \ ~ ~ ~~ i i ~ i -- -_~ i ~; i - i 1 75E-18 t ` 1E 3 _ i ~~ 4 `?~ ~ y ~~~ R Ar y ~ s ~ z` s~`~ :` t f _~.- ~ y«. YT £ ~. "~.. ~~~ ,,, ry~ tv ~~ f `' ~t ~. '. ~ , W C ~ ~_9 .. i'y ~ -~ ~* a; $i x ~ t R~'~ ~ T i ~ -. x . ~ ~~: ~ "j ti~ :; , ~ ';~ S tZ 75E-19 ~~ ~ SAN LORENZO LIFT STATION MND ~i Ac6~UISITION AREA PAGE 16 of 64 75E-20 ®- i-~ ~ FIGURE "~;' ', Environmental Checklist - CEQA Compliance Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by that project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. O Aesthetics 0 Mineral Resources O Agricultural Resources O Air Quality O Biological Resources O Cultural Resources O Geology and Soils O Hazards and hazardous Materials 0 Hydrology and Water Quality O Land Use and Planning O Noise 0 Population and Housing O Public Services O Recreation O Transportation and Traffic O Utilities and Service Systems O Mandatory Findings of Significance Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that: A. ^ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. B. 0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. C. ^ The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D. ^ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR (EIR No. -)pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required. E. ^ Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. -)has been prepared earlier and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the previous EIR adequate and these changes do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. An ADDENDUM to the EIR shall be prepared. F. ^ Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. -)has been prepared zarlier; however, subsequent proposed changes in the project and/or new information of substantial importance will cause one or more significant effects no previously discussed. A SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared. Page 74 of 64 75E-21 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance CEQA Consultant (Document Preaarerl: Jeramey Harding Senior Project Manager T&B Planning Consultants, Inc. 17542 E. 17t Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 505-6360 Lead Agency Contact: Steve Worrall Senior Civil Engineer Water Resources Division City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency 220 S. Daisy Ave. Santa Ana, CA 92703 (714) 647-3319 Page 18 of 64 75E-22 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project_specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysis). ll. Ail answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. III. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Signifcant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. IV. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency mus# describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (V) below, may be cross-referenced). V. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a} Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b} impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c} Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. VI. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances}. Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. Vlf. Supporting Infiormation Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Vllt. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. IX. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Pie 19 of 64 75E-23 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance issues 8~ Supporting Information Sources I. Aesthetics -Would the project: A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings within a state highway? C. Subs#antially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Less Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^/ ^ ^ ^/ ^ ^ D ^ p 11. Agricultural Resources - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Cal'rfomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural farmland. Would the project: A. Conven` Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or ^ ^ ^ ^/ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non- agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the Califomia Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, maintains detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.) B. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a ^ ^ ^ ^/ Williamson Contract? C. Involve other changes in the existing environment ^ ^ ^ ^/ which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 111. Air Quality -Where available, the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management or pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable ^ ^ ^ /^ Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? Page 20 of 64 75E-24 - " ";' ; Environmental Checklist CE QA Compliance B. Violate any stationary source air quality standard or / contribute to an existing or proposed air quality violation? Issues & Supporting Information Sources Less Than Significant Less Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ^ ^ ^/ ^ any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emission which exceeds quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? l3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ^ ^ ^/ ^ concentrations? E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ^ [/] ^ ^ number of people? 1V. Biological Resources -Would the project: A. Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or ^ ^ ^ [] through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in focal or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services? B. Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian ^ ^ ^ ^/ habitat or natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of fish and Game or U.S. l"ish and Wildlife Service? C. Adversely impact federally protected wetlands ^ ^ ^ ^/ (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.} either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling hydrological internaption, or other means? D. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances CI ^ ^ ^/ protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? Page 21 of fi4 75E-25 - "~"~' ' Environmental Checklist 1 ! CEQA Compliance Issues 8~ Supporting Information Sources V. Cultural Resources -Would the project: A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? B. Cause a substantial adverse change In the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to define Section 15064.5? C. Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? D. Disturb any human remains, including #hose interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. Geology and Soils -Would the project: A. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of lass, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the State Geologist for the area ar based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4. Landslides? B. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Less Potentially with Than Significant Mitiga#ion Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ^ ^ ^ o ^ ^ ^ o ^ ^ ^ ^/ ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^ ^/ ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^/ ^ ^ ^ ^ o ^ ^ 0 ^ Page 22 of 64 75E-26 - "' ~ Environmental Checklist ~~ CEQA Compliance C. Would the project result in the loss of a unique / geologic feature? D. is the project located on strata or soli that is ^ ^ ^ ^/ unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Issues & Supporting information Sources E. Where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater, is the soil capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems? Less Than Significant Less Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated impact ^ ^ ^ VII. Hazardous and Hazardous Materials -Would the project: A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ^ environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? B. Create a significant hazard #o the public or the environment thought reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment? C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? D. Be located on a site whichs located on a fist of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 659662.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles where of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Page 23 of 64 No Impact ^/ ^ ^/ ^ ^ ^/. ^ D ~ ^ ^ ^ D ^ ^/ a 75E-27 - "' ; ~ ; Environmental Checklist CE QA Compliance F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, / would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? G. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ^ ^ ^ /^ an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. H. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ^ ^ ^ /^ loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wi{dlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Issues $~ Supporting Information Sources Less Than Significant Less Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated Impact Impact VIII iHydrology and Water Quality -Would the project: A. Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water ^ ^ ^/ ^ quality standards or waste discharge requirements? B. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ^ ^ ^ ^/ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ^ ^ ^/ ^ the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or sitation on or off-site? q. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ^ ^ ^/, ^ the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on or off-site? E. Create or contribute runoff water which would ^ ^ ~ ^ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-ofY? Page 24 of 64 75E-28 - ~~ ;~ ; Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance F. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? / G. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as ^ ^ ^ ^/ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? H. Place within a 100-year flaodplain structures which ^ ^ ^ ^/ would impede or redirect flood flows? I. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ^ ^ ^ ^/ foss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of failure of a levee or dam? J. inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ^ ^ ^ Q Issues 8 Supporting Information Sources IX. Land Use and Planning -Would the project: A. PhysicaNy divide an established community? B. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. Mineral Resources -Would the project: A. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? B. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recavPry site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI Noise -Would the project result in: Less Than Significant Less Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Incorporated impact Impact ^ ^ ^ ^/ ^ ^ ^ ^/ ^ ^ ^ o ^ ^ ^ o ^ ^ ^ o Page 25 of 64 75E-29 0 - " ';T ; Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance A. 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? B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ^ ^ ^/ ^ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ^ ^ ^/ ^ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ^ ^ ~ ^ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity- above levels existing without project? Issues & Supporting Information Sources E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise level? Xll. Population and Housing -Would the project: A. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business} or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads ar other infrastructure)? B. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. Public Services Less Than Signrficant Less Potentially wi#h Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ^ ^ ^ o ^ ^ ^ ^/ ^ ^ ^ ^/ ^ ^ ^ ^/ ^ ^ ^ Page 26 of 64 75E-30 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance A. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govemmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public service: 7. Fire protection? 2. Police protection? 3. Schools? 4. Parks? 5. Other public facilities? Issues & Supporting Information Sources XN. Recreation A. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? B. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. Transportation !Traffic A. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase h either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Page 27 of 64 o ^ ^ o ^ ^ ^ D ^ ^ ^ ./[~ ^ ^ ^ o ^ ^ ^ ^/ Less Than Significant Less Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^ Q ^ a ^ ^ 75E-31 - " ;' ; Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance B. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of / service standard established by the county congestion Management agency for designated roads or highways? C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ^ ^ ^ ^/ either an increase in traffic ~vels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? D. Substantially increase hazards to a design feature ^ ^ ^ (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? E. Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ ^ ^[]/ F. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ ^ ^/ G. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative ^ ^ ^ ^/ transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Issues & Supporting Information Sources XVi. Utilities artd Service Systems A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? B. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? D. Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new ar expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Less Potentiatiy with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^/ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^/ ^ ^ ^ ^/ Page 28 of 64 75E-32 - " ';' ; Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance E. Result in the determination by the wastewater / treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? F. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient ^ ^ ^/ ^ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's sold waste disposal needs? G. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and ^ ^ ^ ^/ regulations related to solid waste? XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the ^ ^ ^ ^/ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Issues & Supporting Information Sources Less Than Significant Less Potentially with Than Significant IVlitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 8. Does the project have impacts that are individually ^ ^ ^ ^/ limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, effects of other aarrent projects and the effects of probable future projects.) C. Does the project have environmental effects which ^ ^ ^ /^ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Page 29 of 64 75E-33 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance The following is an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, based upon the City of Santa Ana Environmental Checklist. 1. Aesthetics Sources: Building Specifications; Figure 9; Santa Ana General Plan; Municipal Code. Would the project: A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Findin No Impact. Analysis: The proposed project site is located within a developed portion of the City of Santa Ana, and is surrounding by existing developments. There are no scenic vistas identified by the Santa Ana General Plan or any other policy documents for the surrounding area. In addition, there are no topographically significant landforms or other features in the surrounding area which would qualify as a scenic vista. B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within view of a state-designated or eligible scenic highway? Finding: No Impact. Analysis: The proposed project site is located approximately 1.25 miles northeast of the nearest highway, State Route 55. Due to intervening development, the proposed project would not be visible from this highway. In addition, the project would not damage any scenic resources (i.e., rock outcroppings and historic buildings}. Although a street tree would be removed as part of the demolition activities at the proposed lift station site, fihis tree is not visible from any scenic highways and is not considered to be a scenic resource. In addition, the street tree would be replaced upon completion of the proposed project. No impact would occur. C, Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Finding: Less than Significant impact. Analysis: Figure 9, Proposed Lift Stafion Visual Simulation, depic#s the proposed project site under existing conditions, and provides a comparison with views of the site upon implementation of the proposed project. As shown, under existing conditions views from the site are of an existing motel Eocated adjacent to the site. Within the proposed improvement area, the existing sidewalk is in a state of disrepair. An existing power pole and road sign also are present in the view, as is an existing street tree. An existing manhole is clearly visible in the foreground Page 30 of 64 75E-34 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance and extends above the existing sidewalk. An existing light-pink six-foot block wall currently abuts the western and northern boundaries of the site. As depicted on Figure 9, with implementation of the proposed project, the visual character of the site would generally be improved. The existing dilapidated sidewalk would be replaced with new sidewalk along the project's frontage with Segerstrom Avenue. Portions of the existing pavement within San Lorenzo Avenue would be replaced, generally improving the appearance of the roadway. The proposed lift station building would partially obstruct existing views of the motel, but the architectural characteristics associated with the proposed structure (i.e., light-colored brick walls with aSpanish-style roof) would not result in a substantial change to views in the project area. Finally, and as depicted on Figure 9, proposed landscaping improvements would enhance the general appearance of the project area. In sum, improvements proposed by the project would result in a generally positive change to the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings, and impacts would not be significant. D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: No Impact. Analysis: Construction activities for the proposed project would only occur during the daylight hours, as nighttime construction activities would be prohibited by the City's Noise Ordinance (Part II, Chapter 18, Article VI, Section 18-314(e) of the City's Municipal Code}. Therefore, no night lighting during construction activities would be required. As part of the proposed project, two 32-Watt exterior lighting fixtures would be insta{led on the southern and eastern faces of the proposed lift station structure. The proposed 32-Watt lamps to be installed on the building would not result in the substantial generation of light. In addition, the proposed lighting fixtures are similar to existing street lights already located along Segerstrom Avenue. Further, Segerstrom Avenue is ahigh-volume roadway, and vehicle headlights already create sources of fight which far exceed that which would be produced by the proposed fixtures. Additionally, architectural elements associated with the proposed pump station building would not create any new sources of glare. Although the roof is proposed to be constructed out of metal materials, it also would be colored in a manner consistent with Spanish clay tile, which would effectively preclude the generation of glare. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light ar glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area; significant impacts would not occur. Page 31 pf 64 75E-35 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance II. Agricultural Resources Sources: Building Specifics#ions; OCGP Resources Element Figure V1-1 (Prime Farmland in Orange County), OCGP Resources Element Figure V!-2 (Orange County Agricultural Preserves); FMMP. Would the projec#: A. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, maintains detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.) Finding: No Impact. Analysis: The State Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) identifies soils throughout the state and rates those soils according to agricultural productivity potential. The project area is mapped by the FMMP as "Urban and Built-Up Land," which is defined as, "Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel." As such, the project area does not contain any lands designated by the FMMP as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, and implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impac#s to important fam~land types. B. Conflict with existing zoning for agricWtura! use or a Williamson Contract? Findin No Impact. Analysis: As identified by the Orange County General Plan, Figure IV-2, Orange County Agricultural Preserves, the project area does not contain any agricultural preserves or Williamson Act Contracts. In addition, zoning in the project area comprises a mixture of residential, public, and commercial land uses, and no lands within the project vicinity are zoned for agricultural use. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning. for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract. C. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? Finding: No Impact. Analvsis: The project area is primarily urban in character, and there are no active agricultural uses that would be affected by the project. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not result in other changes in the existing environment which could result in the loss of Farmland to anon-agricultural use. Page 32 of 64 75E-36 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Ill. Air Quality Sources: Building Specifications; SCAQMD AQMP; SCAG RTP; CARB. Would the project: A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Pian? Findin No Impact. Analysis: The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin {SCAB). Air quality control in the SCAB is regulated by federal, state, and regional control authorities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is involved in local air quality planning through the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), as recently amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments {CAAA) of 1990. At the state level, the California Clean Air Act of 1988 set air quality planning and regulatory responsibilities for the SCAB. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is charged with the responsibility for coordinating efforts to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards. At the regional level, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has responsibility for preparing and periodically revising their Air Quality Management Plan {AQMP), which contains measures to meet state and federal requirements. The CAAA of 1970 established national ambient air quality standards (AAQS) with states retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. Because California already had standards in existence before federal AAQS were established, and because of unique meteorological conditions in California, there is some diversity between state and federal standards currently in effect in California {see Table 1 }. The applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan in the project area is the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD} 2007 Air Quality Management Plan {AQMP). Because construction ac#ivity is an ongoing existing activity in the Basin, emissions associated with construction activity are accounted for as part of the AQMP's existing regional inventory. The AQMP targets stationary sources and stationary source controls. The proposed project does not directly relate to adopted air quality standards because sewer lift stations are not considered stationary sources of air quality pollutants, as the Eift station would be powered by electricity and not fossil fuels. In addition, the AQMP does not contain emission reduction measures for such improvements. The proposed project a#so would not accommodate substantial growth in the area, both because the project area is largely built-out and because the project is merely removing and replacing an existing lift station. Therefore, because the proposed project is not considered a stationary source of air pollutants, does not involve an increase in population, housing, or employment, and because there are no air quality programs or regulations regarding sewer lift stations, the project would not have the potential Page 33 of 64 75E-37 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA CompNiance to conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the SCAQMD AQMP. For these reasons, significant impacts would not occur. Table 1, Ambient Air 61tx~lity Standards ~. - .. - .. .. 0.09 ppm (180 1 Hour ~ /m3 Same as Ozone (03) 0.07 ppm (137 0.08 ppm (157 Primary 8 Hour 3 Eg/m Eg/m ) Respirable 24 Hour 50 Eg/m3 150 Eg/m3 Same as Particulate Matter AAM 20 >;glma __ Primary PM,o Fine Particulate 24 Hour -- 35 ~glm Same as Matter (PMZ,~) AAM 12 E /m 15 E /m Primary Carbon Monoxide 8 Haur 9.0 ppm (10 Eg/m) 9 ppm (10 ~g/m) None (CO) 1 Hour 20 pm 23 E /m 35 ppm (40 Eg/m ) Nitrogen Dioxide AAM 0.03 ppm (56 Eg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 ~ /m) Same as {NOz) 1 Hour 0.18 ppm {338 _ Primary >Jglm ) 0.03 ppm (70 AAM -- Eg/m3) -- 24 Haur 0.04 ppm (105 0.14 ppm (365 __ E m ~g/m ) Sulfur Dioxide (SOZ} H 0.5 ppm 1300 our 3 -- -- Eg/m ) 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 l -- -_ m } Eg 30 Da Average 1.5 > Im -- -- Lead Calendar Quarter -- 1.5 Eg/m3 Same as Prima Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer Visible Reducing -visibility of 10 miles Particulates $ Hour or more due to particles when relative humidity is less than 70 ercent, Sulfates 24 Hour 25 Eg/m Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 Eg/m ) Vin I Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm {26 Eg/m3) 1. AAM =Annual Arithmetic Mean. Source: Califomia Air Resources Board (2122/2007) The prevailing Congestion Management Plan in the project area is the Southern Califomia Association of Governments' (SCAG) 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP}, which set forth a series of policies for managing the flow of traffic throughout the SCAG region. Long-term operation of the sewer pump facility and appurtenances would not generate substantial traffic volumes which could interfere with the goals or policies of the RTP. Implementation of the proposed project also would not interfere with any public transportation facilities or policies. Page 34 of 64 75E-38 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance As such, significant impacts due to a conflict with a Congestion Management Plan would not occur. B. Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or proposed air qualify violation? Findin : Less than Significant Impact. AnaIVS_is: The SQAMD, in its CEQA Handbook, publishes air quality thresholds to determine if a project would have a significant air quality impact. These thresholds are shown in Table 2. Table 2, SCA6ZMD Emissions Slgnlffcanc® Thresholds pbs/day~ ~. . ROG 75 s.- . . 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 150 PM-10 150 150 PM-2.5 55 55 SOx 150 150 Lead 3 3 Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1yy3 Kev. Temporary construction activity emissions would occur during demolition of the existing sewer lift statian and during construction of the proposed lift statian. Such emissions include on-site generation of dust and equipment exhaust, and off-site emissions firom construction employee commuting and/or trucks delivering construction materials. Potentially significant air quality impacts associated with the project's short-term construction activities are discussed below for each pollutant. In the long-term, the proposed new sewer lift station would merely replace and upgrade an existing sewer lift station located 700 feet to the west. As such, there would be no net increase in criteria pollutants with long-term operation of the proposed project, and impacts would not be significant. PM~o and PM,S Dust is normally the primary concern during construction of infrastructure. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called fugitive emissions. Because of the inherent uncertainty in the predictive factors for estimating fugitive dust generation (soil silt content, soil moisture, wind speed, area simultaneously disturbed, number of construction vehicles, etc.), regulatory agencies typically use one universal default factor based on the area disturbed assuming that all other input parameters into emission rate prediction fall into mid-range average values. Page 35 0# 64 75E-39 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Using the dust emissions factor developed by EPA for grading activities, the PM,a fraction of fugitive dust emissions are predicted to be around 55 pounds per day per acre disturbed in the absence of any dust control measures being applied (SCAQMD Handbook, Table 9-2}, Mandatory measures required by South Coast AQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) are generally assumed to reduce this rate by approximately 50%. Average daily PM,o emissions during site grading and other disturbance are stated 9n the SCAQMD Handbook to be 26.4 pounds/acre. According to the California Air Resources Board (ARB}, PM2.~ is normally considered to comprise up to 40% of PM~o in urban areas, such as the proposed Project area. These estimates are based upon required dust control measures in effect in 1993 when the AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook was prepared. Rule 403 was subsequently revised to require use of a greater array of fugitive dust con#rol on construction projects. Use of enhanced dust control procedures such as continual soil wetting, use of supplemental binders, early paving, etc. can achieve substantially higher dust contra) efficiency. PM-10 emissions were calculated by assuming that construction activities would comprise approximately 0.1 acre for the proposed lift station, an additional 0.1 acre for demolition of the existing lift station, and an additional 0.05 acre of disturbance associated with the construction of new sewer pipelines. Thus, the total area estimated for disturbance would be approximately 0.25 acre. Assuming the entire impact area is under simultaneous heavy construction, construction of the proposed project could result in emissions of up to 6.60 pounds of PM~o and up to 2.64 pounds of PM2,5 per day. As shown in Table 2, these values are far below the significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD for these criteria pollutants, and construction emissions associated with PM~o andlor PM2.5 would not be significant. Equipment Exhaust Construction equipment entails the use of internal diesel-powered combustion engines which are not regulated in terms of allowable emission levels. Equipment exhaust would be released during project construction activities from mobile sources. Diesel-powered construction equipment would create gaseous and particulate tailpipe emissions that are not regulated by smog control rules such as for on-road sources. Emissions associated with diesel-powered construction equipment (backhoes, cement trucks, portable compressors, etc.) and associated with vehicles used by workers commuting to the job site would occur. Assuming an average amount of energy expenditure of 4,000 brake- horsepower hours per day, the daily pollutant emissions from equipment exhaust would be as follows, which are below significance thresholds: Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) -11.0 Carbon Monoxide {CO) - 125.0 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) - 50.0 Sulfur Dioxide (SOx) - 2.5 These emission levels are small and the mobile nature of construction equipment is such that no single receptor would be exposed to equipment emissions for any Page 3& of 64 75E-40 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance extended period of time. There may be localized instances when the characteristic diesel exhaust odor is noticeable from passing trucks or nearby heavy equipment, but such transitory exposure is a brief nuisance and would not threaten air quality standards. Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) Construction activities also generate evaporative emissions of Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs} from paints, asphalt and other coatings. Materials such as asphalt, paints and solvents are not anticipated to be used to any measurable degree as part of the proposed project; thus, VOC emissions would be small and would net exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 75 pounds per day. Global Climate Change Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called greenhouse gases, analogous to a greenhouse. Greenhouse gases are emitted by natural processes and human activities. The accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere regulates the earth's temperature, and without natural greenhouse gases, the Earth's surface would be about 61°F cooler. Emissions from human activities such as electricity production and vehicles have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere. Although these is some disagreemer~fi-among experts, data has shown that this anthropogenic increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration is a likely contributor to increases in the Earth's temperature, called Global Climate Change or Global Warming. Thresholds of significance have not been established under CEQA to evaluate the impact a project may have on Global Climate Change. Generally, even a very large individual project cannot generate enough greenhouse gas emissions to measurably influence global climate change. A project participates in this potential impact by its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases, natural and human-made, which when considered together, form global climate change effects. The proposed project would involve the demolition of an existing sewer lift station and the construction of a new lift station. During construction of the proposed project, there would be some emissions known to be associated with greenhouse gases. However, during long-term operation of the proposed project, any increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed lift station would be off-set because emissions associated with the existing lift s#ation would no longer occur. Thus, upon project completion, there would be no net increase in greenhouse gas emissions. C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emission which exceeds quan#itative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Finding: Less than Significant Impact. Page 37 of 64 75E-41 a Responses to ~~ Environmental Checklist ~~ For CEQA Compliance Analysis: Table 3 presents the current status of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes the proposed project area, in relation to federal and state criteria pollutant attainment. As shown, the SCAB does not achieve federal standards for carbon monoxide, PM,o, or PM2.5, and fails to meet the state standards for ozone, PMfo, and PM2.5. The SCAB recently reached attainment status for the federal standard for CO emissions. Table 3, A#tainment Status of Criteria Pollutants In the Sou#h Coast Air Basin Ozone - 8 hour standard Non-attainment -Severe 17 Not Established Ozone - 1 hour standard Revoked June 2005 Extreme Non-attainment Carbon Monoxide Tranistional Non-Attainment Attainment PM~o Serious Non-Attainment Non-Attainment PMz,s Non-attainment Non-Attainment NOz UnciassifiedlAttainment Attainment Source; CARE, Attainment Designation Fact Sheets, January 2006 Short-term construction activities represent the greatest potential for cumulatively contributing to these criteria pollutants. In the long-term, the proposed lift station would merely replace an existing lift station, such that there would be na net increase in emissions. As such, there would be no cumulatively considerable impact with long-term operation of the proposed facility. In the near-term during construction activities, the project has the potential to contribute to levels of ozone (including contribution of NOx), carbon monoxide, PM,a, or PM2.5, which could result in a cumulatively considerable increase. However, as discussed above under Issue III.B, construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for any of these criteria pollutants. The release of NOx, carbon monoxide, PM~o, and PM2,~ when combined with other construction projects in the site vicinity, including on-going road maintenance within the City of Santa Ana and other similar projects, also is not anticipated to result in exceeding the SCAQMD thresholds far these criteria pollutants. Because construction activity is an ongoing existing activity in the SCAB, emissions associated with construction activity are accounted for as part of the AQMP's existing regional inventory. Also, the project's construction activities are required to comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and Regulations. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) specifies that "a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located." Thus, because the project would not emit air pollutants during operation, is consistent with the AQMP, and will comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and Regulations during construction, a less than significant impact would occur. Page 38 of 64 75E-42 Responses to " "~ Environmental Checklist 1 l For CEQA Compliance D. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Findin4: Less than Significant Impact. Analvsis: Long-term operation of the proposed sewer lift station is not anticipated to expose sensitive receptors to substantiak pollutant concentrations because sewer lift stations are not identified as a point-source emitter by the SCAQMD (because the primary source of power would be from electricity and not fossil fuels), and because the proposed lift station is intended to replace an existing sewer lift station, such that there would be no net increase in criteria pollutants that could affect nearby sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors in the project area would include residences located north and south of the proposed lift station, and students at the high school located to the southeast. There are no sensitive receptors located adjacent to the area proposed for demolition within Bristol Street, and as such, demolition activities are not anticipated to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Short-term construction emissions would have the potential to affect sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the improvement area. Such impacts include fugitive dust and construction equipment emissions. As indicated above under the discussion of Issue III.B, construction activities would be well below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for all criteria pollutants. Potential air quality impacts to sensitive receptors are therefore dominated by heavier particles that settle out on parked cars, outdoor furniture, landscaping, etc. Large particle emissions thus comprises mare of a soiling nuisance rather than any potentially unhealthful air quality impact. With prevailing daytime southwest to northeast winds, dust soiling potential is likely greatest directly north and east of the project site (i.e., towards the commercial land uses and away from sensitive residential and school uses). While temporary soiling nuisance is considered adverse, it does not constitute a significant air quality impact. E Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less than Significant Impact. Analvsis: A characterization of potential odor impacts from most sources is difficult because there are no instruments that replicate the unique ability of the human nose to experience a vast variety of odor character and intensity. This sensitivity varies from one individual to another and it varies with gender, age, cultural history, or with a memory of a previous odor experience. Short-term construction activities could result in the generation of odors, such as from asphalt paving, but these odors are not typically objectionable and are not anticipated to affect a substantial number of people. Such odors associated with cons#ruction activity wouid cease to be emitted from the site upon construction of the proposed new Page 39 of 64 75E-43 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance lift station and appurtenances. Because odors associated with construction would be brief and transitory, impacts are determined to be less than significant. Odors from sewage systems are primarily due to inorganic or organic molecules. The #wo most common inorganic molecules are hydrogen sulfide {H2S} and ammonia (NH3). Hydrogen sulfide is the end product of decay processes of materials containing sulfur that occur during oxygen-deficient (anaerobic} decomposition. Ammonia evolves from reduction of high nitrogen content liquids such as urea. H2S is created when sewage becomes stagnant, while NH3 formation usually occurs when pH is high. Fresh sewage within the wastewater system from its disposal in a toilet or sink until it reaches the nearby pump station is still aerobic and has a neutral pH. H2S or NH3 formation is low. Some H2S can be generated within the pump chamber from organic scum or debris adhering to the wet well walls, but not in any appreciable concentration. Odor strength is described in terms of the number of dilutions with clean air that is required to reduce odor levels to where half the amount of people can no longer detect the odor. The factor is called the number of "odor units" (OU) or "dilutions-to-threshold" (D/T) in the sample. An odor of 1- 5 D/T is considered marginally detectable, 5-10 D/T is considered clearly detectable, but not yet highly offensive. When levels exceed 10 D/T and the odor is normally considered offensive, such as from sewage, a significant impact is presumed to exist. Odors may be released from the vents on a lift station and carried downwind. During the daytime, winds across the project site are mainly from west to east and during nighttime, winds are east to west. Thus, any odor-sensitive development directly east or west of the lift station would be possibly affected by odors. The distance extent of any odor "envelope" was estimated based upon normal and worst-case odor conditions. To estimate the odor level (in units of D/T} for a vent release of fresh versus stale sewage gas, an odor concentration of 30 D/T was assumed for fresh sewage, and 2000 D/T for stagnan# material. Under normal operational conditions ("fresh sewage"), the limits of marginal detestability (1 D/T) is 25 feet. The clearly offensive odor limit (10 D/T) is around 6 feet from the vent. No odor sensitive uses are located within 25 feet of the proposed lift station, thus, impacts under normal operating conditions would be less than significant. During upset conditions with stagnant sewage in the system, the zone 'of clearly offensive odor would be around 75 feet from the source. Maintaining a distance buffer of at least 75 feet from the lift station to the nearest odor-sensitive property is anticipated to maintain potential worst-case odor conditions at less-than-significant levels. The nearest residential property is located approximately 85 feet northeast of the site. Additionally, effluent would be continuously moving through the wet well with a minimum retention time. As such, it is unlikely that any significan# odors detectable above ground will be generated. However, due to the complexities in evaluating the sensitivity of nearby receptors to pa#ential odor impacts associated with the proposed facility, and given the relative close proximity (i.e., 85 feet} of Page 40 of 64 75E-44 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance the nearest sensitive receptor, it is conservatively estimated that Fong-term operation of the proposed lift station may result in a significant odor impact for which mitigation would be required. Mitigation Measures: MM-~ In order to ensure that odor impacts to nearby sensitive receptors are reduced to a level below significant, a passive odor control system shall be incorporated into the design of the lift station facility. The system shall consist of an absorber vessel (drum) with activated carbon. The drum shall be connected to the wet well by PVC ducting. The air flow shall be variable and dependent on the inflow into the wet well and the raising and lowering of the water surface within the wet well. The activated carbon shall be designed so as to scrub sewage gases and remove odor-causing hydrogen sulfide gas before venting to the atmosphere through the roof of the lift station. Significance After Mitigation.: Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-7 would ensure that future operation of the lift station facility does not expose nearby sensitive receptors to offensive odors. With incorporation of the required mitigation, impacts due #o odors would be reduced to a level below significant. iV. Biological Resources Sources: Building 5peci#ications; Figure 3. Would the project: A. Have a substantial adverse impac>y either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or specia! status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS}? Finding: No Impact. Analysis: The project area is characterized as an urban area that exhibits no natural habitats. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any adverse impacts, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in any plans, policies, or regulations of the CDFG or USFWS. B. Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or natural community ident~ed in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Fin. dins: No impact. Page 41 of 64 75E-45 t ~ Responses to " `~ Environmental Checklist ~~ For CEQA Compliance Analvsis: The project area is characterized as an urban area, and all runoff within the project area is diverted into existing storm drain systems. As such, the project area does not exhibit any riparian habitat that could be impacted by the project. Likewise, there are no natural vegetation communities within the project area which could be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to riparian habitat and natural vegetation communities would not occur with implementation of the proposed project. C. Adversely impact federally protec#ed wetlands (Including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable Impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means? Findin No Impact. Analvsis: The project area is characterized as an urban area, and there are no wetlands (protected or otherwise) which could be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, significant impacts would not occur. D. Confkct with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: No Impact. Analvsis: With exception of streetscape landscaping, there are no biological resources within the project area that could be impacted by the proposed construction activities. Street trees are not the subject of any local policies or ordinances, and the project's landscaping plan would adhere to all applicable City requirements. Therefore, a significant impact would not occur. V. Cultural Resources Sources: Building Specifications; OCGP Resources Element Figure VI-9 {Paleontology General Areas of Sensitivity); OCGP Resources Element Figure VI-10 (Prehistoric Archeology -General Areas of Sensitivity); OCGP Resources Element Figure VI-11 {Orange County Historical Areas). Would the project: A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Finding: No Impact. Analysis: Proposed demolition activities for the existing lift station would not impact any structures or resources that are of historical significance. All construction activities would occur within ar adjacent to existing roadway rights-of-way, and Page 42 of 64 75E-46 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance would not affect any existing buildings or structures other than the existing sewer lift station in Bristol Street which is not historically significant. In addition, according to the Orange County General Plan Figure VI-11, Orange Counfy Historical Areas, the project area is not located in any pre-1940 population centers and is not located within any state historical districts. Therefore, a significant impact would not occur. B. Cause a substantial adverse change In the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to define Section 15064.5? Findin No Impact. Analysis: The project area is characterized as an urban area, and any archaeological resources that may have been present an-site have long since been disturbed and/or removed as a result of historic developments in the surrounding area. Construction activities proposed by the project are no# anticipated to result in ground disturbance in areas that have not previously been impacted by historic developments in the area. In addition, according to the Orange County General Plan Figure VI-10, Prehistoric Archeology -General Areas of Sensitivity, the project area is not identified as an area of sensitivity for prehistoric archeology. As such, a significant impact would not occur. C. Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? Findin No Impact. Analysis: The project area is characterized as an urban area, and any paleontological resources that may have been present an-site have long since been disturbed and/or removed. Construction activities proposed by the project are not anticipated to result in ground disturbance in areas that have not previously been impacted by historic developments in the area. In addition, according to the Orange County General Pian Figure VI-9, Paleontology -General Areas of Sensitivity, the project area is not identified as an area of sensitivity for paleontological resources. As such, a significant impact would not occur. D. Disturb any human remains, including those Interred outside of formal cemeteries? Findin No Impact. Analysis: Although no human remains are anticipated within the project area, California Public Resources Code §5097.98 requires that should any remains be identified during construction activities the County coroner must be notified, along with the Native American Heritage Commission in the event the remains are determined to be of Native American decent. Compliance with state law would preclude any significant impacts associated with the remote potential for uncovering human remains during construction. Vt. Geology and Soils Page 43 of 64 75E-47 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Sources: Building Specifications; OCGP Safety Element; Geotechnical Report; NRCS. Would the project: A. Expose people or structures to potential substanfial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 7.j Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the State Geologist far the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? 1=finding: No Impact. Analysis: The project proposes the demolition of an existing sewer lift ,station, the construction of a new sewer lift station, and the construction of new sewer main lines as necessary to support the new sewer lift station facility. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the generation of new residents or employees in the area which could be subject to adverse affects associated with earthquake faults. in addition, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zane Map. Construction of the proposed sewer lift station and appurtenances would be required to conform to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements, which include specifications to address seismic hazards. Although the lift station would be located within a region that is known for seismic hazards, including hazards associated with a rupture of the Newport-Inglewood or Elsinore Faults (located west and east of the project area, respectively), such hazards are considered to be no different from the seismic potential that characterizes Southern California as a whole. In addition, a geo#echnical report was prepared for the proposed project, and no#es have been included in the Building Specifications for the project which requires compliance with the key recommendations contained within the report. Compliance with the geotechnical report recommendations would further reduce hazards due to rupture of a known earthquake fault. Therefore, with compliance with the UBC requirements far seismic safety, and compliance with the site-specific recommendations in the project's geotechnical report, significant impacts would not occur. 2.) Strang seismic ground shaking? Finding: No Impac#. Anal Please refer to the discussion of Issue IV.A.1, above. As indicated, the proposed project would not expose new residents in the area to strong ground shaking. Although the structures proposed by the project could be subject to strong seismic ground shaking, such hazards are not considered to pose a substantial risk to the proposed structure because the structure would be constructed in conformance with UBC requirements. In addition, a geotechnical report was prepared for the proposed project, and notes have been included in the Building Specifications for the project which requires compliance with the key Page 44 of 64 75E-48 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance recommendations contained within the report. Compliance with the geotechnical report recommendations would further reduce hazards due to seismic ground shaking. Therefore, a significant impact would not occur. 3.) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Finding: Less than Significant Impact. Analysis: According to Orange County General Pian Figure IX-12, the project area is identified as being susceptible to liquefaction hazards. However, such conditions are addressed in the site-specific geotechnical evaluation, and measures have been identified to reduce such hazards to a level below significance. With compliance with the project-specific geotechnical report, as is required by notes provided on the Building Specifications for the project, impacts due to liquefaction hazards would be reduced to a level below significant. 4.) Landslides? Findin4: No Impact. Analysis: The project area is fully developed with urban uses, and the area exhibits very little topographic variation. As such, there would be no risk of landslides within the project area, and significant impacts would not occur. B. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Findin Less than Significant Impact. Analysis: Construction of the proposed lift station and appurtenances would include excavation and trenching operations that could result in potential short-term erosion. Trenching at depths of approximately five to 10 feet would occur for the proposed sewer line construction, while the proposed lift station would require excavations up to a depth of approximately 30 feet below the surface. During construction, groundwater would be controlled by dewatenng. Dewatering systems would effectively intercept and remove water from the surrounding strata and prevent its entry into the excavation area; therefore, all underground and below-grade work will be performed in dry excavations, limiting the potential for erosion. Due to the temporary nature of the proposed excavation process and the implementation of dewatering, erosion impacts are not regarded as significant. At completion of the project, existing surface improvements would be replaced and/or upgraded. At project completion, therefore, erosion potential would not be increased and would be that same as that which occurs under existing conditions. C. Would the project result in the loss of a unique geologic feature? Finding: No Impact. Page 45 of 64 75E-49 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Analysis: There are no unique geologic features present within the areas proposed for demolition and/or improvement by the project. Therefore, a significant impact would not occur. D, is fhe project located on strata ar soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Finding: No Impact. Anaivsis: The project area comprises soils that are identified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS} as "Omni Silt Loam, Drained." According to information available from the NRCS, such soils have limitations due to shrink- . swell potential of the soil, but that these conditions can be overcome through standard engineering practices. Compliance with the site-specific geotechnical report recommendations, as is required pursuant to a note on the Building Specifications, would ensure that significant impacts due to unstable sails are precluded. E. Where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater, is the soil capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems? Finding: No Impact. Analysis: The project consists of the demolition construction of a new sewer lift sta#ion, appurtenances. As such, the proposed alternative wastewater disposal systems. of an existing sewer lift station, the and construction of sewer mains and project would not utilize septic tanks or Vll. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Sources: Building Specifications; OCGP Safety Element. Would the project: A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Findina: Less than Significant Impact. Anal sis: During construction and demolition activities, use and transport of hazardous materials to the construction site would be minimal. Any transport of hazardous materials to be used during the construction process would be conducted in accordance with existing federal, state, and local regulations. For long-term operation of the project, the only potentially hazardous material transported through the site would be raw sewage, which would be pumped by the lift station to a point where it could be gravity fed to the wastewater treatment Page 46 of fi4 75E-50 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance plant. One of the primary goals of the proposed project is to reduce the potential for sewer spills in the area. With the construction of the proposed facility, the potential for sewer spills would be reduced as compared to existing conditions. Routine maintenance and proper operation of the facility in accordance with manufacturer specifications, which would be conducted by the City of Santa Ana Public Works DepartmentlVllater Resources Division, would further ensure that the lift station does not expose the public to hazards associated with the transport of wastewater through the site. Therefore, impacts are evaluated as less than significant. B. Create a significant hazard to the public ar the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment? Finding: Less than Significant Impact. Analysis: During long-term operation of the proposed lift station, there is a potential for the release of raw sewage in the event that equipment fails or the facility is not properly maintained. Any such occurrences, however, would likely result only in temporary odor impacts, and would not expose residents directly to raw sewage because any such spills would be confined to below-ground spaces not accessible by area residents. There are no freshwater wells in the area that could be impacted by such occurrences. Should any spills a# the site occur, the City of Santa Ana Water Division would be notified by surrounding residents, and any such occurrence would be addressed by the department. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public due to reasonably foreseeable accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Findin Less than Significant Impact. Analysis: The proposed lift station would be located approximately 0.7-mile northwest of an existing high school. As indicated above under the discussion of Issue VII.B, although there is a potential for raw sewage to be released into the ground as a result of potential accident conditions, such circumstances are not anticipated to expose the public to hazardous emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials because any such spills would be confined to below-ground spaces not accessible by area residents. In such an event, the primary impact would be odors, which would represent ashort-term impact that would not pose a health risk to the public, including students at the local high school. The City Water Resources Division would be responsible for maintaining the proposed lift station in a proper state of repair, and would be responsible for conducting any repairs should the lift station fail to function properly. Therefore, impacts are evaluated as less than significant. Page 47 of fi4 75E-51 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance D. Be located on a site which is located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 659662.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Findin No Impact. Analvsis: The proposed project area is not identified on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 659662.5; therefore, a significant impact would not occur. E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles where of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: No Impact. Analysis: Although the project site is located within the Airport Influence Area for the John Wayne Airport, the project would not result in the introduction of new residents into the area. As such, the project would not result in any increase in airport hazards for people residing or working in the project area, and no impacts would occur. F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: No impact. Analvsis: There are no private airstrips within the project vicinity; therefore, a significant impact would not occur. G. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Findin No Impact. Analysis: The improvements proposed as part of the project would not affect or hinder the preparedness or ability of public agencies to respond in the event of an emergency situation. Upon project completion, all roadway surface improvements would be returned to their pre-construction condition. During construction, existing roadways would remain open and would not hinder emergency ingress and egress to the area. H, Expose people or structure to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Finding: No Impact. Page 48 of 64 75E-52 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Analvsis: The project area is urbanized in character and there are no wildland interfaces in the project vicinity. In addition, the project would not result in any increase of population in the project area. Accordingly, no impact would occur. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality Sources: Building Specifications; ~CGP Safety Element. Would the project: A. Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Finding: Less than Significant Impact. Analvsis: General/Construction Note No. 23 on Sheet G-2 of the Building Specifications requires the following: "Contractor shall prepare and submit for approval erosion and sediment control plans prior to commencing and grading or excavation work. Alf erosion and sediment control measures shall implement best management practices (BMPs) in conformance with the guidelines of the California Storm Water BMP Handbooks." Compliance with General/Construction Note No. 23 would ensure that construction of the proposed project does not violate any Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards. With buildout of the proposed project, all roadway surfaces and sidewalks would be returned to their pre-construction condition, and the project would comply with all water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. 8. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing -and uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Finding: No Impact. Analysis: The project does not propose the use of water from wells, and under existing conditions the site is fully developed and covered with pavement and/or concrete. Therefore, the site does not serve as a groundwater recharge zone. Significant impacts would not occur. C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, Including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? Finding: No Impact. Analysis: Implementation of the proposed project would have no impact on any streams or rivers. As indicated above in the discussion of Issue VIII.A, BMPs would be Page 49 of 64 75E-53 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance utilized during construction activities which would preclude substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Upon project completion, the site's drainage patter would be returned to the pre-construction condition. No significant on- or off-site erasion or siltation impacts would result from the proposed project. D. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Fin, dins: No Impact. Analysis: Under existing conditions, the proposed improvement areas are covered with pavement and/or concrete, thereby indicating that the site exhibits maximum runoff volumes during peak storm events. The existing storm drain system is adequate to handle runoff from the site under existing conditions. With implementation of the proposed project, runoff from the site would actually decrease due to the introduction of landscaped areas which would allow for infiltration of storm water into the soil. Therefore, the existing stormwater drainage systems are adequately sized to handle runoff from the proposed project site, and a significant flood impact would not occur. E. Create or contribute runoff wafer which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off? Finding: No Impact. Analysis: Refer to Issue VIII.D. Because the existing storm drain system is adequate to handle runoff from the project area, and because the proposed project would result in a slight decrease in peak runoff volumes, the proposed project would not create or contribufie runoff water which would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system. As indicated under the discussion of Issue VIII.A, BMPs would be utilized during construction to preclude any significant water quality impacts. During long-term operation of the project, runoff from the site would not represent an additional source of polluted runoff. Therefore, a significant impact would not occur. F. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Fin.. ding: No Impact. Analysis: As indicated above under the discussion of issues VIII.A through VIII.E, the proposed project would not substantially degrade water quality during construction or long-term operation. There are no other factors not evaluated above which could result in the substantial degradation of water quality. Significant impacts would not occur. Page 50 of 64 75E-54 t ~ Responses to " `~ Environmental Checklist i j For CEQA Compliance G, Place housing within a 900-year floodpiain, as mapped en a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Finding: No impact. Analysis: According to Orange County General P-an Figure 1X-6, Santa Ana River Overflow Area, the project area is not located within the 100 year floodpiain for the Santa Ana River, which is located northwesterly of the proposed project site. There are no other 100-year floodplains identified in the project area. Moreover, the project would not result in the construction of any new housing. Therefore, a significant impact would not occur. H. Place within a 100-year floodpiain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Finding: No Impact. Analvsis: Please refer to the discussion under Issue VIII.G. As indicated, the proposed project would not place any structures within a 100-year floodpiain. No impact would occur. I. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of failure of a levee or dam? Finding: No Impact. Analysis: Please refer to the discussion under issue VIII.G. In addition, Orange County General Plan Figure iX-9, Prado Dam and Santiago Reservoir Inundation Areas, indicates that the project area is subject to inundation due to a failure of either the Prado Dam or Santiago Reservoir. However, the proposed project would not introduce any new residents into the area. Although the structures proposed as part of the project are subject to inundation hazards, such hazards are not considered to be significant because the chance of dam failure is low and because the proposed structure, which would be composed of solid brick materials, would not be significantly affected in such an event. As such, a significant impact would not occur. J. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Finding: Less than Significant Impact. Analysis: Given the lack of topographic landforms in the project area, there is little to no potential for mudflow impacts. Likewise, there are no large bodies of water within the project vicinity which could be to significant seiche hazards. The project area is located approximately 7.0 miles northeast of the nearest coastline, and is therefore subject to potential tsunamis. However, the risk of tsunamis impacting the site is considered remote, and project implementation would not increase risks to existing or future residents due to potential tsunamis. For these reasons, impacts are evaluated as less than significant. Page 51 of 64 75E-55 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance IX. Land Use and Planning Sources: Building Specifications; OCGP Safety Element. Would the project: A. Physically divide an established community? Findin No Impact. Analvsis: The proposed project involves the construction of a sewer lift station and appurtenances within an existing established community. No component of the proposed project would result in the physical division of the existing established community. No impact would result from the project. B. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Findin No Impact. Analysis: The proposed project would not conflict with the Santa Ana General Plan, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) policies, or any other applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of mitigating an environmental effect. The project would not conflict wifih the existing residential zoning and General Plan [and use designations of surrounding properties, as sewer lift stations are considered an incidental use within such zones. The project also would be necessary to facilitate development as planned by the City's General Plan and zoning designations. No impact would occur. C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Finding: No Impact. Analvsis: There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans affecting the project area. Therefore, no impact would occur. X. Mineral Resources Sources: Building Specifications; OCGP Resources Element. Would the project: A. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Page 52 of 64 75E-56 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Findin No Impact. Analysis: According to Orange County General Plan Figure VI-3, Orange County Mineral Resources -Generalized, there are na known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and/or residents of the state located on the lift station site. Accordingly, no impact would result from project implementation. B. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-imporfant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Findin4: No Impact. Analysis: According to Orange County General Plan Figure VI-3, Orange County Mineral Resources -- Generalized, there are no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and/or residents of the s#ate located on the lift station site. Accordingly, no impact would result from project implementation. XI. Noise Sources: Building Specifications; OCGP Safety Element. Would the project result in: A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local genera! plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: 1-ess than Significant Impact. Analysis: During construction of the proposed project, construction equipment and activities likely would result in the exposure of nearby residential properties to noise levels in excess of 55 dBA, which exceeds the City's noise standard for residential properties. However, pursuant to Part 11, Chapter 18, Article VI, Section 18-314(e} (herein, "Noise Ordinance"} of the City's Municipal Code, the following activities are exempt from the City's standard of 55 dBA: "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." Construction activities would be required to adhere to the provisions of Article VI of the Municipal Code. Although nearby residential uses could be exposed to noise levels in excess of 55 dBA, these impacts would occur only during daytime hours, would be temporary in nature, and would cease upon completion of the proposed improvements. As such, short-term construction noise impacts are evaluated as a less than significant impac# of the proposed pro}ect. Long-term operation of the proposed lift station also is not anticipated to result in the exposure of nearby residential properties to noise levels in excess of 55 dBA. The primary source of noise associated with the proposed facility would be due Psge 53 of 64 75E-57 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance to the operation of proposed pumps. Such operations would occur below ground and would be fully contained within a solid concrete building. Noise attenuation afforded by the proposed structure, along with natural attenuation associated with the below-ground nature of the noise generating source, would preclude the exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to unacceptable noise levels. Accordingly, impacts are evaluated as less than significant. B. Exposure of persons to or genera#ion of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Finding: Less than Significant Impact. Analvsis: Construction activities associated with the proposed project are not anticipated to result in the generation of substantial groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Solis in the project area are silty in nature, and blasting or rock crushing would not be necessary. Any groundborne vibration resulting from project construction would be temporary in nature and would cease upon completion of the proposed improvements. Therefore, near-term ground-borne noise and vibration impacts are evaluated as less than significant. Long-term operation of the proposed lift station likewise would not produce excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. Although equipment proposed as part of the lift station would generate noise, the noise levels would not produce groundborne vibration. Any noise associated with operation of the facility would be attenuated by the proposed solid concrete and grouted block building which will house the noise-generating equipment. Therefore, long-term operation of the proposed project would not result in any noise or vibration impacts. C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without fhe project? Finding: Less than Significant fimpact. Analvsis: Please refer to the discussion of Issue XI.A, above. As indicated, long-term operation of the proposed facility would not result in a substantial increase in noise volumes because the proposed grouted block structure would attenuate most of the noise associated with the proposed mechanical equipment. In addition, the site is located adjacent to Segerstrom Avenue, which is a high- volume roadway and would remain the primary noise-generating activity in the project area. As such, long-term operation of the proposed lift station would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without project? Findin Less than Significant Impact. Page 54 of 64 75E-58 Responses to ;~ Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Analvsis: Please refer to the discussion of Issue XI.A, above. As indicated, construction activities would be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance, including restrictions on the time of day during which construction activities may occur. In addition, the project site abuts Segerstrom Avenue, which is a major thoroughfare. Noise levels associated with Segerstrom Avenue represent the primary noise-generating source in the project area, and the proposed construction activities would not represent a substantial increase over noise levels existing without the proposed construction activities. Therefore, impacts would be less than signiticant. E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Finding: No Impact. Analysis: Although the project site is located within the Airport influence Area for the John Wayne Airport, the project would not result in the introduction of new residents into the area. As such, the project would not result in any increase in airport hazards for people residing or working in the project area, and no impacts would occur. F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project are to excessive noise levels. Findin No Impact. Analysis: There are no private airstrips within the project vicinity; therefore, a significant impact would not occur. XII. Population and Housing Would the project: A. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Finding: No Impact. Analysis: The proposed sewer lift station is intended to replace an existing sewer lift station located approximately 700 feet to the west. The new lift station is proposed to update the equipment and to provide additional redundancies in order to reduce the chance for a sewer spill. The new lift station would not increase the capacity of the existing sewer system in the vicinity. Because the proposed project would not increase sewer capacity in the area, it would not induce substantial population growth in the area. Impacts would not be significant. Page 55 of 64 75E-59 i Responses to "+ "; Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance B. Displace substantial numbers of exisfing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: No impact. Analysis: As described earlier in this document, the proposed project would require the City of Santa Ana to acquire title to approximately 292 s.f. of private property (APN No. 410.411-19) for the proposed project, as depicted on Figure 10, Acquisition Area. However, the area proposed for acquisition is located at the perimeter of an existing motel site (Studio lnn), and the proposed acquisition would not result in the displacement of any existing homes. Therefore, no impact would occur. C. Displace substanfial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: No Impact. Analysis: As described earlier in this document, the proposed project would require the City of Santa Ana to acquire title to approximately 292 s.f. of private property (APN No. 410.411-19) for the proposed project, as depicted on Figure 10, Acquisition Area. However, the area proposed for acquisition is located at the perimeter of an existing motel site (Studio lnn), and the proposed acquisition would not result in the displacement of any existing residents. Therefore, no impact would occur. XIII. Public Services A. Would the projecf result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environments! impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public service: 7.) Fire protection? 2.) Police protection? 3.) Schools? 4.) Other public facilities? Finding: No Impact. Analysis: The proposed project would not result in the generation of additional residents wi#hin the City of Santa Ana. Accordingly, there would be no increase in demand for fire protection, police protection, schools, or other public facilities. No impact would occur. Page 56 of 64 75E-60 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance XIV. Recreation A. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Finding: No Impact. Analysis: The proposed project would not result in the generation of additional residents within the City of Santa Ana. Accordingly, there would be no increase in demand for parkland which would result in the substan#ial or increased deterioration of existing facilities. No impact would occur. B. Does the project include recreational facilities or require fhe construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Finding: No Impact. Analysis: The proposed project would not result in the generation of additional residents within the City of Santa Ana. Accordingly, there would be no new demand for parkland facilities associated with the proposed project. No impact would occur. XV. Transportation/Traffic Would the project: A. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of fhe street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Finding: Less than Significant with Mifiigation Incorporated. Analysis: Long-term operation of the proposed lift station and appurtenances would have no impact on traffic on surrounding roadways and intersections. In the long-term, significant impacts would not occur. During construction of the proposed project, however, construction activities would occur partially within the rights-of-way far Segerstrom Avenue, Bristol Street, and San Lorenzo Avenue. Impacts during construction along San Lorenzo Avenue are not anticipated to be significant because the proposed improvements would occur at the western terminus of the roadway. Improvements within Segerstrom Avenue and Bristol Street would, however, result in temporary disruptions in traffic patterns. Along both roadways, at least one travel lane, and possibly up to two travel lanes, would be closed to facilitate proposed construction activities. During the time when lane closures occur, the capacity for both roadways would effectively be reduced. As a result, total traffic along both roadways would likely exceed their respective capacities, particularly Page 57 of 64 75E-61 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance during the AM and PM peak hours. This is evaluated as a significant near-term impact for which mitigation would be required. Also during construction, construction personnel would commute to the construction area. In addition, construction activities proposed by the project would result in truck traffic to-and-from the project site during a typical workday. The number of construction workers anticipated would be determined based on the contractor's scheduling and order of work. Impacts associated with construction workers and construction vehicles would be temporary in nature and would not exceed the available capacity of the local roadway network; significant impacts would not occur. Mitigation Measures: MM-2 Prior to the commencement of proposed construction or demolition activities requiring lane closures or other traffic disruptions along Segerstrom Avenue and/or Bristol Street, the construction contract documents shall address measures to be undertaken during construction activities to minimize disruptions to the normal flaw of traffic. Examples of measures to be undertaken include, but shah not necessarily be limited to= a) the identification of detour routes; b) signage plan identifying proposed detour routes; c) signage for advanced notification of anticipated lane closures/disruptions; d) any necessary traffic control personnel; and e) any other measures deemed necessary to minimize disruptions to traffic during canstruction of the proposed project. Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-2 would ensure that disruptions to the normal flow of traffic during construction of the proposed facility are minimized. With implementation of the required mitigation, impacts to circulation and traffic during construction would be reduced to a level below significant. 6. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Findin No Impact. Analysis: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the generation of any new traffic in the project area. Accordingly, the project would not exceed the level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Finding: No Impact. Page 58 of 64 75E-62 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Analysis: Implementation of the proposed project would have no impact on air patterns. No impact would occur. D. Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Fin_ ....dins; No impact. Analysis: With the exception of resurfacing portions of several existing roadways, the project does not propose the construction or alteration of any existing roadways. As such, the project would not increase any hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. No impact would occur. E. Result in inadequate emergency access? Findin No Impact. Analvsis: The proposed project would have no impact on existing emergency access routes. F. Result in inadequate parking capacity? Finding: No Impact. Analysis: The proposed project would have no impact on existing parking capacity, and would not result in the demand for new parking capacity. No impact would occur. G. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks}? Findin No Impact. Anai}~sis: The proposed project would have no impact on adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. No impact would occur. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: A. Exceed wastewater treatment requiremenfs of the applfcable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Finding: No Impact. Analvsis: The proposed project consists merely of the demolition of an existing sewer lift station and the construction of a replacement facility and associated appurtenances. As such, the project has no potential to exceed the wastewater Page 59 of 64 75E-63 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance treatment requirements of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), which regulates wastewater treatment for the City of Santa Ana. 8, Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding= No Impact. A_ nalYsis: The proposed project involves the demolition of an existing sewer lift station and the construction of a replacement facility and associated appurtenances. Impacts associated with the construction of the proposed facility are documented throughout this Environmental Checlclist/Initial Study. Where significan# impacts have been identified, mitigation measures have been proposed which would reduce those impacts to a level below significant. Therefore, the construction of the proposed facility would not cause significant environmental effects after the incorporation of mitigation. C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: No Impact. Analvsis: Upon completion of the proposed construction activities, the amount of runoff from the site would not increase relative to existing conditions, and may actually decrease slightly due to areas proposed far landscaping that currently are composed of impervious surFaces. The proposed project would therefore not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities, nor would it require the expansion of existing facilities. No impact would occur. D. Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Fin... ding: No Impact. Analysis: The proposed project would replace an existing sewer lift station located approximately 700 feet westerly of the new facility. As such, any water demand associated with the proposed facility would merely replace the water demand associated with the existing facility, such that there would be na net increase in the amount of water needed to serve the project. As such, sufficient water supplies are available to serve the proposed project, and no new or expanded entitlements would be necessary. No impact would occur. E. Result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve fhe project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Finding: No Impact. Page 60 of 64 75E-64 Responses to " " Environmental Checklist J J For CEQA Compliance Analysis: The proposed project would merely facilitate the transport of existing wastewater volumes to the OCS© wastewater treatment facilities. As such, project implementation would not result in a net increase in the amount of wastewater requiring treatment. Therefore, project implementation would not result in the determination by the OCSD that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project and existing commitments; no impact would occur. F. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's sold waste disposal needs? Finding: Less than Significant Impact. Anal sis: The City of Santa Ana would provide solid waste collection services to the project site. Solid waste is transported to the Environmental Service Transfer Station in Irvine, and then taken to the Bowerman Landfill. The Bowerman Landfill is permitted to accept 8,500 tons per day and is anticipated to close in the year 2024. During cons#ruction of the proposed project, including proposed demolition activities, there would be a short-term demand far solid waste services. However, the Bowerman Landfill Curren#ly has adequate capacity through the year 2024, and waste generated during construction of the proposed project would not place an undue burden on this landfill as the amount of waste generated would not be excessive. Impacts during construction activities are therefore evaluated as a less than significant impact. During long-term operation of the proposed facility, there would be no generation of solid waste which would impact existing capacity at the Bowerman Landfill. Accordingly, long-term operation of the proposed project would have no impact on solid waste services or the capacity of nearby landfills. G. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Finding: No Impact. Analvsis: As indicated above, long-term operation of the proposed facility would not result in the generation of solid waste. In the near-term, construction activities would result in the creation of solid waste, primarily associated with proposed demolition activities. Ali disposal of waste generated during construction activities would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. No impact would occur. XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the qualify of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or Page S1 of 6R 75E-65 _. Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Finding: No Impact. Analysis: As discussed above under Issues IV. (Biological Resources) and V. {Cultural Resources), the project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. In addition, and as discussed throughout this Initial Study/Environmental Checklist, the project would not degrade the quality of the environment. No impact would occur. B. Does the projecf have impacts that are individually -imited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) Finding: No Impact. Analysis: As discussed throughout this Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist, due to the nature of the proposed project, potentially significant impacts have not been identified for any issue area, except for impacts to air quality associated with potential odor effects on nearby sensitive receptors, and impacts to traffic/circulation due to anticipated congestion during construction. Mitigation Measure MM-T has been imposed on the project to reduce the potential for significant odor effects by requiring the installation of a passive odor control system. Mitigation Measure MM-2 has been imposed to reduce construction- related traffic impacts to a level below significance. For all other issue areas evaluated throughout this Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist, the project's potential for creating cumulatively significant impacts has been disclosed, and in all cases the cumulative impacts of the proposed project have been evaluated as not significant or less than significant. C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Finding: No impact. Analysis: Construction and operation of the proposed project would not involve any activities that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Throughout this Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist, where impacts were determined to be potentially significant, mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce those impacts to a level below significance. Therefore, no impact would occur. Page 62 of 64 75E-66 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance XVIII. References Building TetraTech, September 2007. Building Speciflcafions for Project No. 06-3590, Specifications San Lorenzo Sewage Lift Station. Available for review at City of Santa Ana Public Works AgencylWater Resources Division; Corporate Yard, M-85, 220 S. Dais Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92702. CARB Califomia Air Resources Board, 2008. Information available on-line at: htt ://www.arb.ca. ovl Fi ure 1 T&B Plannin Consultants, 2008. Vicinit Ma . Fi ure 2 T&B Plannin Consultants, 2008. USGS Ma . Fi ure 3 Goo le Earth, 2007. Aerial Photo of Project Site and Environs. Fi ure 4 TetraTech, Se tember 2007. Existin Liff Station Demolition Plan. Fi ure 5 TetraTech, Se tember 2007. Pro osed Lift Station Demolition Plan. Figure 6 Cifiy of Santa Ana Public Works Agency, 2008. Temporary Construction Easement. Fi ure 7 TetraTech, Se tember 2007. Pro osed Lift Station Sife Plan. Figure $ TetraTech, September 2007. Proposed Lift Station Landscape Planfing Plan. Fi ure 9 TetraTech, Undated. San Lorenzo Lift Station Visual Simulation. Fi ure 10 Ci of Santa Ana Public Works A enc , 2008. Acquisition Area. FMMP California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2008. Available on-line at: htt ://www.conservation.ca. ov/dlr /fmm /Pa es/index.as x Geotechnical TRC Lowney, October 26, 2006. Geotechnical fnvestigation Proposed San Report Lorenzo Lift Station Santa Ana, California. Available for review at City of Santa Ana Public Works AgencylWater Resources Division; Corporate Yard, M-85, 220 S. Dais Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92702. NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2008. On-line Web Soil Survey. Available on-line at: htt ://websoilsurve .nres.usda. ov/a /WebSoiESurve .as x OCGP County of Orange, February 15, 2004. Orange County General Plan, Resources Chapter Vl., Resources Element. Available on-line at: Element htt ://www.oc tannin .net/docs/GeneralPlan2005/Cha ter VI Resources. df OCGP Safety Caunty of Orange, February 15, 2004. Orange County Genera! Plan, Element Chapter IX., Safety Element. Available on-line at: htt ://www.ocplannin .netldocslGeneralPlan2004/09 Safet .pdf Santa Ana City of Santa Ana, 2007. General Plan. Available far review at the City of General Plan Santa Ana Community Development Agency, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California. SCAG RTP Southern California Association of Governments, 2004. 2004 Regional Transporfation Plan: Destination 2030. Available on-line at: htt ://www.sca .ca. ov/rt 20Q4/2004/FinalPlan.htm SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2007. 2007 Air Qualify AQMP Managemenf Plan. Available on-line at: htt ://www.agmd. ov/a m /07a m /index.htm! Page 63 of 64 75E-67 Mitigation Monitoring Plan San Lorenao Lift Station Public Works Agency Project No. 06-3510 • Prior to the Commencement of Constructio - • • ~ ~ ~ • ~ • I • • • n or Demolition Activities MM-1 In order to ensure that odor impacts to nearby City of Santa Ana City of Santa sensitive receptors are reduced to a level Public Works Ana Public below significant, a passive odor control Department Works system shalt be incorporated into the design of Department the lift station foci{ity. The system shall consist of an absorber vessel {drum} with activated carbon. The drum shall be connected to the wet well by PVC ducting. The air flow shall be variable and dependent on the inflow into the wet well and the raising and lowering of the water surface within the wet well. The activated carbon shall be designed so as to scrub sewage gases and remove odor-causing hydrogen sulfide gas before venting to the atmosphere through the roof of the lift station. MM-2 Prior to the commencement of proposed City of Santa Ana Less than construction or demolition activities requiring Public Works Significant lane closures or other traffic disruptions along Department Segerstrom Avenue and/ar Bristol Street, the construction contract documents shall address measures to be undertaken during construction activities to minimize disruptions to the normal flow of traffic. Examples of measures to be undertaken include, but shall not necessarily be limited to: a) the identification of detour routes; b} signage plan identifying proposed detour routes; c) signage for advanced notification of anticipated lane closuresldisruptions; d) any necessary traffic control personnel; and e) any other measures deemed necessary to minimize disruptions to traffic during construction of the proposed pro}ect. Page 64 of 64 75E-68 RESOLUTION NO. 2009- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA LOCATED AT 2909 S. BRISTOL STREET (APN 410-411-19) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana on February 2, 2009, after written notice duly provided to all those claiming ownership, including the owners of the property described hereafter, as they appeared on the last equalized County assessment roll, held a hearing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.235 for the purpose of allowing the owners thereof a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the following matters: A. Whether the public interest or necessity requires the project; B. Whether the project is planned or located in a manner which is most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; C. Whether the property proposed to be acquired is necessary for the project; D. Whether the offer required by Government Code section 7267.2(a), together with the accompanying statement and summary of the basis for the amount established as just compensation, was actually made to you and whether said offer and statement/summarytyere in a form and contained all of the factual information required by Government Code section 7267.2(a); E. Whether the City has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the property described herein, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take said property by eminent domain; and F. Whether the City has statutory authority to acquire the property by eminent domain. 75E-69 Resolution No. 2009- Page 2 of 5 Section 2. The City Council has, as a result of its consideration and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, determined that the proposed project has been adequately evaluated in the previously prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration publicly posted by the Orange County Clerk Recorder on December 23, 2008. On the basis of this review, the City Council finds that there is no evidence from which it can be fairly argued that the Project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations ("CCR") § 735.5(c)(1), the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have the potential for any adverse effect on wildlife resources or the ecological habitat upon which wildlife resources depend. The proposed project exists in an urban environment characterized by paved concrete, roadways, surrounding buildings and human activity. Therefore, pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 711.2 and Title XIV, CCR § 735.5(a)(3), the payment of Fish and Game Department filing fees is not required in conjunction with this project. Section 3. The City of Santa Ana ("the City"), as a result of said hearing, has determined that the public interest, necessity, health, safety and welfare require the acquisition by the City of Santa Ana of the specified interests in a portion of that certain real property located at 2909 S. BRISTOL STREET (APN 410-411-19) in the City of Santa Ana, California consisting of approximately 292 square foot of property to be acquired in fee title (for right of way purposes), together with approximately 755 square feet of property for a six (6) month temporary construction easement (collectively referred to as "the "Property"). The Property is situated in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, and more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof as though fully set forth herein, for the public purposes hereafter set forth. Section 4. The City hereby finds, determines and declares that the public interest, convenience and necessity require the acquisition by said City of the Property described in Section 3 above for the purposes of the San Lorenzo Pump Station Project ("the Project") and related improvements. The location of the Project is between Bristol Street and Segerstorm Street for the widening of Bristol Street. Included in the project will be street pave-out, and the installation of concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks in a manner which will be most compatible to the greatest public good and the least private injury. Section 5. The taking of the interest in said Property as described in Section 3 above is necessary for the public right of way and is authorized by Section 19 of Article I of the California Constitution, Section 200 of the Santa Ana Charter, Santa Ana Municipal Code § 41-781; California Code of Civil Procedure 75E-70 Resolution No. 2009- Page 3 of 5 section 1240.010, 1240.110, California Government Code sections 37350.5 and 40404, California Streets and Highways Code sections 943, 5100, 5101, 5101.5, 5102, and other applicable law. Section 6. The offer required by Government Code section 7267.2 were made to the appropriate party or parties with respect to the Property on or about September 3, 2008. Section 7. Excepting the portion of the Property described in Section 3 above for which the City will acquire only a temporary construction easement, the City hereby declares that it is the intention of the City of Santa Ana to acquire in its name, in accordance with the provisions of the laws of the State of California with reference to condemnation procedures, all interests in and to said Property described in Section 3 above. Section 8. That if any of the Property described in Section 3 above has been appropriated for some public use, the public use to which it is to be applied and taken under this proceeding is a more necessary and paramount public use. Section 9. Said Property described in Section 3 above is located within the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, and is more particularly described in Section 3 hereof. Section 10. The City of Santa Ana is authorized to acquire by eminent domain as provided in the California Code of Civil Procedure. Section 11. The City Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to prepare, institute and prosecute in the name of the City such proceedings, in the proper court having jurisdiction thereof, as may be necessary for the acquisition of the interests in said Property described in Section 3 above. The City Attorney is also authorized and directed to obtain a necessary order of immediate possession and occupancy of said Property, at the discretion of the City Attorney. Section 12. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution. ADOPTED this day of , 2009. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor 75E-71 Resolution No. 2009- Page 4 of 5 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney __- \ ;' l By. -1i',, ,1¢~e Sandoval ~~~~ USenior Assistant City At~mey AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers: CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2009- to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 75E-72 Resolution No. 2009- Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT "A & B" LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS 75E-73 EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL A That portion of Parcel 3, of ~ Parcel Map in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, filed in Book 52, Page 49 of Parcel Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County, described as follows: Commencing at the Point of Intersection of the semi-tangent lines for the centerline curve of Segerstrom Avenue, as shown on said Pazcel Map; thence, northeasterly along said semi-tangent line, into the semi-tangent line for the next curve northeasterly in said centerline of Segerstrom Avenue, to the intersection of last said semi-tangent line with the southerly prolongation of the centerline of the Alley easterly of Bristol Street, as said Alley is shown on said Parcel Map, North 57°39'43" East, 307.04 feet; thence, northerly along said southerly prolongation and Alley centerline, North 01°43'58" East, 92.32 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 10.00 feet to an angle point in the easterly line of said Parcel 3, said angle point being at the northerly terminus of the line shown as N.33°55'24"E. 39.82' on said Parcel Map; thence, southwesterly along said easterly line, South 34°45'49" West, 7.85 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence, continuing southwesterly along the easterly lines of said Parcel 3, South 34°45'49" West, 32.Ob feet and South 09°57'23" West, 12.17 feet; thence, leaving said eastexIy line, parallel with said Alley centerline, North O1°43'58" East, 38.92 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline South 88°16'02"East, 19.21 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Containing 292 square feet, more or less. All as shown on exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Subject to all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of--Way and Easements of record, if any. Prepared by me, or under my direction on ~~~~~,. ~j~' Raymond J. Rivera, PLS 8324 Expires 12/31 /09 ~~.RIVFg9 EXP. 12-31•D3 yo. 8324 75E-74 75E-75 EXHIBIT "B" PARCEL B That portion of Parcel 3, of a Parcel Map in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, filed in Book 52, Page 49 of Parcel Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County; a temporary construction easement lying southerly and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Point of Intersection of the semi-tangent lines for the centerline curve of Segerstrom Avenue, as shown on said Parcel Map; thence, northeasterly along said semi-tangent line, into the semi-tangent line for the next curve northeasterly in said centerline of Segerstrom Avenue, to the intersection of last said semi-tangent line with the southerly prolongation of the centerline of the Alley easterly of Bristol Street, as said Alley is shown on said Parcel Map, North 57°39'43" East, 307.04 feet; thence, northerly along said southerly prolongation and Alley centerline, North O1°43'58" East, 92.32 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline, North 88° 16'02" West, 10.00 feet to an angle point in the easterly line of said Parcel 3, said angle point being at the northerly terminus of the line shown as N.33°55'24"E. 39.82' on said Parcel Map; thence, southwesterly along said easterly line, South 34°45'49" West, 1.89 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence, perpendicular to said Alley centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 27.47 feet; thence, parallel with last said centerline, South O]°43'58" West, 43.58 feet; thence, South 09°57'23" West, 13.38 feet; thence, perpendicular to said Alley centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 19.36 feet; thence, parallel with last said centerline, South O1°43'58" West, 23.05 feet to the southerly curve of said Parcel 3 and the erid of this description. All as shown on exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Subject to all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of--Way and Easements of record, if any. Prepared by me, or under my direction on ~~Z'0,'2L~/Z/, ~~ Raymond 7. Rivera, PLS 8324 Expires 12/31/09 `~NPI tANp r~5 ~~.HIVFj~-4 EXP. 12-31.09 ~ ~ ~i No. 8~ 75E-76 HEMLOCK WAY ~ 2I0' ~ r-- -~' I ----------- I +~ A~ ' ~ ( - ~ i W i ~ ~ Q i (N. T.S.> ~ ~ ~ J m ` i ~~~ ~~ ~I I I ¢~~ ~ 4 ,0'---1 I--- QP m ° P.O.B. ' I rn '~ ~`' ~ PARCEL I o Q• N »B„ I ~~ ~, ~ ~_ ~. m ~. ' ~~ II~ ~ ~ ~ N~~ i >k Imo'"~ i i /'~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~` P.O.B. SEGERSTROM .,-~ ' ~ ~ ~ '~ _ ~~ 1 ~ --~_-~= _- - - - ~ ~h DETAIL L2 LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENG L1 N01'43'58"E 92.3 L2 N88'16'02"yy 10.00 L3 S34'45'49"yy 1.89 L4 N88'16'02"yd 27.4 L5 S01"43'58"yy 43.5 L6 S09'57'23"W 13.38 L7 N88'16'02"W 19.36 L8 S01'43'58"yy 23.0 `-P.O.C. NTS L4 ,~ ~ v ~ ~ / PARCEL -' ,' t „B~, TH 2 -' ~p r J ~ 7 L7 ~ I 8 °J° ~ / ~ ~g k ~F. ~oJ - P.O.C. ~~ EXHIBIT B S~~; A.P. N0. 410-411-19 PIMA TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ~'~ `~ EASEMENT 75E-77 MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Claudia C. Alvarez COUNCIL MEMBERS P. David Benavides Carlos Bustamante Michele Martinez Vincent F. Sarmiento Sal Tinajero January 14, 2009 Santa Ana California Lodge, LLC, A California Limited Liability Company 11693 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 106 Los Angeles, CA 90049 ~~ CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W. Fletcher CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Patricia E. Healy Re: Notice of Hearing regarding adoption of Resolution of Necessity to acquire real property by eminent domain (Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.235) Property: Portion of Property at 2909 S. Bristol Street, APN 410-411-19 Dear Owners: The City Council of the City of Santa Ana ("City") intends to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity on February 2, 2009, which if adopted, will authorize the City to acquire by eminent domain the real property described in this letter for the San Lorenzo Pump Station Project. The proposed fee acquisition is described in the attached Exhibit "A", and the temporary construction easement ("TCE") in Exhibit B. ("The Property") Please take notice that the City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting to be held on February 2, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter maybe heard, at the City Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92701, will hold a hearing on whether a Resolution of Necessity should be adopted, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.220, for the commencement of a condemnation proceeding to acquire fee title as specified in Exhibit A and the TCE described in Exhibit B. You have the right to appear and be heard before the City Council at the above scheduled hearing on the following matters and issues, and to have the City Council give judicious consideration to your testimony prior to deciding whether or not to adopt the proposed Resolution of Necessity: Whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed Project; 2. Whether the proposed Project is planned or located in the manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY SANTAI ANA, eAlTF9RNA2 P.O. BOX 1988 TELEPHOAX (714) 647-6515 Santa Ana California Lodge, LLC January 14, 2009 Page 2 3. Whether the subject properties sought to be acquired by the exercise of eminent domain as described in the Resolution of Necessity is necessary for the proposed Project; 4. Whether the offer required by Government Code § 7267.2(a), together with the accompanying statement and summary of the basis of the amount established as just compensation, was actually made to you and whether said offer and statement/summarytyere in a form that contained all of the factual information required by Government Code § 7267.2(a); 5. Whether the City has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain (the "right to take") to acquire the subject properties, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take the subject properties by way of eminent domain; and 6. Whether the City has the statutory authority to acquire the subject properties by eminent domain. A copy of the proposed Resolution of Necessity will be available, upon your request, for inspection at the office of the Clerk of the Council of the City Hall, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor, Santa Ana, California 92701 on January 30, 2009. This Notice has been sent to you because your name and the above listed address appears on the last equalized tax assessment roll of the County of Orange as being the name and address for tax bills to be sent for the subject properties. The statutes which authorize the City to acquire the subject property by eminent domain for the proposed Project include the City's Charter at § 200, Santa Ana Municipal Code § 41-781; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1240.010, 1240.110, Section 19 of Article 1 of the California Constitution, and California Government Code § 37350.5. If you desire to be heard, please be advised that pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.235(b)(3), you must file a written request with the Clerk of the Council of the City. The address for the Clerk of the Council is City Hall, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza, M- 30, Santa Ana, California 92701, and her facsimile number is (714) 647-6956. Alternatively, you may appear at the hearing and be given an opportunity to speak. Failure to comply with the provisions set forth above will, under California law, result in a waiver of the right to appear and be heard on the matters and issues which are the subject of this hearing. However, if you elect not to appear and be heard in regard to compensation, your nonappearance will not be a waiver of your right to claim greater compensation in a court of law. The amount to be paid for the subject properties will not be considered by the City Council at the hearing. If you elect not to appear and not to be heard, your failure to appear will be a waiver of your right to later challenge the City's right to take the subject properties by eminent domain. 75E-79 Santa Ana California Lodge, LLC January 14, 2009 Page 3 This Notice is not intended to foreclose any negotiations between you and the City's representatives on the amount of compensation to be paid for the subject properties. If the City Council elects to adopt a Resolution of Necessity, then within six (6) months the City will commence eminent domain proceedings in Orange County Superior Court. In that proceeding the court will determine the amount of compensation to which you are entitled. Very truly yours, ATRICIA E. HEALY CLERK OF THE COUNCIL cc: E-Ho Lin, Representative 11694 S. San Vicente, Suite #220 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Enclosures: Description of Subject Properties (Exhibits A & B) Proof of Service by Mail 75E-80 75E-81 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL A That portion of Pazcel 3, of ~ Parcel Map in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, filed in Book 52, Page 49 of Parcel Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County, described as follows: Commencing at the Point of Intersection of the semi-tangent lines for the centerline curve of Segerstrom Avenue, as shown on said Parcel Map; thence, northeasterly along said semi-tangent line, into the semi-tangent line for the next curve northeasterly in said centerline of Segerstrom Avenue, to the intersection of last said semi-tangent line with the southerly prolongation of the centerline of the Alley easterly of Bristol Street, as said Alley is shown on said Parcel Map, North 57°39'43" East, 307.04 feet; thence, northerly along said southerly prolongation and Alley centerline, North O1°43'58" East, 92.32 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 10.00 feet to an angle point in the easterly line of said Parcel 3, said angle point being at the northerly terminus of the line shown as N.33°55'24"E. 39.82' on said Parcel Map; thence, southwesterly along said easterly line, South 34°45'49" West, 7.85 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence, continuing southwesterly along the easterly lines of said Parcel 3, South 34°45'49" West, 32.06 feet and South 09°57'23" West, 12.17 feet; thence, leaving said easterly line, parallel with said Alley centerline, North O1°43'58" East, 38.92 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline South 88°16'02"East, 19.21 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Containing 292 square feet, more or less. All as shown on exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Subject to all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of--Way and Easements of record, if any. Prepared by me, or under my direction on ~~~~~~ ~~ Raymond J. Rivera, PLS 8324 Expires 12/31 /09 Q~.RIVFg9 JG~ EXP. 12.31.03 ~ ~y-~t Wyo. B32A ~~~%/ 75E-82 75E-83 ExwiBiT $ ~ ~ 75E-84 EXHIBIT "B" PARCEL B That portion of Parcel 3, of a Parcel Map in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, filed in Book 52, Page 49 of Parcel Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County; a temporary construction easement lying southerly and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Point of Intersection of the semi-tangent lines for the centerline curve of Segerstrom Avenue, as shown on said Parcel Map; thence, northeasterly along said semi-tangent line, into the semi-tangent line for the next curve northeasterly in said centerline of Segerstrom Avenue, to the intersection of last said semi-tangent line with the southerly prolongation of the centerline of the Alley easterly of Bristol Street, as said Alley is shown on said Parcel Map, North 57°39'43" East, 307.04 feet; thence, northerly along said southerly prolongation and Alley centerline, North 01°43'58" East, 92.32 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline, North 88° 16'02" West, 10.00 feet to an angle point in the easterly line of said Parcel 3, said angle point being at the northerly terminus of the line shown as N.33°55'24"E. 39.82' on said Parcel Map; thence, southwesterly along said easterly line, South 34°45'49" West, 1.89 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence, perpendicular to said Alley centerline, North 88°l6'02" West, 27.47 feet; thence, parallel with last said centerline, South Ol°43'58" West, 43.58 feet; thence, South 09°57'23" West, 13.38 feet; thence, perpendicular to said Alley centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 19.36 feet; thence, parallel with last said centerline, South 01°43'58" West, 23.05 feet to the southerly curve of said Parcel 3 and the erid of this description. All as shown on exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Subject to all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of--Way and Easements of record, if any. Prepared by me, or under my direction on G~ZoZG(/2/, G~ Raymond J. Rivera, PLS 8324 Expires 12/31/09 pNPt' tANa s ~~~` ~~,RIVFj~q G~4 o ``-~ a EXP. 12.31.09 ~ ~r 7t ~ Ho. 83'1d' 75E-85 HEMLOCK WAY 2~0' I ~ ~ ~--------------~ I ~ I' ~ ! I ~ i W ~ ~ ~ °i Q i (N. T. S.) i ~ J m ~ ~ ~ ~~ -1111 ~ ~` QP m ° P.O.B. ' rn ~~ ~`' ~ PARCEL _ o Q • N >, B„ I cr ~ ~' ~ -~ / ~. ~ ~ /. m ~ .~. /. ~ ~,. ~~ I OM -~' / ~~~ ~` P.O.B. ---+--~= = = - - - - ~ DETAIL L2 LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENG L1 N01'43'S8"E 92.3 L2 N88'16'02"Yy 10.0 L3 S34'45'49"yy 1.89 L4 N88'16'02"W 27.4 L5 S01'43'S8"yy 43.5 L6 S09'57'23"W 13.3 L7 N88'16'02"vy 19.3 L8 S01'43'S8"yy 23.0 `- P. 0. C. N TS L4 ' ~ ~ I PARCEL ~ ,' ,~ B,. TH 2 -' 0 ' 7 L7 1 I 8 °J° ' 8 ~~ ~~~ 5 ~~ ~p~ n~ ~~' P.O.C. /" - - /'.~ EXHIBIT B 5~~;~ A.P. N0. 410-411-19 ' ' P`=A, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ~~°~ ~.~~ EASEMENT 75E-86 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in Orange County, California. I am over eighteen years of age and not a party to the within action; my residence business address is 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92701. On January 14, 2009, I served the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF HEARING ON ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY on the interested parties in this action. [X] By placing [X] the original thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes as follows: Santa Ana California Lodge, LLC A California Limited Liability Company 11693 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 106 Los Angeles, CA 90049 E-Ho Lin, Representative 11694 S. San Vicente, Suite 220 Los Angeles, CA 90049 [X] BY MAIL [ ] BY OVERNIGHT MAIL VIA UPS/FEDERAL EXPRESS [X] As follows: I am "readily familiar" with my employer's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Ana, California in ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Executed on January 14, 2009, at Santa Ana, California. [X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.. %~- M. PALMA 75E-87 1~tAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Claudia C. Alvarez COUNCIL MEMBERS P. David Benavides Carlos Bustamante Michele Martinez Vincent F. Sarmiento Sal Tinajero January 14, 2009 Downey Savings P.O. Box 1117 Downey, CA 90240 CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W. Fletcher CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Patricia E. Healy Re: Notice of Hearing regarding adoption of Resolution of Necessity to acquire real property by eminent domain (Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.235) Property: Portion of Property at 2909 S. Bristol Street, APN 410-411-19 Dear Owners: The City Council of the City of Santa Ana ("City") intends to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity on February 2, 2009, which if adopted, will authorize the City to acquire by eminent domain the real property described in this letter for the San Lorenzo Pump Station Project. The proposed fee acquisition is described in the attached Exhibit "A", and the temporary construction easement ("TCE") in Exhibit B. ("The Property") Please take notice that the City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting to be held on February 2, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter maybe heard, at the City Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92701, will hold a hearing on whether a Resolution of Necessity should be adopted,. as required by California Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.220, for the commencement of a condemnation proceeding to acquire fee title as specified in Exhibit A and the TCE described in Exhibit B. You have the right to appear and be heard before the City Council at the above scheduled hearing on the following matters and issues, and to have the City Council give judicious consideration to your testimony prior to deciding whether or not to adopt the proposed Resolution of Necessity: Whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed Project; 2. Whether the proposed Project is planned or located in the manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. Whether the subject properties sought to be acquired by the exercise of eminent OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 20 CIVIC CE • P.O. BOX 1988 TELEPHONE (714) 647-5201 SANTA ANA, ~,q~ 2 FAX (714) 647-651 5 Downey Savings January 14, 2009 Page 2 domain as described in the Resolution of Necessity is necessary for the proposed Project; 4. Whether the offer required by Government Code § 7267.2(a), together with the accompanying statement and summary of the basis of the amount established as just compensation, was actually made to you and whether said offer and statement/summary were in a form that contained all of the factual information required by Government Code § 7267.2(a); 5. Whether the City has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain (the "right to take") to acquire the subject properties, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take the subject properties by way of eminent domain; and 6. Whether the City has the statutory authority to acquire the subject properties by eminent domain. A copy of the proposed Resolution of Necessity will be available, upon your request, for inspection at the office of the Clerk of the Council of the City Hall, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor, Santa Ana, California 92701 on January 30, 2009. This Notice has been sent to you because your name and the above listed address appears on the last equalized tax assessment roll of the County of Orange as being the name and address for tax bills to be sent for the subject properties. The statutes which authorize the City to acquire the subject property by eminent domain for the proposed Project include the City's Charter at § 200, Santa Ana Municipal Code § 41-781; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1240.010, 1240.110, Section 19 of Article 1 of the California Constitution, and California Government Code § 37350.5. If you desire to be heard, please be advised that pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.235(b)(3), you must file a written request with the Clerk of the Council of the City. The address for the Clerk of the Council is City Hall, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza, M- 30, Santa Ana, California 92701, and her facsimile number is (714) 647-6956. Alternatively, you may appear at the hearing and be given an opportunity to speak. Failure to comply with the provisions set forth above will, under California law, result in a waiver of the right to appear and be heard on the matters and issues which are the subject of this hearing. However, if you elect not to appear and be heard in regard to compensation, your nonappearance tivill not be a waiver of your right to claim greater compensation in a court of law. The amount to be paid for the subject properties will not be considered by the City Council at the hearing. If you elect not to appear and not to be heard, your failure to appear will be a waiver of your right to later challenge the City's right to take the subject properties by eminent domain. 75E-89 Downey Savings January 14, 2009 Page 3 This Notice is not intended to foreclose any negotiations between you and the City's representatives on the amount of compensation to be paid for the subject properties. If the City Council elects to adopt a Resolution of Necessity, then within six (6) months the City will commence eminent domain proceedings in Orange County Superior Court. In that proceeding the court will determine the amount of compensation to which you are entitled. Very truly yours, 4 ~ PATRICIA E. HEALY CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Enclosures: Description of Subject Properties (Exhibits A & B) Proof of Service by Mail 75E-90 75E-91 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL A That portion of Parcel 3, of ~ Parcel Map in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, filed in Book 52, Page 49 of Parcel Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County, described as follows: Commencing at the Point of Intersection of the semi-tangent lines for the centerline curve of Segerstrom Avenue, as shown on said Parcel Map; thence, northeasterly along said semi-tangent line, into the semi-tangent line for the next curve northeasterly in said centerline of Segerstrom Avenue, to the intersection of last said semi-tangent line with the southerly prolongation of the centerline of the Alley easterly of Bristol Street, as said Alley is shown on said Parcel Map, North 57°39'43" East, 307.04 feet; thence, northerly along said southerly prolongation and Alley centerline, North O1°43'58" East, 92.32 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 10.00 feet to an angle point in the easterly line of said Parcel 3, said angle point being at the northerly terminus of the line shown as N.33°55'24"E. 39.82' on said Parcel Map; thence, southwesterly along said easterly line, South 34°45'49" West, 7.85 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence, continuing southwesterly along the easterly lines of said Parcel 3, South 34°45'49" West, 32.06 feet and South 09°57'23" West, 12.17 feet; thence, leaving said eastexly line, parallel with said Alley centerline, North O1°43'58" East, 38.92 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline South 88°16'02"East, 19.21 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Containing 292 square feet, more or less. All as shown on exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Subject to all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of--Way and Easements of record, if any. Prepared by me, or under my direction on ~~/~j~~1 ~ Raymond J `~RiveTra, PLS 8324 Expires 12/31/09 P J. RIV~h,4 EXP. 1231.03 !yo. 832A 75E-92 75E-93 EXHIBIT ~ ~ 75E-94 EXHIBIT "B" PARCEL B That portion of Parcel 3, of a Parcel Map in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, filed in Book 52, Page 49 of Parcel Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County; a temporary construction easement lying southerly and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Point of Intersection of the semi-tangent lines for the centerline curve of Segerstrom Avenue, as shown on said Parcel Map; thence, northeasterly along said semi-tangent line, into the semi-tangent line for the next curve northeasterly in said centerline of Segerstrom Avenue, to the intersection of last said semi-tangent line with the southerly prolongation of the centerline of the Alley easterly of Bristol Street, as said Alley is shown on said Parcel Map, North 57°39'43" East, 307.04 feet; thence, northerly along said southerly prolongation and Alley centerline, North O1°43'58" East, 92.32 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 10.00 feet to an angle point in the easterly line of said Parcel 3, said angle point being at the northerly terminus of the line shown as N.33°55'24"E. 39.82' on said Parcel Map; thence, southwesterly along said easterly line, South 34°45'49" West, 1.89 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence, perpendicular to said Alley centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 27.47 feet; thence, parallel with last said centerline, South O1°43'58" West, 43.58 feet; thence, South 09°57'23" West, 13.38 feet; thence, perpendicular to said Alley centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 19.36 feet; thence, parallel with last said centerline, South O1°43'58" West, 23.05 feet to the southerly curve of said Parcel 3 and the erid of this description. All as shown on exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Subject to all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of--Way and Easements of record, if any. Prepared by me, or under my direction on G~Z/ G~ Raymond J. Rivera, PLS 8324 ~~ lANp Expires 12/31 /09 5~a~ ~ Ai v~R .~ Q~• ' -4 EXP. 12-31.09 ~ ~ ~i No. 832' 75E-95 75E-96 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in Orange County, California. I am over eighteen years of age and not a party to the within action; my residence business address is 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92701. On January 14, 2009, I served the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF HEARING ON ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY on the interested parties in this action. [X] By placing [X] the original thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes as follows: Downey Savings P.O. Box 1117 Downey, CA 90240 [X] BY MAIL [ ] BY OVERNIGHT MAIL VIA UPS/FEDERAL EXPRESS [X] As follows: I am "readily familiar" with my employer's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Ana, California in ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Executed on January 14, 2009, at Santa Ana, California. [X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct, ~~~~ TTE M. PALMA 75E-97 MAYOR 1>~uel A. Pul ido MAYOR PRO TEM Claudia G Alvarez COUNCIL MEMBERS P. David Benavides Carlos Bustamante Michele Martinez Vincent F. Sarmiento Sal Tinajero January 14, 2009 George Argyros 415 W. 4th Street, Suite D Tustin, CA 92780 CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W. Fletcher CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Patricia E. Healy Re: Notice of Hearing regarding adoption of Resolution of Necessity to acquire real property by eminent domain (Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.235) Property: Portion of Property at 2909 S. Bristol Street, APN 410-411-19 Dear Owners: The City Council of the City of Santa Ana ("City") intends to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity on February 2, 2009, which if adopted, will authorize the City to acquire by eminent domain the real property described in this letter for the San Lorenzo Pump Station Project. The proposed fee acquisition is described in the attached Exhibit "A", and the temporary construction easement ("TCE") in Exhibit B. ("The Property") Please take notice that the City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting to be held on February 2, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the City Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92701, will hold a hearing on whether a Resolution of Necessity should be adopted, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.220, for the commencement of a condemnation proceeding to acquire fee title as specified in Exhibit A and the TCE described in Exhibit B. You have the right to appear and be heard before the City Council at the above scheduled hearing on the following matters and issues, and to have the City Council give judicious consideration to your testimony prior to deciding whether or not to adopt the proposed Resolution of Necessity: Whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed Project; 2. Whether the proposed Project is planned or located in the manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. Whether the subject properties sought to be acquired by the exercise of eminent OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY SANTAI ANA~~NIX9~102 P O. BOX 1988 TELEPHOAX (714) 647-65105 ., George Argyros January 14, 2009 Page 2 domain as described in the Resolution of Necessity is necessary for the proposed Project; 4. Whether the offer required by Government Code § 7267.2(a), together with the accompanying statement and summary of the basis of the amount established as just compensation, was actually made to you and whether said offer and statement/summarytyere in a form that contained all of the factual information required by Government Code § 7267.2(a); 5. Whether the City has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain (the "right to take") to acquire the subject properties, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take the subject properties by way of eminent domain; and 6. Whether the City has the statutory authority to acquire the subject properties by eminent domain. A copy of the proposed Resolution of Necessity will be available, upon your request, for inspection at the office of the Clerk of the Council of the City Hall, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor, Santa Ana, California 92701 on January 30, 2009. This Notice has been sent to you because your name and the above listed address appears on the last equalized tax assessment roll of the County of Orange as being the name and address for tax bills to be sent for the subject properties. The statutes which authorize the City to acquire the subject property by eminent domain for the proposed Project include the City's Charter at § 200, Santa Ana Municipal Code § 41-781; California Code of Civil Procedure § § 1240.010, 1240.110, Section 19 of Article 1 of the California Constitution, and California Government Code § 37350.5. If you desire to be heard, please be advised that pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.235(b)(3), you must file a written request with the Clerk of the Council of the City. The address for the Clerk of the Council is City Hall, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza, M- 30, Santa Ana, California 92701, and her facsimile number is (714) 647-6956. Alternatively, you may appear at the hearing and be given an opportunity to speak. Failure to comply with the provisions set forth above will, under California law, result in a waiver of the right to appear and be heard on the matters and issues which are the subject of this hearing. However, if you elect not to appear and be heard in regard to compensation, your nonappearance will not be a waiver of your right to claim greater compensation in a court of law. The amount to be paid for the subject properties will not be considered by the City Council at the hearing. If you elect not to appear and not to be heard, your failure to appear will be a waiver of your right to later challenge the City's right to take the subject properties by eminent domain. 75E-99 George Argyros January 14, 2009 Page 3 This Notice is not intended to foreclose any negotiations between you and the City's representatives on the amount of compensation to be paid for the subject properties. If the City Council elects to adopt a Resolution of Necessity, then within six (6) months the City will commence eminent domain proceedings in Orange County Superior Court. In that proceeding the court will determine the amount of compensation to which you are entitled. Very truly yours, 1?ATRICIA E. HEALY CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Enclosures: Description of Subject Properties (Exhibits A & B) Proof of Service by Mail 75E-100 75E-101 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL A That portion of Parcel 3, of ~ Parcel Map in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, filed in Book 52, Page 49 of Parcel Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County, described as follows: Commencing at the Point of Intersection of the semi-tangent lines for the centerline curve of Segerstrom Avenue, as shown on said Pazcel Map; thence, northeasterly along said semi-tangent line, into the semi-tangent Line for the next curve northeasterly in said centerline of Segerstrom Avenue, to the intersection of last said semi-tangent line with the southerly prolongation of the centerline of the Alley easterly of Bristol Street, as said AIIey is shown on said Parcel Map, North 57°39'43" East, 307.04 feet; thence, northerly along said southerly prolongation and Alley centerline, North O1°43'58" East, 92.32 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 10.00 feet to an angle point in the easterly line of said Pazce13, said angle point being at the northerly terminus of the line shown as N.33°55'24"E. 39.82' on said Parcel Map; thence, southwesterly along said easterly line, South 34°45'49" West, 7.85 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence, continuing southwesterly along the easterly lines of said Parcel 3, South 34°45'49" West, 32.06 feet and South 04°57'23" West, 12.17 feet; thence, leaving said easterly line, parallel with said Alley centerline, North O1°43'58" East, 38.92 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline South 88°16'02"East, 19.21 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Containing 292 square feet, more or less. All as shown on exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Subject to all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of--Way and Easements of record, if any. Prepared by me, or under my direction on ~~~~ Raymond J. Rivera, PLS 8324 Expires 12/31!09 EXP. 12-31.03 !yo. 8324 75E-102 75E-103 ExH,B,T ~ ~ 75E-104 EXHIBIT "B" PARCEL B That portion of Parcel 3, of a Parcel Map in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, filed in Book 52, Page 49 of Parcel Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County; a temporary construction easement lying southerly and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Point of Intersection of the semi-tangent lines for the centerline curve of Segerstrom Avenue, as shown on said Parcel Map; thence, northeasterly along said semi-tangent line, into the semi-tangent line for the next curve northeasterly in said centerline of Segerstrom Avenue, to the intersection of last said semi-tangent line with the southerly prolongation of the centerline of the Alley easterly of Bristol Street, as said Alley is shown on said Parcel Map, North 57°39'43" East, 307.04 feet; thence, northerly along said southerly prolongation and Alley centerline, North O1°43'58" East, 92.32 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline, North 88° 16'02" West, 10.00 feet to an angle point in the easterly line of said Parcel 3, said angle point being at the northerly terminus of the line shown as N.33°55'24"E. 39.82' on said Parcel Map; thence, southwesterly along said easterly line, South 34°45'49" West, 1.89 feet to the Truc Point of Beginning; thence, perpendicular to said Alley centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 27.47 feet; thence, parallel with last said centerline, South 01°43'58" West, 43.58 feet; thence, South 09°57'23" West, 13.38 feet; thence, perpendicular to said Alley centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 19.36 feet; thence, parallel with last said centerline, South O1°43'58" West, 23.05 feet to the southerly curve of said Parcel 3 and the erid of this description. All as shown on exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Subject to all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of--Way and Easements of record, if any. Prepared by me, or under my direction on ~~ G Raymond J. Rivera, PLS 8324 Expires 12/31 /09 `o~pL LAND s ~~g ~~,RIYFj~q G~ 0 EXP. 12-31.09 ~ No ~i~' 75E-105 75E-106 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in Orange County, California. I am over eighteen years of age and not a party to the within action; my residence/business address is 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92701. On January 14, 2009, I served the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF IIEARING ON ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY on the interested parties in this action. [X] By placing [X] the original thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes as follows: George Argyros 415 W. 4'h Street, Suite D Tustin, CA 92780 [X] BY MAIL [ ] BY OVERNIGHT MAIL VIA UPS/FEDERAL EXPRESS [X] As follows: I am "readily familiar" with my employer's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Ana, California in ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Executed on January 14, 2009, at Santa Ana, California. [X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 75E-107 MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Claudia C. Alvarez COUNCIL MEMBERS P. David Benavides Carlos Bustamante Michele Martinez Vincent F. Sarmien[o Sal Tinajero January 14, 2009 Clerk of the Council 217 North Main Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W. Fletcher CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Patricia E. Healy Re: Notice of Hearing regarding adoption of Resolution of Necessity to acquire real property by eminent domain (Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.235) Property: Portion of Property at 2909 S. Bristol Street, APN 410-411-19 Dear Owners: The City Council of the City of Santa Ana ("City") intends to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity on February 2, 2009, which if adopted, will authorize the City to acquire by eminent domain the real property described in this letter for the San Lorenzo Pump Station Project. The proposed fee acquisition is described in the attached Exhibit "A", and the temporary construction easement ("TCE") in Exhibit B. ("The Property") Please take notice that the City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting to be held on February 2, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter maybe heard, at the City Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92701, will hold a hearing on whether a Resolution of Necessity should be adopted, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure ~ 1245.220, for the commencement of a condemnation proceeding to acquire fee title as specified in Exhibit A and the TCE described in Exhibit B. You have the right to appear and be heard before the City Council at the above scheduled hearing on the following matters and issues, and to have the City Council give judicious consideration to your testimony prior to deciding whether or not to adopt the proposed Resolution of Necessity: Whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed Project; 2. Whether the proposed Project is planned or located in the manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. Whether the subject properties sought to be acquired by the exercise of eminent OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY SANTAIANA, ~A~~P.L~1TA~ O. BOX 1988 TELEPHONE (714) 647-5201 FAX (714) 647-6515 Clerk of the Council January 14, 2009 Page 2 domain as described in the Resolution of Necessity is necessary for the proposed Project; 4. Whether the offer required by Government Code § 7267.2(a), together with the accompanying statement and summary of the basis of the amount established as just compensation, was actually made to you and whether said offer and statement/summary were in a form that contained all of the factual information required by Government Code § 7267.2(a); 5. Whether the City has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain (the "right to take") to acquire the subject properties, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take the subject properties by way of eminent domain; and 6. Whether the City has the statutory authority to acquire the subject properties by eminent domain. A copy of the proposed Resolution of Necessity will be available, upon your request, for inspection at the office of the Clerk of the Council of the City Hall, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor, Santa Ana, California 92701 on January 30, 2009. This Notice has been sent to you because your name and the above listed address appears on the last equalized tax assessment roll of the County of Orange as being the name and address for tax bills to be sent for the subject properties. The statutes which authorize the City to acquire the subject property by eminent domain for the proposed Project include the City's Charter at § 200, Santa Ana Municipal Code § 41-781; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1240.010, 1240.110, Section 19 of Article 1 of the California Constitution, and California Government Code § 37350.5. If you desire to be heard, please be advised that pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.235(b)(3), you must file a written request with the Clerk of the Council of the City. The address for the Clerk of the Council is City Hall, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza, M- 30, Santa Ana, California 92701, and her facsimile number is (714) 647-6956. Alternatively, you may appear at the hearing and be given an opportunity to speak. Failure to comply with the provisions set forth above will, under California law, result in a waiver of the right to appear and be heard on the matters and issues which are the subject of this hearing. However, if you elect not to appear and be heard in regard to compensation, your nonappearance will not be a waiver of your right to claim greater compensation in a court of law. The amount to be paid for the subject properties will not be considered by the City Council at the hearing: If you elect not to appear and not to be heard, your failure to appear will be a waiver of your right to later challenge the City's right to take the subject properties by eminent domain. 75E-109 Clerk of the Council January 14, 2009 Page 3 This Notice is not intended to foreclose any negotiations between you and the City's representatives on the amount of compensation to be paid for the subject properties. If the City Council elects to adopt a Resolution of Necessity, then within six (6) months the City will commence eminent domain proceedings in Orange County Superior Court. In that proceeding the court will determine the amount of compensation to which you are entitled. Very truly yours, •- PATRICIA E. HEAL CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Enclosures: Description of Subject Properties (Exhibits A & B) Proof of Service by Mail 75E-110 75E-111 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL A That portion of Parcel 3, of ~ Parcel Map in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, filed in Book 52, Page 49 of Parcel Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County, described as follows: Commencing at the Point of Intersection of the semi-tangent lines for the centerline curve of Segerstrom Avenue, as shown on said Parcel Map; thence, northeasterly along said semi-tangent line, into the semi-tangent Iine for the next curve northeasterly in said centerline of Segerstrom Avenue, to the intersection of last said semi-tangent line with the southerly prolongation of the centerline of the Alley easterly of Bristol Street, as said Alley is shown on said Parcel Map, North 57°39'43" East, 307.04 feet; thence, northerly along said southerly prolongation and Alley centerline, North Ol°43'58" East, 92.32 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 10.00 feet to an angle point in the easterly line of said Pazcel 3, said angle point being at the northerly terminus of the line shown as N.33°55'24"E. 39.82' on said Pazcel Map; thence, southwesterly along said easterly line, South 34°45'49" West, 7.85 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence, continuing southwesterly along the easterly lines of said Parcel 3, South 34°45'49" West, 32.06 feet and South 09°57'23" West, 12.17 feet; thence, leaving said easterly line, parallel with said Alley centerline, North O1°43'58" East, 38.92 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline South 88°16'02"East, 19.21 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Containing 292 square feet, more or less All as shown on exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Subject to alI Covenants, Rights, Rights-of--Way and Easements of record, if any. Prepared by me, or under my direction on ~~t/~j ; ~j~' 7-- Raymond J. Rivera, PLS 8324 Expires 12/31 /09 ~~, RIVF,Q~ EXP. 12.39-09 No. 632 75E-112 75E-113 EXHIBIT -B ~ 75E-114 EXHIBIT "B" PARCEL B That portion of Parcel 3, of a Parcel Map in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, filed in Book 52, Page 49 of Parcel Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County; a temporary construction easement lying southerly and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Point of Intersection of the semi-tangent lines for the centerline curve of Segerstrom Avenue, as shown on said Parcel Map; thence, northeasterly along said semi-tangent line, into the semi-tangent line for the next curve northeasterly in said centerline of Segerstrom Avenue, to the intersection of last said semi-tangent line with the southerly prolongation of the centerline of the Alley easterly of Bristol Street, as said Alley is shown on said Parcel Map, North 57°39'43" East, 307.04 feet; thence, northerly along said southerly prolongation and Alley centerline, North O l°43'58" East, 92.32 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline, North 88° 16'02" West, 10.00 feet to an angle point in the easterly line of said Parcel 3, said angle point being at the northerly terminus of the line shown as N.33°55'24"E. 39.82' on said Parcel Map; thence, southwesterly along said easterly line, South 34°45'49" West, 1.89 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence, perpendicular to said Alley centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 27.47 feet; thence, parallel with last said centerline, South Ol°43'58" West, 43.58 feet; thence, South 09°57'23" West, 13.38 feet; thence, perpendicular to said Alley centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 19.36 feet; thence, parallel with last said centerline, South Ol °43`58" West, 23.05 feet to the southerly curve of said Parcel 3 and the erid of this description. All as shown on exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Subject to all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of--Way and Easements of record, if any. Prepared by me, or under my direction on G~~'G,~LI/~/ ~~ ~7~~~~i1° .~v Raymond J. Rivera, PLS 8324 Expires 12/31/09 o~PL SAND EXP. 12-31.09 ~ ~ 7t ho. 83'~ 75E-115 75E-116 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in Orange County, California. I am over eighteen years of age and not a party to the within action; my residence business address is 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92701. On January 14, 2009, I served the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF HEARING ON ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY on the interested parties in this action. [X] By placing [X] the original thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes as follows: Clerk of the Council 217 North Main Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 [X] BY MAIL [ ] BY OVERNIGHT MAIL VIA UPS/FEDERAL EXPRESS [X] As follows: I am "readily familiar" with my employer's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Ana, California in ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Executed on January 14, 2009, at Santa Ana, California. [X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. JE TTE M. PALMA 75E-117 M,tiYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Claudia C. Alvarez COUNCIL MEMBERS P. David Benavides Carlos Bustamante Michele Martinez Vincent F. Sarmiento Sal Tinajero January 14, 2009 Southern California Edison Company P.O. Box 2307 Santa Ana, CA 92707 CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W. Fletcher CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Patricia E. Healy Re: Notice of Hearing regarding adoption of Resolution of Necessity to acquire real property by eminent domain (Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.235) Property: Portion of Property at 2909 S. Bristol Street, APN 410-411-19 Dear Owners: The City Council of the City of Santa Ana ("City") intends to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity on February 2, 2009, which if adopted, will authorize the City to acquire by eminent domain the real property described in this letter for the San Lorenzo Pump Station Project. The proposed fee acquisition is described in the attached Exhibit "A", and the temporary construction easement ("TCE") in Exhibit B. ("The Property") Please take notice that the City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting to be held on February 2, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter maybe heard, at the City Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92701, will hold a hearing on whether a Resolution of Necessity should be adopted, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.220, for the commencement of a condemnation proceeding to acquire fee title as specified in Exhibit A and the TCE described in Exhibit B. You have the right to appear and be heard before the City Council at the above scheduled hearing on the following matters and issues, and to have the City Council give judicious consideration to your testimony prior to deciding whether or not to adopt the proposed Resolution of Necessity: 1. Whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed Project; 2. Whether the proposed Project is planned or located in the manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. Whether the subject properties sought to be acquired by the exercise of eminent OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY SANTAIANAN L~M1~~7~~0. BOX 1988 TELEPHONE (714) 647-5201 FAX (714) 647-651 5 Southern California Edison Company January 14, 2009 Page 2 domain as described in the Resolution of Necessity is necessary for the proposed Project; 4. Whether the offer required by Government Code § 7267.2(a), together with the accompanying statement and summary of the basis of the amount established as just compensation, was actually made to you and whether said offer and statement/summarytyere in a form that contained all of the factual information required by Government Code § 7267.2(a); 5. Whether the City has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain (the "right to take") to acquire the subject properties, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take the subject properties by way of eminent domain; and 6. Whether the City has the statutory authority to acquire the subject properties by eminent domain. A copy of the proposed Resolution of Necessity will be available, upon your request, for inspection at the office of the Clerk of the Council of the City Hall, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor, Santa Ana, California 92701 on January 30, 2009. This Notice has been sent to you because your name and the above listed address appears on the last equalized tax assessment roll of the County of Orange as being- the name and address for tax bills to be sent for the subject properties. The statutes which authorize the City to acquire the subject property by eminent domain for the proposed Project include the City's Charter at § 200, Santa Ana Municipal Code § 41-781; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1240.010, 1240.110, Section 19 of Article 1 of the California Constitution, and California Government Code § 37350.5. If you desire to be heard, please be advised that pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.235(b)(3), you must file a written request with the Clerk of the Council of the City. The address for the Clerk of the Council is City Hall, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza, M- 30, Santa Ana, California 92701, and her facsimile number is (714) 647-6956. Alternatively, you may appear at the hearing and be given an opportunity to speak. Failure to comply with the provisions set forth above will, under California law, result in a waiver of the right to appear and be heard on the matters and issues which are the subject of this hearing. However, if you elect not to appear and be heard in regard to compensation, your nonappearance will not be a waiver of your right to claim greater compensation in a court of law. The amount to be paid for the subject properties will not be considered by the City Council at the hearing. If you elect not to appear and not to be heard, your failure to appear will be a waiver of your right to later challenge the City's right to take the subject properties by eminent domain. 75E-119 Southern California Edison Company January 14, 2009 Page 3 This Notice is not intended to foreclose any negotiations between you and the City's representatives on the amount of compensation to be paid for the subject properties. If the City Council elects to adopt a Resolution of Necessity, then within six (6) months the City will commence eminent domain proceedings in Orange County Superior Court. In that proceeding the court will determine the amount of compensation to which you are entitled. Very truly yours, PATRICIA E. HEALY CLERK OF THE COUNCIL, Enclosures: Description of Subject Properties (Exhibits A & B) Proof of Service by Mail 75E-120 75E-121 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL A That portion of Parcel 3, of ~ Parcel Map in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, filed in Book 52, Page 49 of Parcel Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County, described as follows: Commencing at the Point of Intersection of the semi-tangent lines for the centerline curve of Segerstrom Avenue, as shown on said Parcel Map; thence, northeasterly along said semi-tangent line, into the semi-tangent line for the next curve northeasterly in said centerline of Segerstrom Avenue, to the intersection of last said semi-tangent line with the southerly prolongation of the centerline of the Alley easterly of Bristol Street, as said Alley is shown on said Parcel Map, North 57°39'43" East, 307.04 feet; thence, northerly along said southerly prolongation and Alley centerline, North O1°43'58" East, 92.32 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 10.00 feet to an angle point in the easterly line of said Parcel 3, said angle point being at the northerly terminus of the line shown as N.33°55'24"E. 39.82' on said Parcel Map; thence, southwesterly along said easterly line, South 34°45'49" West, 7.85 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence, continuing southwesterly along the easterly lines of said Parcel 3, South 34°45'49" West, 32.06 feet and South 09°57'23" West, 12.17 feet; thence, leaving said easterly line, parallel with said Alley centerline, North O1°43'58" East, 38.92 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline South 88°16'02"East, 19.21 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Containing 292 square feet, chore or less. All as shown on exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Subject to all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of--Way and Easements of record, if any. Prepared by me, or under my direction on ~~, ; ~j~' Raymond 3. Rivera, PLS 8324 Expires 12/3 I /09 ~~, RIVFg9 EXP. 12.31.09 yo. 8324 75E-122 75E-123 EXHIBIT ~ ~ 75E-124 EXHIBIT "B" PARCEL B That portion of Parcel 3, of a Parcel Map in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, filed in Book 52, Page 49 of Parcel Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County; a temporary construction easement lying southerly and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Point of Intersection of the semi-tangent lines for the centerline curve of Segerstrom Avenue, as shown on said Parcel Map; thence, northeasterly along said semi-tangent line, into the semi-tangent line for the next curve northeasterly in said centerline of Segerstrom Avenue, to the intersection of last said semi-tangent line with the southerly prolongation of the centerline of the Alley easterly of Bristol Street, as said Alley is shown on said Parcel Map, North 57°39'43" East, 307.04 feet; thence, northerly along said southerly prolongation and Alley centerline, North O1°43'58" East, 92.32 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline, North 88° 16'02" West, 10.00 feet to an angle point in the easterly line of said Parcel 3, said angle point being at the northerly terminus of the line shown as N.33°55'24"E. 39.82' on said Parcel Map; thence, southwesterly along said easterly line, South 34°45'44" West, 1.89 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence, perpendicular to said Alley centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 27.47 feet; thence, parallel with last said centerline, South O1°43'58" West, 43.58 feet; thence, South 09°57'23" West, 13.38 feet; thence, perpendicular to said Alley centerline, North 88°16'02" West, ] 9.36 feet; thence, parallel with last said centerline, South Ol°43'58" West, 23.05 feet to the southerly curve of said Parcel 3 and the erid of this description. All as shown on exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Subject to all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of--Way and Easements of record, if any. Prepared by me, or under my direction on G~~~~Ll/2/, G~ Raymond J. Rivera, PL5 8324 Expires 12/31 /09 ~~ RIVFq Q~• ' -4 EXP. 12-31.09 ~ ~ *~ lob g32A 75E-125 ~ HEMLOCK WAY f ' 2~0. I __ ' ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ W ' ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~J i !' ~ ~~ ~ Q (N.T.S.) ~ I ~ i J m !l~ ~ I 'JV i I ~ f ~~~' ~ ~ 10'~ I----- F~ Q ~ ~ ~~ ~ ° P.O.B. ' ~~ O o ~`' Q ' N PARCEL CP ~ ~ ~ B I J ' ~ J7. l m ~ ~ ' ~' /' I i ~ ) ~ . I / ~ i I i /,~~ ,-- I ~ J~NV~ O P ' ~~ -~ .. ~ ~~~ ~ ~ •~~, ' EGERSTJM _-~' 1 P.0.6. ~ ~ S --_--=' ~ / ~h ~ DETAIL L2 ---+-_- - - - - - ~ -' N TS ~- P 0 C L4 . . . ,y ~' v PARCEL ~ ,' LINE TABLE »B" ' LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 N01'43'S8"E 92.32 --' L2 N88'16'02"W 10.00 ~ ~~ L3 S34'45'49"W 1.89 ' L4 N88'16'02"yV 27.47 L7 I L5 S01'43'58"W 43.58 °~° ~ ~' ' " ' ~ ~ L6 W 57 23 S09 13.38 -~ J L7 N88'16'02"yy 19.36 ~•'~°~ p~ ~ ' ' " 3 05 '~ a ~ L8 yy 43 58 S01 . 2 , ~ ~/ - P.O.C. /~ ~~ EXHIBIT B Sr1 A.P. N0. 410-411-19 PW~ TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ~.~~ EASEMENT 75E-126 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in Orange County, California. I am over eighteen years of age and not a party to the within action; my residence/business address is 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92701. On January 14, 2009, I served the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF HEARING ON ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY on the interested parties in this action. [X] By placing [X] the original thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes as follows: Southern California Edison Company P.O. Box 2307 Santa Ana, CA 92707 [X] BY MAIL [ ] BY OVERNIGHT MAIL VIA UPS/FEDERAL EXPRESS [X] As follows: I am "readily familiar" with my employer's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Ana, California in ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Executed on January 14, 2009, at Santa Ana, California. [X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 75E-127 MAYOR e Mi;uel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Claudia C. Alvarez COUNCIL MEMBERS P. David Benavides Carlos Bustamante Michele Martinez Vincent F. Sarmiento Sal Tinajero January 14, 2009 Web Service Co., Inc. 3690 Freeman Blvd. Redondo Beach, CA 90278 CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W. Fletcher CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Patricia E. Healy Re: Notice of Hearing regarding adoption of Resolution of Necessity to acquire real property by eminent domain (Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.235) Property: Portion of Property at 2909 S. Bristol Street, APN 410-41I-19 Dear Owners: The City Council of the City of Santa Ana ("City") intends to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity on February 2, 2009, which if adopted, will authorize the City to acquire by eminent domain the real property described in this letter for the San Lorenzo Pump Station Project. The proposed fee acquisition is described in the attached Exhibit "A", and the temporary construction easement ("TCE") in Exhibit B. ("The Property") Please take notice that the City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting to be held on February 2, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the City Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92701, will hold a hearing on whether a Resolution of Necessity should be adopted, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.220, for the commencement of a condemnation proceeding to acquire fee title as specified in Exhibit A and the TCE described in Exhibit B. You have the right to appear and be heard before the City Council at the above scheduled hearing on the following matters and issues, and to have the City Council give judicious consideration to your testimony prior to deciding whether or not to adopt the proposed Resolution of Necessity: Whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed Project; 2. Whether the proposed Project is planned or located in the manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. Whether the subject properties sought to be acquired by the exercise of eminent OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY SANTAIANA CR~L~T9~~0. BOX 1988 TELEPHONE (714) 647-5201 FAX (714) 647-651 S Web Service Co., Inc. January 14, 2009 Page 2 domain as described in the Resolution of Necessity is necessary for the proposed Project; 4. Whether the offer required by Government Code § 7267.2(a), together with the accompanying statement and summary of the basis of the amount established as just compensation, was actually made to you and whether said offer and statementlsummarytyere in a form that contained all of the factual information required by Government Code § 7267.2(a); 5. Whether the City has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain (the "right to take") to acquire the subject properties, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take the subject properties byway of eminent domain; and 6. Whether the City has the statutory authority to acquire the subject properties by eminent domain. A copy of the proposed Resolution of Necessity will be available, upon your request, for inspection at the office of the Clerk of the Council of the City Hall, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor, Santa Ana, California 92701 on January 30, 2009. This Notice has been sent to you because your name and the above listed address appears on the last equalized tax assessment roll of the County of Orange as being the name and address for tax bills to be sent for the subject properties. The statutes which authorize the City to acquire the subject property by eminent domain for the proposed Project include the City's Charter at § 200, Santa Ana Municipal Code § 41-781; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1240.010, 1240.110, Section 19 of Article 1 of the California Constitution, and California Government Code § 37350.5. If you desire to be heard, please be advised that pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.235(b)(3), you must file a written request with the Clerk of the Council of the City. The address for the Clerk of the Council is City Hall, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza, M- 30, Santa Ana, California 92701, and her facsimile number is (714) 647-6956. Alternatively, you may appear at the hearing and be given an opportunity to speak. Failure to comply with the provisions set forth above will, under California law, result in a waiver of the right to appear and be heard on the matters and issues which are the subject of this hearing. However, if you elect not to appear and be heard in regard to compensation, your nonappearance will not be a waiver of your right to claim greater compensation in a court of law. The amount to be paid for the subject properties will not be considered by the City Council at the hearing. If you elect not to appear and not to be heard, your failure to appear will be a waiver of your right to later challenge the City's right to take the subject properties by eminent domain. 75E-129 Web Service Co., Inc. January 14, 2009 Page 3 This Notice is not intended to foreclose any negotiations between you and the City's representatives on the amount of compensation to be paid for the subject properties. If the City Council elects to adopt a Resolution of Necessity, then within six (6) months the City will commence eminent domain proceedings in Orange County Superior Court. In that proceeding the court will determine the amount of compensation to which you are entitled. Very truly yours, PATRICIA E. HEALY CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Enclosures: Description of Subject Properties (Exhibits A & B) Proof of Service by Mail 75E-130 75E-131 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL A That portion of Parcel 3, of 4 Parcel Map in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, filed in Book 52, Page 49 of Parcel Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County, described as follows: Commencing at the Point of Intersection of the semi-tangent lines for the centerline curve of Segerstrom Avenue, as shown on said Parcel Map; thence, northeasterly along said semi-tangent line, into the semi-tangent Line for the next curve northeasterly in said centerline of Segerstrom Avenue, to the intersection of last said semi-tangent line with the southerly prolongation of the centerline of the Alley easterly of Bristol Street, as said Alley is shown on said Parcel Map, North 57°39'43" East, 307.04 feet; thence, northerly along said southerly prolongation and Alley centerline, North Ol°43'58" East, 92.32 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 10.00 feet to an angle point in the easterly line of said Parcel 3, said angle point being at the northerly terminus of the line shown as N.33°55`24"E. 39.82' on said Parcel Map; thence, southwesterly along said easterly line, South 34°45'49" West, 7.85 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence, continuing southwesterly along the easterly lines of said Parcel 3, South 34°45'49" West, 32.06 feet and South 09°57'23" West, 12.17 feet; thence, leaving said easterly line, parallel with said Alley centerline, North 01°43'58" East, 38.92 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline South 88°16'02"East, 19.21 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Containing 292 square feet, more or less. All as shown on exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Subject to all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of--Way and Easements of record, if any. Prepared by me, or under my direction on ~~~j1 ~%~' Raymond J. Rivera, PLS 8324 Expires 12/31/09 QJ.RIV~gq EXP.12.3t-03 ya 632A 75E-132 75E-133 ExwtB~T ~ 75E-134 EXHIBIT "B" PARCEL B That portion of Parcel 3, of a Parcel Map in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, filed in Book 52, Page 49 of Parcel Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County; a temporary construction easement lying southerly and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Point of Intersection of the semi-tangent lines for the centerline curve of Segerstrom Avenue, as shown on said Parcel Map; thence, northeasterly along said semi-tangent line, into the semi-tangent line for the next curve northeasterly in said centerline of Segerstrom Avenue, to the intersection of last said semi-tangent line with the southerly prolongation of the centerline of the Alley easterly of Bristol Street, as said Alley is shown on said Parcel Map, North 57°39'43" East, 307.04 feet; thence, northerly along said southerly prolongation and Alley centerline, North O1°43'58" East, 92.32 feet; thence, perpendicular to last said centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 10.00 feet to an angle point in the easterly line of said Parcel 3, said angle point being at the northerly terminus of the line shown as N.33°55'24"E. 39.82' on said Parcel Map; thence, southwesterly along said easterly line, South 34°45'49" West, 1.89 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence, perpendicular to said Alley centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 27.47 feet; thence, parallel with last said centerline, South Ol°43'58" West, 43.58 feet; thence, South 09°57'23" West, 13.38 feet; thence, perpendicular to said Alley centerline, North 88°16'02" West, 19.36 feet; thence, parallel with last said centerline, South O1°43'58" West, 23.05 feet to the southerly curve of said Parcel 3 and the erid of this description. All as shown on exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Subject to all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of--Way and Easements of record, if any. Prepared by me, or under my direction on L~~%'~iZ~ G~ ~~e~'~,~r.,v Raymond J. Rivera, PLS 8324 Expires 12!31/09 ~~,RIYFg9 "G~\ G EXP. 12-31.09 ~ 7t I ~~. ~/~~~ 75E-135 HEMLOCK WAY 1 2~0, ~ ~ , ~- ------------~ I I ~1 ~ ~; ~ ~'~ 1 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~' Q (N. T. S.) ~ N ~ J rn ~~ o ~ ~`v~ ~ I ~ ~~~ ~- ~ ' QQ' m ° P.O.B. ' I ' ~ ~- I ~`~ ~ PARCEL l o Q • N „B„ ~ ~ cp ~ ~ ~ ~ / iz. I m ' ~' /. ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~"~ NEE i ~ ~ ~ 's°~ ~ ~ ~' ~ SEGERSTrM~_--'" / ~~1 P.O.B. ~ ~ ------I---~= _-- - _ - - DETAIL L2 LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 N01'43'S8"E 92.32 L2 N88'16'02"W 10.00 L3 534'45'49"W 1.89 L4 N88'16'02"yy 27.47 L5 501'43'58"W 43.58 L6 509'57'23"yy 13.38 L7 N88'16'02"Vy 19.36 8 1'43'58"Vy »B» -=~ _`O ' L7 ~ ~ ~~' •y~ ~•'~°' p~ 23.05 ,'~ ~~''S~~ ~l ~ O C NTS L4 -- . . . ,y ~ / v ++~ PARCEL ~ ,' 1 EXHIBIT B 5,'~' A.P. N0. 410-411-19 P`~, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ~.~~ EASEM EN T 75E-136 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in Orange County, California. I am over eighteen years of age and not a party to the within action; my residence/business address is 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92701. On January 14, 2009, I served the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF HEARING ON ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY on the interested parties in this action. [X] By placing [X] the original thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes as follows: Web Service Co., Inc. 3690 Freeman Blvd. Redondo Beach, CA 90278 [X] BY MAIL [ ] BY OVERNIGHT MAIL VIA UPS/FEDERAL EXPRESS [X] As follows: I am "readily familiar" with my employer's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Ana, California in ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Executed on January 14, 2009, at Santa Ana, California. [X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 75E-137 75E-138