HomeMy WebLinkAbout20A - AA FIRST ST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTREQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
AUGUST 16, 2010
TITLE:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR
FIRST STREET BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
ITY ANAGER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APPROVED
? As Recommended
? As Amended
? Ordinance on V' Reading
? Ordinance on 2nd Reading
? Implementing Resolution
? Set Public Hearing For
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Report No. 2010-108 for
the replacement of the First Street Bridge over the Santa Ana River.
2. Approve an appropriation adjustment accepting funds in the amount of $9,147,083 from the
California Department of Transportation into the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement Program
Fund (account no. 05917002-52001) and appropriating funds to the Select Street Construction
Fund (account no. 05917660-66220).
DISCUSSION
The First Street Bridge over the Santa Ana River currently consists of two lanes in each direction.
Adjacent roadway segments have three lanes in each direction. Improvements will include the
demolition of the existing bridge and construction of a new bridge to accommodate three lanes in
each direction. The proposed project will also enhance public safety by providing sidewalks on the
north and south side of the bridge.
The City has previously received funding from the Orange County Transportation Authority under
the Growth Management Area and Master Plan of Arterial Highway programs for the design, right-of
way acquisition and construction phases of the project. Additional funding for the design phase of
the project was obtained from Caltrans under the Highway Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement
(HBRR) program. Staff is requesting the appropriation adjustment to recognize HBRR construction
funds totaling $9,147,083.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has
been prepared to evaluate potential long-term and short-term environmental impacts associated
with the replacement and widening of the First Street Bridge over the Santa Ana River. The
Mitigated Negative Declaration determined that with the incorporation of mitigation measures there
would be no avoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with implementation of the
project.
20A-1
Environmental Review for First Street Bridge Replacement Project
August 16, 2010
Page 2
The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 20-day review period to the general public,
homeowner association groups within the project area, and affected state and local agencies. The
review period extended from July 26, 2010 to August 15, 2010. At this time no substantial
comments have been raised concerning the project and staff is requesting that the City Council
approve and adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration, ER No. 2010-108.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds received in the total amount of $9,147,083 will be deposited into the Select Street
Construction Fund (accounting unit 05917002-52001) and appropriated into the Select Street
Construction Fund (accounting unit 05917660-66220, project no. 061723).
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
Raul Godinez II ! )
Executive Director
Public Works Agency
RG/
Exhibit: 1. Environmental Report
Exhibit: 2. Appropriation Adjustment
Francisco Gutierrez
Executive Director
Finance & Management Services Agency
20A-2
MAYOR
Miguel A. Pulido
MAYOR PRO TEM
Claudia C. Alvarez
COUNCIL MEMBERS
P. David Benavides
Carlos Bustamante
Michele Martinez
Vincent F. Sarmiento
Sal Tinajero
CITY OF SANTA ANA
PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY
20 Civic Center Plaza (M-20)
P.O. BOX 1988 • Santa Ana, California 92702
(714) 667-2700 • Fax (714) 973-1461
www.santa-ana.org
CITY MANAGER
David N. Ream
CITY ATTORNEY
Joseph W. Fletcher
CLERK OF THE COUNCIL
Maria D. Huizar
NOTICE OF INTENT
TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
This is to inform the general public that the City of Santa Ana proposes to adopt a Negative
Declaration for the following project:
Project Title: First Street Bridge Replacement Project
Project Description: The proposed project consists of the following: replacement of
the existing bridge at First Street over the Santa Ana River and
widening of First Street approximately 300 feet west and east
from the bridge in the City of Santa Ana (City).
Project Location: First Street in Santa Ana between Fairview Street and Harbor
Boulevard.
Project Number: 06-1723
Public Review Period: July 26, 2010 to August 15, 2010
Hearing Date: August 16, 2010
Hearing Location: City of Santa Ana Council Chambers
22 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92702
The Negative Declaration and Initial Study as well as all referenced documents will be
available for public review at the City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency located at
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California. Please submit any comments on the Negative
Declaration to the City on or before August 15,2010. Please direct your comments to:
Environmental Coordinator, City of Santa Ana, P.O. Box 1988, M-20, Santa Ana, CA, 92702.
If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please contact Jason
Gabriel at (714) 647-5664.
20A-3
MAYOR
Miguel A. Pulido
MAYOR PRO TEM
Claudia C. Alvarez
COUNCIL MEMBERS
P. David Benavides
Carlos Bustamante
Michele Martinez
Vincent F. Sarmiento
Sal Tinajero
CITY OF SANTA ANA
PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY
20 Civic Center Plaza (M-20)
P.O. BOX 1988 . Santa Ana, California 92702
(714) 667-2700 • Fax (714) 973-1461
www.santa-ana.org
CITY MANAGER
David N. Ream
CITY ATTORNEY
Joseph W. Fletcher
CLERK OF THE COUNCIL
Maria D. Huizar
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: 06-1723
Applicant: Santa Ana Public Works Department
Project Location / Address: First Street bridge over the Santa Ana River and 300 feet west
and east of the existing bridge in Santa Ana between Fairview Street and Harbor Boulevard.
Project Title / Description: First Street Bridge Replacement Project
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 revisions to the project and mitigation
measures placed on the project, and agreed to by the applicant, reduce each impact to below
a level of significance.
Signature:
Date: -1/2( lJ
Title I \J
This determination is not final until adopted by the decision-making body or administrative official,
and a Notice of Determination is filed.
20A-4
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IP 06-1723
FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
Lead Agency:
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
(714) 647-5664
LSD
July 2010
20A-5
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ ..1-1
1.2 CEQA PROCESS ................................................................................................................. ..1-1
1.3 FORMAT OF THE IS/MND ..................................................................................................1-2
1.4 ANTICIPATED PROJECT APPROVALS ............................................................................1-3
1.5 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE ................................................................................ ..1-4
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION/SITE CONTEXT .............................................................................2-1
2.3 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL ............................................................................................ ..2-9
2.4 CONSTRUCTION AND PHASING/STAGING ................................................................. 2-13
2.5 SOUND BARRIER WALLS ................................................................................................ 2-22
2.6 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS ............................................................................................ 2-22
2.7 RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES AND OTHER APPROVING AGENCIES ........................... 2-22
2.8 OTHER REQUIRED APPROVALS .................................................................................... 2-22
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ........................................................................................... ..3-1
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SECTION ............................................................................ ..4-1
1. AESTHETICS ............................................................................................................... ..4-1
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................ ..4-3
III. AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................. ..4-3
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 4-10
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS .............................................................................................. 4-15
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .......................................................... 4-17
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................... 4-20
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING ..................................................................................... 4-25
X. MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 4-26
XI. NOISE ............................................................................................................................ 4-26
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................. 4-33
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES ..................................................................................................... 4-34
XIV. RECREATION .............................................................................................................. 4-36
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC .................................................................................. 4-37
XVL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ...................................................................... 4-42
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ....................................................... 4-44
5.0 CONTACTS AND PREPARERS .................................................................................................5-1
6.0 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................6-1
20A-6
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location ...................................................................................................................2-2
Figure 2: Surrounding Land Uses ...................................................................................................... ..2-3
Figure 3: First Street Bridge - Downstream Side Looking North ..................................................... .. 2-4
Figure 4: First Street Bridge, Upstream Side .................................................................................... ..2-5
Figure 5: First Street Bridge, East Approach .................................................................................... .. 2-6
Figure 6: First Street Bridge, West Approach ................................................................................... .. 2-7
Figure 7: Existing Bridge Profile & Elevation .................................................................................. ..2-8
Figure 8a: Project Plan ...................................................................................................................... 2-10
Figure 8b: Bridge Section Views ...................................................................................................... 2-11
Figure 9: Restriping Plans ................................................................................................................. 2-12
Figure 10: Project Phases .................................................................................................................. 2-14
Figure 11: Bridge Construction/Staging - Stage 1 ............................................................................ 2-15
Figure 12: Bridge Construction/Staging - Stage 2 ............................................................................ 2-16
Figure 13: Typical Section ................................................................................................................ 2-17
Figure 14: Bicycle Trail Detour for Phase 1 ...................................................................................... 2-19
Figure 15: Bicycle Trail Detour for Phase 2 ...................................................................................... 2-20
Figure 16: Bicycle Trail Detour During Overhead Construction ...................................................... 2-21
Figure 17: Modeled Noise Barrier and Receiver Locations .............................................................. 2-23
TABLES
Table 2.1: Responsible Agencies and Other Approving Agencies ....................................................2-25
Table 4.1: Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) Calculations With and Without Project ... 4-28
Table 4.2: Typical Construction Equipment Schedule ......................................................................4-32
Table 4.3: First Street Bridge Widening Project Level of Service Summary ...................................4-40
ii
20A-7
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Initial Study (IS) has been prepared to evaluate the potential for environmental impacts
associated with the proposed bridge replacement project. The proposed project includes replacement
of the existing bridge at First Street over the Santa Ana River and widening of First Street
approximately 300 feet west and east from the bridge in the City of Santa Ana (City). The IS is
intended to support a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and has been prepared in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines for implementation of CEQA (California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). The City is the Lead Agency for the proposed project.
The proposed bridge widening will be partially funded with federal Highway Bridge Replacement
and Rehabilitation (HBRR) funds, which are administered by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) with local oversight by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Therefore,
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance will be also required for authorization of the
HBRR funding. Because the proposed project has been identified as a gap closure project, a
Categorical Exclusion under NEPA is anticipated for the NEPA compliance.
The project is located at the First Street Bridge in the City, between Harbor Boulevard on the west
and Fairview Road on the east.
1.2 CEQA PROCESS
This brief overview is intended to acquaint the reader with the purpose and process of the IS/MND.
This IS/MND will be considered in the decision-making process for project approval. Pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15200, this IS/MND will serve the following purposes of review:
• Sharing expertise
• Disclosing agency analyses
• Checking for accuracy
• Detecting omissions
• Discovering public concerns
• Soliciting counterproposals
This IS/MND has been prepared to address the environmental impacts during planning, construction,
and operation of the proposed project. This IS/MND is also intended to inform decision-makers,
responsible agencies,' and the general public of any potentially significant environmental impacts and
' CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 defines a Responsible Agency as "a public agency which
proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which a Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared
07/25/10 «PADMJ0701\MND\1.O Introduction.doc»
1-1
20A-8
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
the actions taken to reduce the level of impact or the potential for impacts to occur from the proposed
project through feasible mitigation measures.
IS/MND. This Draft IS/MND is intended to serve as an informational document to be circulated for
public review and considered by the City, the public, and public agencies during deliberations on the
proposed project. The Draft IS/MND will be circulated for a period of 20 days, as required by
Section 15073(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The project approvals associated with the proposed
project are described below.
Final IS/MND. The Final IS/MND will include the Draft IS/MND, comments received during the
public review of the Draft IS/MND, responses to those comments, and any other information relevant
to the decision-makers and administrative record of the proposed project.
1.3 FORMAT OF THE IS/MND
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(c), this IS/MND contains the information and
analysis required by Sections 15063 through 15075. Each of the required elements is covered in one
of the chapters described below.
Section 1.0: Introduction
Section 1.0 contains a discussion of the purpose and intended use of the Draft MND, the CEQA
process, anticipated actions, and a brief introduction to the project.
Section 2.0: Project Description and Existing Environmental Setting
Section 2.0 includes discussion of the project's geographical setting; existing conditions; and the
project's characteristics, components, and phasing.
Section 3.0: Environmental Analysis Checklist
Section 3.0 includes the City of Santa Ana Environmental Analysis (EA) Checklist, which identifies
the level of any impacts for 16 environmental topics.
Section 4.0: Environmental Analysis, Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Section 4.0 includes an analysis of the project's environmental impacts as identified in the EA
Checklist. It is organized into topical sections, including: Aesthetics, Agricultural, Air Quality,
an EIR or Negative Declaration. For the purposes of CEQA, the term `Responsible Agency'
includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power
over the project."
07/25/10 «PADMJ0701\MND\1.0Introduction.doc»
1-2
20A-9
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
JULY 2010
INITIAL STUDYIMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials,
Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and
Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation and Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems,
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
The project impact discussions identify and focus on the potential for direct and indirect significant
environmental effects of the proposed project. Also included is a discussion of impacts that are less
than significant, as well as no impacts. The discussions of mitigation measures identify and describe
feasible measures that could minimize or lessen each potentially significant environmental effect
identified in the IS and IS Checklist.
Sections 5.0 and 6.0: Contacts/Preparers and References
Sections 5.0 and 6.0, respectively, provide the organizations and persons contacted during preparation
of the IS/MND, preparers and technical authors, and the references used by both.
1.4 ANTICIPATED PROJECT APPROVALS
Proposed City Actions
The following actions are contemplated by the City to implement the proposed project.
1. Adoption of the IS/MND.
2. Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program.
3. Consideration of Design and Construction Plans. The project includes design and construction
plans to replace northern structure of the bridge and southern structure of the bridge in two
phases. The ultimate phase would be widening of First Street to accommodate 6 travel lanes to
match the existing travel lanes on First Street east and west of the existing bridge.
4. Additional Permits and Approvals. In addition to Approvals 1 through 3 above, certain permits
and other approvals will be required to implement the proposed project. They may include, but
are not limited to, the following: ministerial permits/approvals and compliance reviews or
inspections, such as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
compliance review; street work/street improvements; construction funding; approval of
construction plans; and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rules 402 and
403. In addition, permits for the jurisdictional waters of the Santa Ana River will include: federal
Clean Water Act Sections 404 (permit for fill from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and 401
(certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board) and a Fish and Game Code Section
1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement (from the California Department of Fish and Game).
Questions regarding the preparation of this document and City review of the project should be
referred to the following person:
Mr. Jason Gabriel
City of Santa Ana Public Works Department
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-36
PO Box 1988
Santa Ana, CA 92702
(714) 647-5664
07/25/10 «PA\DMJ0701\MND\1.0 Introduction.doc»
1-3
20A-10
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
JULY 2010
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
1.5 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
As permitted in Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this IS/MND has referenced several
other reports. Information from the documents that has been incorporated by reference has been
briefly summarized in the appropriate section(s) of this IS/MND, along with a description of how the
public may obtain and review these documents. The documents and other sources that have been used
in the preparation of this IS/MND are identified in Section 6.0, References. These references can be
reviewed, by appointment, at the City Public Works Department identified above. The following were
used as source documents in preparing the responses to the IS Checklist in Section 4.0; the reference
numbers indicated below have been incorporated into the text.
1. California Division of Land Resource Protection,
www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/finmp/images/frnmp2002_200.pdf, 2006-08-29.
2. City of Santa Ana General Plan, Noise and Land Use Elements, .
3. California Division of Land Resource Protection, httpJ/www. conservation. ca.gov/cgs/shzp/,
2006-08-30.
4. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps
www. msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeld=10001 &catalogId= 10001 Man
gld=-1, 2006-08-26.
5. Santa Ana River Mainstem Project: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, August
1988.
6. U.S. Geological Survey mapping, www.nmviewogc.cr.usgs.gov/viewer.htm, 2006-08-30.
7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, www.agmd.gov1ej11-41I-4.html, 2006-08-31.
8. Limited Asbestos Survey Report, I st Street Bridge Santa Ana River Overcrossing, Kleinfelder,
2009.
9. California Department of Fish and Game, www.dfg.ca.gov/lands/er/region5/index.html, 2006-08-
30.
10. California Division of Land Resource Protection,
www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/geologic-resources/mineral_resource_mapping/, 2006-08-30.
In addition the following technical studies (prepared for Caltrans) were used in the preparation of
this IS/MND and are also incorporated by reference:
11. Draft Water Quality Assessment Report, LSA Associates, Inc., July 2010.
12. Initial Site Assessment, LSA Associates, Inc., July 2010.
13. Draft Historic Resources Survey Report, LSA Associates, Inc., July 2010.
14. Draft Noise Study Report, LSA Associates, Inc., July 2010.
15. Natural Environment Study, LSA Associates, Inc. April 2010.
16. Jurisdictional Delineation, LSA Associates, Inc., April 2010.
17. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, AECOM, April 2010.
07/25/10 «PADMJ0701\MND\1.0Introduction.doc»
1-4
20A-11
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The project site is located in the City of Santa Ana (City), Orange County (County), California. The
proposed project will be funded in part by the federal Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation (HBRR) Program.
The proposed project will be implemented in two phases. Demolition and construction will occur first
on the northern bridge structure, followed by demolition and construction of the southern bridge
structure. This will allow the roadway to remain operational during construction by providing one
through-lane in each direction. The new bridge will meet California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) seismic design criteria and will add one lane in each direction and a sidewalk on the north
and south sides of the bridge. Currently, the bridge on First Street has 4 travel lanes, while
approximately 300 feet west and east of the existing bridge, First Street is a six-lane arterial. The
proposed project would restripe areas 300 feet east and west of the bridge structure to accommodate
an additional travel lane in this area. Upon project completion, First Street would be consistent with
the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and the City of Santa Ana's
Circulation Element which show a six-lane facility.
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION/SITE CONTEXT
The regional location of the project is in the City of Santa Ana in central Orange County, which is
bound on the north by the Cities of Orange and Garden Grove, on the east by the Cities of Tustin and
Irvine, on the south by the City of Fountain Valley, and on the west by the City of Westminster.
Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 22 (SR-22) bound the City on the north, and State Route 405 (SR-
405) bounds the City on the south, as shown in Figure 1.
The general location of the project is at the First Street/Santa Ana Bridge located on First Street,
between Fairview Street and Harbor Boulevard in the City of Santa Ana. The specific project limits
are between Susan Street on the west side and the Iglesia de Cristo church on the east side. The
project site is a bridge located within City right-of-way over the Santa Ana River.
There are three manufactured housing parks in the project vicinity; to the south-west Quiet Village, to
the south-east Continental Mobile Manor, to the north -east Hyde Park Mobile Estates, and to the
north-west residential housing. Figure 2 shows the project location in relation to surrounding land
uses. Figures 3 through 6 show the existing conditions and setting of the project area. Figure 7 shows
the design of the existing bridge.
P:\DMJ0701\MND\2.0 Project Description.doc (07/25/10)
2-1
20A-12
`.4 _?_ L 1•" T? s i?ww
. err?{e ( .s _... A ?Ff ...
W "bury . p?'? •.
..
Sc, ». ?t C Nth:., (ur crax3
t1 ?h Sch F c ]? _ r -_ 3 •-?j
qua srrn <.. i Q, 4 ?
a J as
CE
1: ? ? hi R
?p `_",•1'1'8,.r A'a ?,rr,, 3{ J
N<?ap:lxt
1 a I r?
..
17 h;ST
,
.
'
3 , it ?ar• _ 'j
4
N
ll -
a wt"•.•" Aee
S !
v, T
e -a S!f"
?I
iy 7',
_
L w ?
t p
y _ -..
It .?rd:
}.nra af
§F, Tf .1 :
lY P-.",
r
6.Yit'
,
P
Scd
_ __......
Tral
r , ,
e
tit
r>
_ PROJECT
• .r , r. :> _ . AREA . ?,
let ST
' J..
p r
Sep
t r1 ,- p r S •. -
.
?
lq ry
'
'
}
?
n
ti
ri -9
•
4
1
r r a-T
S
-
c
An,
Anaheim r, z o
n5 p ? ? ?:t Atre (?
U
SS
Villa Park
n E K.Mtla'Aee
Kafella Abe W Katola Aee Oran
Ora go 0
Garden Grove o c
22 0
West ins 'or oLem
... g , San.'na
Mld.ve,. city
PROJECT 531
LOCATION E
10
tij5s
Huntington G ?? - Irvine
Beach s:
SANTA ANA
t ? LL ? r, ? f
Wks
rp.' rq
?f Irr srtvlec? rl+iaPt 16 .. - ^ -
P l
E j ' 4E
Z @ ' Y
EDINGER?AVE >W Ifta>,;;r,t V
? '• ,eea 1.. _"ate r:'r,;,?. „??IC um '' ?5.. wt
} Ix F.3F.Jt L AT} aV ?"••" ?.
q
FIGURE I
b
0 1000 2000
FEET
SOURCE: USGS 7.5' Quads - Anaheim & m
I:\DMJ0701\G\Location-USGS.cdr (7/22/10)
Beach, Ca.
First Street Bridge Replacement Project
Project Location
20A-13
N
0 300 600
SOURCE: Air Photo USA (2006)
I.ADMJ0701\G\Surrounding Land Uses.cdr(7/22/10)
FIGURE 2
First Street Bridge Replacement Project
Surrounding Land Uses
20A-14
1? f
=i' =
i
i
?
to ?
C
i
t
_
.t
t-
8
K .;^ i r
z
r.
r ?a
- -,
E SR T -
I};
M U ,fi"
W '
O
? Z
w _U
o?
a
r
m
Zs°p rn
E
m
p
o
A
b
AQ
a
cn
w
0
N
e
8
V
0
O
20A-15
w oN
ti
d
a
Q4 .ti
o?
°p
b
W
N
0
C
n
4z
U
V'
RE
5
a
gb
S
v
0
M1
O
9
20A-16
i
ct?'
"'AN 'Iii
f
t t ?
f.
f,
20A-17
H
W U U
ti N
C?7 4 a
w
o?
w
off,
GL
O
M
H
?y
Gfl
O
9
?
W V U
.?
? 4 a
C7 ? a
w
0
M
N
n
'O
V
L
Q
3
b
v
0
0
9
20A-18
0000 ??)
I
I '
' I
Imo-
?? i r III ? I ? I
I k? I
I k I
? p
' 1 I
IE ?; I
I I V? L '
I L
W ?, o
w
y W
r w
0o a
0
M
o
3
U W
y
o G
C 6 ?
a
y
?
O x
?
? U
U
U
gyp- ? ? g
0
20A-19
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL. STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
The bridge was originally constructed in 1937 and widened in 1959. A seismic retrofit of the bridge
was completed in 2005. The existing bridge consists of two structures, a northern structure
(westbound lanes) and a southern structure (eastbound lanes). A sidewalk is on the north side, but
does not connect with any existing sidewalk on either approach to the bridge. The bridge deck is
approximately 420 feet (ft) in length with a width of approximately 60 ft. The bridge accommodates
two traffic lanes in each direction. Approaches to the bridge on the east and west sides are six lanes
that transition to four lanes within approximately 300 ft of the bridge on both the east and west
approaches.
First Street intersects the Santa Ana River Bicycle Trail (Bicycle Trail), which is a Class 1 (off-road,
paved) regional Bicycle Trail shown on the Bicycleways Master Plan (Orange County Transportation
Authority [OCTA]). The Bicycle Trail is grade separated (below First Street) to allow uninterrupted
movement of both facilities and to reduce bicycle/vehicle safety hazards. Access ramps to the Bicycle
Trail are located on the east side of the bridge. The Bicycle Trail access ramps are located on both the
north and south sides of the eastern bridge abutment. The Bicycle Trail is primarily used for
recreation, is owned by the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFD), and is operated and
maintained by the Orange County Resources and Development Management Department, Harbors,
Beaches and Parks Division.
2.3 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The project consists of replacing an existing four-lane bridge to accommodate six lanes and
sidewalks. The existing four-lane bridge is the only constraint in the project area for First Street to be
built out to its master-planned width of six lanes. Approximately 300 ft east and west of the existing
bridge, First Street is a six-lane Major Arterial, as shown on the Orange County Master MPAH and
the City's General Plan Circulation Element.
The proposed bridge would have the same vertical profile as the existing, but would move the
horizontal profile of the roadway centerline by approximately ten feet. The proposed project will be
constructed in two phases. Demolition and construction will occur first on the northern bridge
structure, followed by demolition and construction of southern bridge structure. This will allow the
roadway to remain operational during construction by providing one through-lane in each direction.
The new bridge will meet the City's seismic design criteria and will add one lane in each direction
and a sidewalk on the north and south sides of the bridge. The proposed project would restripe areas
300 feet east and west of the bridge structure to accommodate an additional travel lane in this area.
Refer to Figures 8a, 8b and 9 for the Bridge Plans, Bridge Sections and Restriping Plan.
Right-Of-Way Requirements and Access
The City has already obtained necessary rights-of-way for the bridge replacement and roadway
widening. One easement over the Santa Ana River will need to be obtained by the City. A temporary
construction easement will be required. Access to the project will be accomplished through existing
access via First Street, the OCFCD maintenance road on the west side of the Santa Ana River, and the
Santa Ana River Bicycle Trail on the east side of the Santa Ana River.
PADMJ0701\MND\2.0 Project Description.doc (07/25/10)
2-9
20A-20
---4'
!54, ?
NY
F
VI
L K
ascw?c
43
00
w
C7
w
Q
a?
'o
o? p-
00
m
g c
p
U ?
v ? 9
Q
S y<
7
i
O p
t
U ?
20A-21
Fi
bb i
i
41
I
?I
1
Jj Q
yy V
V\
al
w
0 3
4
? c
o? .
U
U ?
Q ?
,?Oq Qa
U
w
r
cN
C
O
U
W
Q
Q
W
U
U
0
O
vM
9
U
00
O
9
20A-22
U
c.
C
Z
i
r
6
4
C
?x
U
L
s
o
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
JULY 2010
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
2.4 CONSTRUCTION AND PHASING/STAGING
The existing bridge consists of two separate structures (a north structure and a south structure) that
have been improved at different times. In addition, it is crucial for First Street to remain operational
during construction, so one through-lane in each direction will remain open during project
implementation. Therefore, construction of the new bridge will occur in phases, starting with the
northern structure. Figure 10 shows an overview of the construction phasing. Figures 11, and 12 show
the section views of the construction phasing. Figure 13 shows the final section of the bridge.
Phase 1: Northern Structure. Phase l begins with redirecting all traffic onto the existing two lanes
(one lane in each direction) of the southern structure.
Phase 1 Demolition. The Phase 1 demolition includes portions of northern structures above
bridge-bearing elevation (superstructure) and foundation elements (substructure) such as
columns, wall piers, footings, and pile caps. The piles and drilled shafts of the existing bridge will
be cut off 1 ft below the channel invert elevation.
Phase 1 Construction. Construction includes the placement of the new bridge foundation
elements (during dry season) as well as upper portions of the bridge (superstructure), including
girders and deck construction in the northern portion of the bridge. The placement of the
recommended superstructure type (precast bulb-tee girder with cast-in-place concrete deck) of the
bridge is not required to be conducted within the dry season. A new retaining wall will be built in
the northeast quadrant of the bridge.
Phase 2: Southern Structure. After completion of the new northern portion of the bridge, traffic will
be routed onto the new bridge, and the southern portion of the bridge will be closed in order to allow
for demolition of the existing southern portion of the bridge pier and superstructure.
Phase 2 Demolition. The Phase 2 demolition encompasses the same demolition activities as
Phase 1, but they will occur in the southern bridge structure. Therefore, Phase 2 demolition
includes portions of the southern structure above bridge-bearing elevation (superstructure) and
foundation elements (substructure) such as columns, wall piers, footings, and pile caps. The piles
and drilled shafts of the existing bridge will be cut off 1 ft below the channel invert elevation.
Phase 2 Construction. Phase 2 construction will encompass activities in the southern portion of
the bridge, which will be conducted in the dry season. The construction activities will include
placement of the pier and foundation elements followed by the placement of the girders and deck
construction. A new retaining wall will be built in the southwest quadrant of the bridge.
Depth of excavation in the riverbed will not exceed four feet. The project will be completed with the
changing of the roadway approaches to meet the alignment of the new bridge.
P:\DMJ0701\NlND\2.0 Project Description.doc (07/25/10)
2-13
20A-24
O J ?
?" a a
a
E "
u 'o
V F.
a
C
d
?i
Oi
w
i
?L
g o
N
d
?
c
G
0 .:
W O
0 9
20A-25
rol-' ""T ST MUST)
1 1 1
J U I
II
11
IST
WNTEL
WKM
"VENT
STAGE 1 BRIDGE REMOVAL
STAGE 1 BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
FIGURE I I
0 2 24
FEET
SOURCE: DMJM HARRIS/AECOM, (2007)
First Street Bridge Replacement Project
Bridge Construction/Staging - Stage I
1\DMJ0701\G\Construction-Stage I.cdr (7/23/10)
20A-26
?? Ll
STAGE 2 BRIDGE REMOVAL
--,( F> sr . j rMT a 9nWW3
STAGE 2 BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
FIGURE 12
0 12 24
FEET
SOURCE: DMJM HARRIS/AECOM, (2007)
First Street Bridge Replacement Project
Bridge Construction/Staging - Stage 2
I:\DM70701 \MConstruction-Stage 2.cdr (7/23/ 10)
20A-27
LM - _--_.____JL?_.1L_ J
i t u u I Iu
u u
Ti - - ----- - -- --- Tr i ?r - ----- - - - - ?
'
Li fill Ill'
4
?? I I
it
II
II
• ? it
4 II
• = II z
4 ? I I ~
I ?s
4 4 I _s ?
I
II z
I I ?`
' II
II
I1
II
4 I I
.c-.s ?? I I
II
•i I {
4
I
?o
M v.,
d
a
fi
U
eo
Q
eC!
V
4:
h
O
CSI
a
a
x
0
w
0
O
M
r
Q
v
0
Q
9
20A-28
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
JULY 2010
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Dry and Wet Season Activities
All demolition activities and some construction activities will take place only in the dry season (April
15 to October 15 annually) due to seasonal constraints of working in the riverbed. Therefore,
construction may take up to two dry seasons to complete the new bridge. Specific construction
activities such as demolition of the piers, foundation elements, and upper parts of the bridge will be
conducted only during the dry season. Construction activities that encompass replacement and
reconstruction of the parts of the bridge above bridge elevation (placing girders, deck construction)
may be conducted during the wet season because they will not take place in the riverbed.
Bicycle Detour Plans
The Santa Ana River Bicycle Trail will not close due to construction. However, detours will be
necessary while construction takes place. The bicycle trail detour plans are described below and
shown in Figures 14, 15 and 16.
Phase 1: Bicycle Detour for Closure of the Trail Access Ramp on North Side of First
Street. During Stage 1, when construction of the north side of the bridge occurs, the
northside Bicycle Trail access on First Street will be temporarily closed. Therefore, cyclists
on the Bicycle Trail exiting and traveling westerly on First Street will have to exit either at
McFadden Avenue or Fifth Street, depending on whether they are traveling north or south on
the Bicycle Trail. Cyclists exiting onto First Street and traveling easterly will still be able to
do so by using the south side Bicycle Trail access. Cyclists wanting to enter the Bicycle Trail
from the east will be routed along these same paths to gain access to the Bicycle Trail.
Phase 2: Bicycle Detour for Closure of the Trail Access Ramp on South Side of First
Street. During Stage 2, when construction of the south side of the bridge occurs, the south
side Bicycle Trail access on First Street will be temporarily closed. Therefore, cyclists on the
Bicycle Trail exiting and traveling eastbound on First Street will have to use the Fifth Street
exit. Cyclists exiting onto First Street and traveling westbound will still be able to do so by
using the northside Bicycle Trail access. Cyclists wanting to enter the Bicycle Trail from the
west will be routed along these same paths to gain access to the Bicycle Trail.
Detour For Overhead Construction Activities. The Bicycle Trail will remain open along
the channel during both Phase 1 and Phase 2; however, certain construction activities which
would pose a hazard to Bicycle Trail uses such as demolition of the existing bridge and
erection of the precast girders for the new bridge will require a temporary detour of the
Bicycle Trail. It is expected that each stage will require two separate detours for an estimated
duration of one week each for these activities. During these activities, both northbound and
southbound cyclists on the Bicycle Trail will have to exit prior to First Street at either
McFadden Avenue (northbound) or Fifth Street (southbound) and then re-enter the Bicycle
Trail at the next entrance (McFadden Avenue or Fifth Street).
PADMJ0701\MND\2.0 Project Description.doc (07/25/10)
2-18
20A-29
FIGURE 14
SOURCE: DMJM HARRIS/AECOM, (2007)
First Street Bridge Replacement Project
Bicycle Trail Detour for Phase 1
(Access to First Street, West of River)
I:\DMJ0701\G\Bike Detour-Phase I.cdr (7123/10)
20A-30
FIGURE 15
SOURCE: DMJM HARRIS/AECOM, (2007)
First Street Bridge Replacement Project
Bicycle Trail Detour for Phase 2
(Access to First Street, East of River)
1:\DMJ0701\G\Bike Detour-Phase 2.cdr (7/23/10)
20A-31
FIGURE 16
a
SOURCE: DMJM HARRIS/AECOM, (2007)
First Street Bridge Replacement Project
Bicycle Trail Detour During Overhead Construction
I:\DMJ0701\G\Bike Detour-Fullxdr (7/23/10)
20A-32
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
2.5 SOUND BARRIER WALLS
Three sound barrier walls are proposed as part of the proposed project. The location of the proposed
sound barrier walls is shown on Figure 17. The sound barrier walls are numbered. Sound barrier wall
number 1 (north west quadrant) will be located in place of the existing 5 ft wall which separates the
First Street from the apartment complex. The sound barrier wall will be approximately 9-12 ft height
and extend 238 ft from the existing entrance on the First Street westerly to the N. Susan Street. Sound
barrier wall number 4 along the edge of shoulder on the north east side of the First Street will be 6-14
ft high and will extend 477 ft easterly from Santa Ana River to the existing entrance to the park at
First Street. Both sound barriers will be located approximately 4.5 ft from the nearest travel lane. The
reason for the sound barrier walls is to protect sensitive land uses from roadway noise. For a full
discussion of roadway noise and sound barrier walls, refer to Section XI in Section 4 Environmental
Analysis.
For sound barrier wall number 2, the City is evaluating an alternative design that follows First Street
and then turn north at the end of the bridge abutment and would then be adjacent to the existing wall
at the apartment complex along the west side on the upper bank of the Santa Ana River. This bend
would occur instead of the wall extending onto the bridge as shown in Figure 17. This area lies within
the OCFCD boundaries for the flood control access road. The area is maintained as a dirt and gravel
area associated with the flood channel and access.
2.6 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
Development of the proposed project would require discretionary approvals by the City, the Lead
Agency, and Responsible Agencies. The City's discretionary actions include the following:
• Advertisement for bids for construction/approval of plans
2.7 RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES AND OTHER APPROVING AGENCIES
Table 2.1 shows the Responsible Agencies as defined by Section 15381 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, and agencies that have approvals associated with the project.
2.8 OTHER REQUIRED APPROVALS
Ministerial permits/approvals would be issued by the City to allow demolition, debris removal, site
preparation, and construction. These approvals may include, but are not limited to, the following
approvals:
• Demolition and Haul Route Permit/Traffic Control Plan
• Approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
P:\DMJ0701\MND\2.0 Project Description.doc (07/25/10)
2-22
20A-33
fi
N U
,,
r
OL a,
0.. N
w ?
m
0
QO
"Ct
?
i
o>
i
?L
L"r
O
U
O
U
GJ
'd
a.
a?
a?
O
z
a
a?
0
2
x
4)
'a
c
c
E
rn U
L (?
.L ?
U
N U
z ?
U
w
SAO
`/ o
0
0
N
?V
O_
N
p
O
U
m
A
C+]
U
0.'
O
20A-34
? N U
W r,
t
d
C
O
CIS
U
O
U
s..
U
N
O
z
b
0
7
t
z ?
? x a
w
Al-\l o
0
0
N
O
O
U
A
C]
W
U
C
O
20A-35
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
JULY 2010
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Table 2.1: Responsible Agencies and Other Approving Agencies
Agency Permitting Action
Caltrans The proposed project will be partially funded by
federal Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation (HBRR) funds. HBRR funds are
administered by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), with local oversight
provided by Caltrans. Because the proposed
project is a gap closure project, a Categorical
Exclusion under NEPA is anticipated for NEPA
corn liance.
County of Orange Approval of a flood control channel Right of
Entry permit
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Section 404 Permits
• Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 14 for linear
transportation projects with permanent
impacts less than 0.50 ac within the ordinary
high water mark (OHWM) of the Santa Ana
River.
• NWP No. 33 for temporary structures, work,
and discharged necessary for construction
activities
California Department of Fish and Game Section 1602 Permit
Streambed Alteration Agreement for the
permanent bridge structure over the channel
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 Certification
Certification of NWP Nos. 14 and 33
PADMJ0701\MND\2.0 Project Description.doc (07/25/10)
2-25
20A-36
Environmental Checklist
CEQA Compliance
PLANNING DIVISION
Project Title: First Street Bridge Replacement Project
II. Project Numbers:
III. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Santa Ana
IV. Contact and Phone Number: Jason Gabriel, (714) 647-5664
V. Project Location: First Street at the Santa Ana River, Santa Ana, Orange County California
VI. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Santa Ana Public Works Department
VII. General Plan Designation: The project segment is shown as a six-lane major arterial in the
City General Plan and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH).
VIII. Zoning: N/A
IX. Description of Project: A bridge widening at First Street over the Santa Ana River is proposed
by the City of Santa Ana (City).The project consists of widening an existing four-lane bridge to
accommodate six lanes and sidewalks. The existing four-lane bridge is the only constraint in the project
area for First Street to be built out to its master-planned width of six lanes.
X. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Residential, retail and industrial
XI. Other agencies whose approval is required.
• Caltrans: The proposed project will be partially funded by Federal Highway Bridge Replacement
and Rehabilitation (HBRR) funds. HBRR funds are administered by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), with local oversight provided by Caltrans. A Categorical Exclusion for
NEPA compliance is anticipated for the proposed project.
• OCFCD: County of Orange approval of a flood control channel right of entry permit may also be
required for project implementation.
• An Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 14 for linear transportation
projects with permanent impacts less than 0.50 ac within the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of
the Santa Ana River.
• An ACOE NWP No. 33 for temporary structures, work, and discharges necessary for construction
activities.
• A Streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game for the
permanent bridge structure over the channel
• The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board must certify NWP Nos. 14 and 33.
07/25/10 ,PADMJ0701\MND\3.0 Checklist.doc,, 3-1
20A-37
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.
0 Aesthetics
0 Agricultural Resources
0 Air Quality
0 Biological Resources
O Cultural Resources
O Geology and Soils
O Hazards and Hazardous Materials
0 Hydrology and Water Quality
0 Land Use and Planning
Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that:
O Mineral Resources
0 Noise
0 Population and Housing
O Public Services
O Recreation
0 Transportation and Traffic
0 Utilities and Service Systems
O Mandatory Findings of Significance
A. ? The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
B. ® 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 earlier; however,
subsequent proposed changes in the project and/or new information of substantial importance will cause one
0 ore significant effects no previously discussed. A SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared.
Signature Dates
_ 5002( AHIPA (
Printea Name
07/25/10 -PADW0701\MND\3.0 Checklist.doc- 3-2
20A-38
Environmental Checklist
CEQA Compliance
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
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 a project-specific screening analysis).
II. All 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 Significant 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 must 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.
VII. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
07/23/10 «PADMJ0701\MND\3.0 Checklist.doc. 3-3
20A-39
Environmental Checklist
CEQA Compliance
VIII. 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
07/23/10 «PADMJ0701\MND\3.0 Checklist.doc»
3-4
20A-40
,' , Environmental Checklist
CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1. 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. Substantially 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? ? ? ® ?
II. Agricultural Resources - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural farmland. Would the project:
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.)
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?
III. 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?
B. Violate any stationary source air quality standard or ? ® ? ?
contribute to an existing or proposed air quality
violation?
07/23/10 «PADMJ0701\MND\3.0 Checklist.doc,, 3-5
20A-41
Environmental Checklist
CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less 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)?
D. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ? ? ® ?
concentrations?
E. Create objectionable odors affecting a ? ? ® ?
substantial number of people?
IV 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 local or regional plans, policies or
regulations or by the California 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.
Fish 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
interruption, or other means?
D. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ? ? ?
protecting biological resources, such as tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
07/23/10 «PADMJ0701\MND\3.0 Checklist.doc»
3-6
20A-42
Environmental Checklist
CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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 those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
A. Geology and Soils - Would the project:
A. Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
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 Or 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?
C. Would the project result in the loss of a unique
geologic feature?
D. Is the project located on strata or soil that is
unstable or that would become unstable as a result
of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
07/23/10 ,P: \DMJ0701\MND\3.0 Checklist.doc»
? ? ? E
? ? ? E
? ? E ?
? ? ? E
? ? E ?
? ? E ?
? ? E ?
? ? ? E
? E ? ?
? ? ? E
? ? ? E
3-7
20A-43
Environmental Checklist
CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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?
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 to 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 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?
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?
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 wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
07/23/10 «PADMJ0701\MND\3.0 Checklist.doa>
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
® ?
® ?
® ?
El 0
El Z
El Z
El Z
3-8
20A-44
Environmental Checklist
CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Vlll Hydrology and Water Quality - Would the project:
A. Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water ? E ? ?
quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
B. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ? ? E ?
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?
D. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ? ? E ?
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 ? E ? ?
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted run-off?
F. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ? E ? ?
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 floodplain structures which ? ? E ?
would impede or redirect flood flows?
1. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ? ? E ?
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of failure of a levee or dam?
J. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ? ? ? E
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
07/23/10 «PADMJ0701\MND\3.0 Checklist.doc- 3-9
20A-45
Environmental Checklist
CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
IX. Land Use and Planning - Would the project:
A. Physically 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?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally ? ? ?
B. important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
XI Noise - Would the project result in:
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?
07/23/10 «PADMJ0701\MND\3.0 Checklist.doa? 3_10
20A-46
,' , Environmental Checklist
CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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?
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)?
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
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 governmental
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:
1. Fire protection? ? ? ?
2. Police protection? ? ? ?
3. Schools? ? ? ?
4. Parks? ? ? ?
5. Other public facilities? ? ? ?
07/23/10 «PADMJ0701\MND\3.0 Checklist.doc,,
3-11
20A-47
Environmental Checklist
CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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?
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 in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
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 levels 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)?
07/23/10 ,PADMJ0701\MND\3.0 Checklist.doc,,
3-12
20A-48
Environmental Checklist
CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
XVI. Utilities and 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 or expanded entitlements needed?
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
solid waste disposal needs?
G. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
? ? ?
? ? ?
? ? ® ?
? ? ?
? ? ?
? ? ® ?
? ? ?
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?
? ® ? ?
07/23/10 «PADMJ0701 \M ND\3.0 Checklist.doc,,
3-13
20A-49
Environmental Checklist
CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
B. 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 current 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?
07/23/10 ,P:\DMJ0701\MND\3.0 Checklist.doc»
3-14
20A-50
20A-51
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
JULY 2010
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SECTION
This section of the Initial Study (IS) contains the explanation and analysis based on the questions of
the City's Environmental Analysis Checklist (refer to Section 3.0). The purpose of the Initial Study
(IS) is to provide data and reasoning used to arrive at the appropriate California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) document for the proposed First Street Santa Ana Bridge Replacement and
Street Widening Project.
1. Aesthetics
Would the project:
A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No impact. Scenic vistas are typically some distance from a receptor and consist of horizon line
views. Although no scenic vistas are located within the project area, the City's General Plan identifies
the Santa Ana River as a river of a regional significance because it is an easily distinguished feature
in the City's landscape. First Street intersects the Santa Ana River Bicycle Trail (Bicycle Trail),
which is a Class 1 (off-road, paved) regional Bicycle Trail shown on the Commuter Bikeways
Strategic Plan (CBSP, Orange County Transportation Authority [OCTA]). The Bicycle Trail is grade
separated (below First Street) to allow uninterrupted movement of both facilities and to reduce
bicycle/vehicle safety hazards. Access ramps to the Bicycle Trail are located on the east side of the
bridge. The Bicycle Trail access ramps are located on both the north and south sides of the eastern
bridge abutment. The proposed project would temporarily require that the Bicycle Trail be re-routed.
This would occur only during construction and would not permanently alter the route or the scenic
quality of the trail, or inhibit access to any views that may exist. Because no scenic vistas occur
within the project limits or adjacent to the site, no impacts are expected and no mitigation is required.
B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outpourings and historic
buildings within a state highway?
No impact. First Street is not a state highway. There are no aesthetic or visual resources located on
the project site or in the surrounding vicinity that have been designated in any City or other agency
policy or plan. According to the City of Santa Ana General Plan, First Street is considered a primary
street corridor, and the bridge over Santa Ana River is listed in the Caltrans Historic Bridge Inventory
as "Category 5" (not eligible for the National Register). The proposed project does not require
removal of any rock outcroppings. Several ornamental trees will be removed. These trees are not very
mature, thus they do not provide much screening or contribution to the landscaping along First Street.
Additionally, none of the properties in the project area are considered historical resources. There are
no scenic resources on the project site or in the vicinity; therefore, no damage to scenic resources
would occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation is required.
07/25/10 «PA\DMJ070l\N1ND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-1
20A-52
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Less than significant impact with mitigation. The proposed project will result in some physical
changes in the project site. The existing First Street bridge over Santa Ana River will be demolished
and replaced with the new structure that conforms to the current building and seismic standards. The
proposed bridge would be widened to accommodate two extra lanes and ultimate width of First
Street. The new bridge structure will be located in the same vertical position as the existing one
(different horizontal), will look similar to the existing bridge, and will be at the same elevation. The
slight physical changes will not substantially affect views of the bridge or views from the bridge. As
mentioned above, the bridge replacement activities will require removal of several ornamental trees to
accommodate the sound barrier walls.
The views from the First Street/Santa Ana Bridge are limited to the surrounding built-out
environment, Santa Ana River Channel, adjacent residences including manufactured housing parks.
Construction activities will temporary affect the views of and on the Santa Ana River. This impact is
not considered significant because it will be short-term and cease upon the project completion.
Implementation of the proposed project will not adversely affect scenic vistas because the new
replacement bridge will look very similar to the existing bridge structure. Therefore, no impacts are
anticipated and no mitigation is required.
However, the project will involve the construction of three sound barrier walls each exceeding six
feet in height. This will introduce a visual change to the roadway corridor. The following mitigation
measure is included to ensure that the sound barrier walls will blend in with surrounding elements to
reduce the visual intrusion of the walls.
Mitigation Measure
VIS-1 As part of the final design plans for the sound barrier walls, a neutral earth-tone color palette
will be selected to blend in with surrounding area. The color specification will be reviewed
and approved by the Santa Ana Public Works Director or designee, and included as part of
the bid package for the project.
D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project is a bridge replacement and street widening
project that would not incorporate substantial new sources of light or glare which would affect day or
nighttime views in the area. The sidewalks that will be built as part of the First Street Bridge and First
Street Widening will require additional lighting for pedestrians. In the existing condition, sidewalks
are not continuous along First Street. The project will include relocated replacement street lights. Due
to the project area's high level of development, there are many existing sources of light in the area.
Therefore, incorporation of the replacement street lights will not result in significant impact to
nighttime views. No mitigation is required.
07/25/10 «PADMJ0701\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-2
20A-53
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
II. Agricultural Resources
A. Would the project 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.)
No impact. The project site does not involve agricultural soils or operations. The surrounding area is
urbanized, and there are no agricultural uses in the project vicinity as shown in Figure 2 (refer to
Section 2.0). The California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program maps indicate that No
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance exists either within or
adjacent to the project site. The National Resource Conservation Service database classified the entire
area including the of First Street/Santa Ana Bridge site as "Urban and built-up."' Therefore, no
impact to farmland or agricultural resources will occur, and no mitigation is required.
B. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson
Contract?
No impact. As previously stated, the site is completely built out. As there are no agricultural uses on
site and no Williamson Act contracts do not apply to the site. Refer to II.a.for further discussion on
agricultural lands. No impacts are expected.
C. Would the project 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?
No impact. There are no farmlands located on the project site. The project area is urban and already
built out. The proposed project will not change the urban character of existing land uses on site.
Therefore, no conversion of farmlands to nonagricultural uses would occur on site. For additional
discussion refer to II a. No impacts are expected.
III. Air Quality
Would the project:
A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or
Congestion Management Plan?
Less than significant with mitigation. According to the Air Quality Technical Report (LSA
Associates, Inc., July 2010), historical air quality data show that existing carbon monoxide
(CO) levels for the project area and the general vicinity do not exceed either the State or federal
California Division of Land Resource Protection,
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca. ov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/fmmp2004 8l l pdf, 9 August 2007
07/25/10 «PADMJ070l\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-3
20A-54
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
ambient air quality standards. The proposed project will help to improve traffic flow and reduce
congestion on roadway links in the project vicinity. The project is located in an attainment area for
federal CO standards. Using the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) Transportation
Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (Protocol), a screening CO hot-spot analysis was conducted
to determine whether the proposed project would result in any CO hot spots. It was determined that
the proposed project will not result in any exceedances of the 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards.
The proposed project is within a federal nonattainment area for particulate matter (PM) less than 2.5
in diameter (PM2.5) and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) standards.
Therefore, per 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 93, analyses are required for conformity
purposes. However, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not require hot-
spot analyses, qualitative or quantitative, for projects that are not listed in Section 93.123(b)(1) as an
air quality concern. It was determined through interagency consultation that the proposed project will
not contribute to a PM2.5 or PM10 hot spot that will cause or contribute to a violation of the federal
PM2.5 or PMl0 standards.
Compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rules and Regulations
during construction will reduce construction-related air quality impacts from fugitive dust emissions
and construction equipment emissions. Because the proposed roadway improvement project does not
generate new regional vehicular trips, no new regional vehicular emissions would occur. The
proposed project may have a beneficial effect in helping to reduce congestion on roadway links in the
project vicinity.
The project is located in Orange County, which is not among the counties listed as containing
serpentine and ultramafic rock. Therefore, the impact from naturally occurring asbestos
(NOA) during project construction would be minimal to none.
The project is in the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which was found to be conforming
by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on June 5,
2008. The project is also in the 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), which
was found to be conforming by the FHWA/FTA on November 17, 2008 (Project ID: ORA120521;
Description: Santa Ana - First Street widening [from Susan to Fairview; from 4 to 6 lanes] bridge).
Regional PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) budget compliance was accounted for during the
current approved RTP and RTIP conformity determination. Therefore, the proposed project is in
conformance with the SIP.
Climate Change
While climate change has been a concern since at least 1988, as evidenced by the establishment of the
United Nations and World Meteorological Organization's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), the efforts devoted to greenhouse gas' (GHG) emissions reduction and climate
change research and policy have increased dramatically in recent years. These efforts are primarily
concerned with the emissions of GHGs related to human activity that include carbon dioxide (C02),
' GHGs related to human activity include: C02, M4, N20, tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane,
SF6, HFC-23, HFC-134a*, and HFC-152a*.
07/25/10 ,,PADMJ070l\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-4
20A-55
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride (SF6),
HFC-23 (fluoroform), HFC-134a (s, s, s, 2-tetrafluoroethane), and HFC-152a (difluoroethane).
In 2002, with the passage of Assembly Bill 1493 (AB 1493), California launched an innovative and
proactive approach to dealing with GHG emissions and climate change at the State level. AB 1493
requires the ARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce automobile and light truck GHG
emissions. These stricter emissions standards were designed to apply to automobiles and light trucks
beginning with the 2009 model year; however, to enact the standards, California needed a waiver
from the EPA. The waiver was denied by the EPA in December 2007. (See California v.
Environmental Protection Agency, 9th Cir. Jul. 25, 2008, No. 08-70011). On January 26, 2009, it was
announced that the EPA will reconsider its decision regarding the denial of California's waiver. On
May 18, 2009, President Obama announced the enactment of a 35.5-mile-per-gallon (mpg) fuel
economy standard for automobiles and light-duty trucks, which will take effect in 2012. On June 30,
2009, the EPA granted California the waiver. California is expected to enforce its standards for 2009
to 2011 and then look to the federal government to implement equivalent standards for 2012 to 2016.
The granting of the waiver will also allow California to implement even stronger standards in the
future. The State is expected to start developing new standards for the post-2016 model years later
this year.
On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order (EO) S-3-05. The goal of
this EO is to reduce California's GHG emissions to: (1) 2000 levels by 2010, (2) 1990 levels by 2020,
and (3) 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In 2006, this goal was further reinforced with the
passage of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 sets the
same overall GHG emissions reduction goals while further mandating that ARB create a plan that
includes market mechanisms and implement rules to achieve "real, quantifiable, cost-effective
reductions of greenhouse gases." EO S-17-06 further directs State agencies to begin implementing
AB 32, including the recommendations made by the State's Climate Action Team.
With EO S-01-07, Governor Schwarzenegger set forth the low carbon fuel standard for California.
Under this EO, the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels is to be reduced by at least
10 percent by 2020.
Climate change and GHG reduction are also concerns at the federal level; at this time, no legislation
or regulations have been enacted specifically addressing GHG emissions reductions and climate
change. However, California, in conjunction with several environmental organizations and several
other states, sued to force the EPA to regulate GHGs as a pollutant under the CAA (Massachusetts vs.
Environmental Protection Agency et al., United States Supreme Court No. 05-1120. 549 U.S. Argued
November 29, 2006-Decided April 2, 2007). The court ruled that GHGs do fit within the CAA
definition of a pollutant and that the EPA does have the authority to regulate GHGs. Despite the
Supreme Court ruling, there are no promulgated federal regulations to date limiting GHG emissions.
On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under Section
202(a) of the CAA:
• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations
of the six key well-mixed GHGs (C02, CH4, N20, hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs], perfluorocarbons
07/25/10 «PA\DMJ070l\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.docu
4-5
20A-56
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
[PFCs], and SF6) in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future
generations.
• Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these
well-mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the
GHG pollution that threatens public health and welfare.
These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However,
this action is a prerequisite to finalizing the EPA's proposed GHG emission standards for light-duty
vehicles, which EPA proposed in a joint proposal including Caltrans' proposed Corporate Average
Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards on September 15, 20091. The City does not have any specific GHG
or climate change policies that apply to roadway projects.
One of the main strategies to reduce GHG emissions is to make California's transportation system
more efficient. The highest levels of carbon dioxide from mobile sources, such as automobiles, occur
at stop-and-go speeds (0-25 mph) and speeds over 55 mph. Relieving congestion by enhancing
operations and improving travel times in high congestion travel corridors will lead to an overall
reduction in GHG emissions. The purpose of the proposed project is to alleviate existing and future
traffic congestion along First Street during peak hours. Therefore, the proposed project would reduce
the number of vehicle hours traveled (VHT) within the project area. Although the proposed project
may result in a net increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), the carbon dioxide emissions would be
reduced due to the reduction in VHT and the improved traffic flow. The proposed project Mitigation
Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-4 incorporating energy efficiency would additionally reduce the
temporary impacts of GHG emissions. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the project is not
cumulatively contributing to GHG emissions and/or global warming based on improved traffic flow
on the First Street in comparison to existing conditions. The following mitigation measures will be
implemented to reduce green house gas emissions and other air pollutants generated by vehicle and
equipment exhaust during the construction phase:
Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on site based on low
emission factors and high energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure that
construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned
and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
AQ-2 The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement
that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use.
AQ-3 The construction contractor shall time the construction activities so as not to interfere with
peak hour traffic and to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if
necessary, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways.
AQ-4 The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for
the construction crew.
1 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html
07/25/10 «PA\DMJ0701\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-6
20A-57
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measures the proposed project would not conflict or
obstruct implementation of State GHG policies or directives, AQMP or Congestion Management
Program during construction activities. Less than significant impacts are expected with mitigation.
B. Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or proposed air
quality violation?
Less than significant with mitigation. Implementation of the project will result in some short-term
construction impacts that would temporary increase pollutants emission levels. Because the proposed
project does not introduce new land use type, operational impacts will be similar to existing project
conditions. The proposed project is expected to improve traffic movement in the project vicinity,
thereby lowering the total pollutants emitted by motor vehicles in the long-term. The proposed project
would not create a substantial Hot spots for CO, PM 2.5 or PM 10 and thus would not constitute CO,
PM 10 or PM 2.5 violation.
Construction activities will produce combustion emission from various sources such as site grading,
utility engines, on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the
site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions will vary on a daily
basis as the construction activity levels change. SCAQMD Rule 403 for reducing the fugitive dust
emissions (PM10), Best Available Control Measure (BACM), Caltrans Standard Specifications of
Construction and Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 will be incorporated during construction
time, thereby reducing the temporary air quality impacts to less than significant levels.
The following are standard conditions that would reduce or minimize air pollutant emissions
[particularly fugitive dust (PM10)] associated with construction activities:
• The construction contractor shall adhere to the requirements of SCAQMD rules and regulations
on cutback and emulsified asphalt paving materials.
• To reduce fugitive dust emissions the construction contractor shall adhere to the requirements of
SCAQMD Rule 403. The Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) specified in SCAQMD's
Rule 403 shall be incorporated into the project construction.
With the incorporation of the mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ-5 the project would not violate
or contribute to violation of existing and proposed air quality standards. Less than significant impacts
are expected with the incorporation of the mitigation measures.
Compliance with the standard measures articulated in mitigation measure AQ-5 would lessen the
fugitive dust (PM10) impact during construction.
Mitigation Measure
AQ-5 Prior to issuance of final plans for bids, the following conditions shall be included as
specifications and notes on the plans to ensure implementation.
• The construction contractor shall adhere to the requirements of SCAQMD rules and
regulations on cutback and emulsified asphalt paving materials.
07/25/10 «P:\DMJ070l\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-7
20A-58
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
JULY 2010
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
• To reduce fugitive dust emissions the construction contractor shall adhere to the
requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403. The BACMs specified in SCAQMD's Rule 403
shall be incorporated into the project construction.
In addition to the SCAQMD standard conditions to reduce construction emissions, Caltrans
Standard Construction Specifications shall be adhered to in order to reduce emissions. Below
is a list of Caltrans' standard conditions provided to reduce the emission of fugitive dust.
A. All disturbed areas, including storage piles, not being actively utilized for construction
purposes shall be effectively stabilized for dust emissions using water, chemical
stabilizers/suppressants, or vegetative ground cover.
B. All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized
for dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizers/suppressants.
C. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and
demolition activities shall be effectively controlled for fugitive dust emissions by
utilizing applications of water or by presoaking.
D. When materials are transported off site, all material shall be covered or effectively wetted
to limit visible dust emissions, or at least 15.2 centimeters (cm) (6 inches [in]) of
freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
E. All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from
adjacent public streets at least once every 24 hours when operations are occurring. The
use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied
by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. The use of blower devices is
expressly forbidden.
F. Following the addition of materials to or the removal of materials from the surface of
outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized for fugitive dust emissions
utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizers/suppressants.
G. Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 24 kilometers per hour (kph) (15
mph).
H. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to
public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent.
1. Wheel washers for all exiting trucks shall be installed, or all trucks and equipment shall
be washed off before leaving the site.
J. Wind breaks shall be installed at windward side(s) of construction areas.
K. Excavation and grading activity shall be suspended when winds exceed 32 kph (20 mph).
L. Area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity shall be limited at any
one time.
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)?
07/25/10 «PA\DMJ070l\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-8
20A-59
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Less than significant impact. The following are six criteria pollutants as designated by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), particles (PM10, PM
2.5), nitrogen dioxide (N02), sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb).
The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin which is under attainment for the CO,
N02, S02, and Pb and is in non-attainment status for PM 2.5 and PM 10, and federal 03 8-hour standards
and state 03 1-hour. According to the Traffic Analysis Study (LSA, July 2007) the proposed project
will help to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion on roadway link in the project vicinity. The
proposed project is not expected to generate any additional traffic and the regional traffic trips pattern
would remain similar. Therefore, no new long-term regional emissions would result from
implementation of the proposed project. However, the proposed project could result in an increase in
load concentrations due to vehicle trips being attracted to the improved facility. Localized emissions
of CO and PM10 may increase with implementation of the proposed project however, the
concentration will not exceed ambient air quality standards. The proposed project would also not
create a new, or worsen an existing, PM10 or PM2.5 violation.
No exceedance of the SCAQMD criteria pollutant emissions thresholds would be anticipated during
construction of the proposed project. Short-term construction activities will comply with SCAQMD
Rule 403 regarding reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM10, listed in mitigation measure AQ-5) and Best
Available Control Measures (BALM). Implementation of these standard measures will further reduce
short term emissions resulting from use of construction equipment.
Therefore, the project will not result in cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants.
The proposed project's contribution to cumulative emissions of criteria pollutants is considered less
than significant.
D. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than significant impact. Sensitive receptors include the very young, the elderly, and those
suffering from certain respiratory illnesses or disabilities. Common locations of sensitive receptors
include schools, daycare centers, parks and recreational areas, medical facilities/hospitals, rest homes,
and convalescent care facilities. According to the above definition, sensitive receptors are present in
the project vicinity. Four schools are located within the 0.5 mile from the project site: Spurgeon
Intermediate and Edward B. Cole Senior Academy north-east of the project site, Lincoln Elementary
south-east of the project site, and Garden Grove USD: Russell Elementary School is located south
west of the project site. Students attending any of these schools may have respiratory sensitivity to
airborne dust during construction. However, the proposed project would not create a substantial
source of pollutant concentrations, as it will not create additional traffic. The project is not anticipated
to increase the CO levels such that they could have an impact on students. Because of the distant
location of the schools to the project site, the pollutants will most likely dissipate before reaching the
sensitive receptors. Therefore, the students will not likely be affected by the increase in pollutants
emissions on the project site. This is considered a less than significant impact. Refer to Hazards
Section VII for an additional discussion on airborne hazardous pollutants.
07/25/10 «PA\DMJ070l\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-9
20A-60
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project will produce odors during the asphalt application
during construction. These odors will dissipate very quickly and should not be present within one day
of the application. This impact is considered less than significant due to its temporary nature. The
operation of the project is not anticipated to result in objectionable odors. The implementation of the
project results in the same or similar odor characteristics (fuel exhaust) as existing conditions.
Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated, and no mitigation is required.
IV. 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 local or regional plans,
policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Services?
Less than significant impact with mitigation. The First Street Bridge is an urban use with no native
habitat. The study area for the proposed project has high density urban development, edged with
ornamental vegetation. There is some planted native vegetation (i.e., California encelia [Encelia
californica] and brittlebush [E. farinosa]) located in several landscaped areas outside the eastern edge
of the Santa Ana River.
A Natural Environmental Study (NES) (LSA Associates, Inc. March 2010) was prepared for the
proposed project. The study area evaluated in the NES is approximately 1,528 feet (ft) in length by
approximately 130 ft in width, inclusive of the approximately 435 ft long existing First Street Bridge.
The west end of the study area begins on the east side of the First Street and Susan Street intersection
and extends to the east, terminating in line with the east edge of a mobile home park on the north side
of First Street. Most of the study area width is the 130 ft area between the existing buildings and
residential communities and includes roadside ornamental vegetation, sidewalks, and other urban
features; however, a wider section of the study area includes a concrete bike path and ornamental
vegetation on the east side of the SAR and is 290 ft in width.
The study area is surrounded by high-density commercial and residential development and
ornamental vegetation associated with the development. The Santa Ana River is confined within an
open concrete channel as it flows south under the Bridge between Harbor Boulevard and Fairview
Street. Surface runoff from First Street is directed into the City's existing storm drain system.
Vegetation throughout the majority of the study area consists of ruderal and ornamental vegetation,
including planted native trees and shrubs (e.g., Bermuda grass [Cynodon dactylon], hottentot fig
[Carpobrotus edulis], bougainvillea [Bougainvillea sp.], fruit trees, gum tree [Eucalyptus sp.], pine
tree [Pinus sp.], sugar bush, and California encelia [Encelia californica]. Most of the ornamental trees
are mature, but limited in cover, with low potential as nesting trees, particularly for raptors.
The results of the literature review indicated the potential occurrence of 7 special-status and 28
special-interest plant species, as well as 11 special-status and 31 special-interest animal species. The
07/25/10 «P:\DMJ0701\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-10
20A-61
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
JULY 2010
INITIAL STUDYIMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
project area has suitable habitat and/or is within the elevation or distribution range for only some of
these species. A total of one plant and 12 animal species have at least low potential for occurrence
and are listed below.
• Southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis)
• Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus)
• California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra)
• Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)
• Coopers' hawk (Accipiter cooperii)
• Merlin (Falco columbarius)
• Allen's hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin)
• California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia)
• Western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus)
• Yuma myotis (Myotis yumansis)
• Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)
• Big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis)
No special-status/special-interest species (i.e., listed species, species proposed for listing, candidate
species, or species of interest) were observed or otherwise detected on site at the time of the site
visits. Most potentially occurring species are either not expected or have a low probability of
occurrence, but two bird species have low-moderate occurrence probability. Marginally suitable
habitat exists within the project limits for foraging and nesting Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), a
California Species of Special Concern species. Similarly, marginally suitable habitat exists within the
project limits for foraging and nesting Allen's hummingbird (Selasphorus Basin), a Special Animal.
Although these species were not observed during the surveys, it is likely that these species occur
occasionally within and near the site. In addition, the bat species may be affected by loss of roosting
habitat if bats are found to be day-roosting in the bridge structure. Overall, the project area is highly
developed and no signs of special status/special interest animal species were observed.
All native nesting birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The
proposed project is required to comply with the MBTA which prohibits disturbing or destroying
active nests. Project implementation must be accomplished in a manner that avoids impacts to active
nests during the breeding season. As documented in Mitigation Measure BIO-1, avoiding impacts can
be accomplished through a variety of means, including restricting brush and tree removal, if required,
to periods outside the avian nesting season (February 15 through August 15) or through performance
of nesting bird surveys prior to clearing when clearing occurs during the nesting season. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, potentially significant impacts to nesting birds would
be reduced to a level considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
07/25/10 «PA\DMJ0701\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doe
4-11
20A-62
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
BI0-1 All construction activities shall comply with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918
(MBTA). The MBTA governs the taking and killing of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and
nests and prohibits the take of any migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. Compliance
with the MBTA shall be accomplished by the following:
• Prior to commencement of construction activities (in January or February) installation of
a nesting bird/bat exclusionary device shall be installed on the existing bridge structures
to preclude birds and bats from nesting or roosting on the structure.
• If possible, all vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled from August 16 to
February 14, which is outside the typical nesting season. If vegetation is to be cleared
during the nesting season (February 15 to August 15), all suitable habitat shall be
thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist no more
than 7 days prior to clearing, and once weekly during construction to ensure that nesting
birds are not present within 100 ft of construction activities. If any active nests are
detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with a
buffer appropriate for the nesting species as determined by the qualified biologist. The
buffer area shall be avoided until the nesting cycle is complete or it is determined that the
nest has failed. In addition, the biologist will be present on site to monitor the vegetation
removal to ensure that any nests not detected during the initial survey are not disturbed.
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. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No impact. The project area is a developed urban use with little native vegetation. The Santa Ana
River is confined within an open concrete channel as it flows south under and perpendicular to the
bridge. Surface runoff from First Street is directed into the City's existing storm drain system. The
project study area does not contain any riparian habitat, and although several special concern natural
communities were identified during the literature search, none were identified within the study area
during the field survey. No significant impact to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
communities will result from project implementation, and no mitigation is required.
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 interruption, or other means?
Less than significant impact. The Santa Ana River is a tributary to the Pacific Ocean, which is a
"traditional navigable water," and within the project area it has been channelized with flat concrete
sides and bottom. The mouth of the Santa Ana River is a traditional navigable water and the ACOE
will determine whether the Santa Ana River in the project area is a traditional navigable water or a
relatively permanent water. The Santa Ana River is perennial and conveys runoff from urban water
uses. The SAR headwaters begin in the San Bernardino Mountains, flow into the Prado Basin in San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties, and passes west and then south through the Cities of Yorba
Linda, Anaheim, Orange, Santa Ana, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and Newport
Beach, where it flows into the Pacific Ocean.
07/25/10 ,,PA\DMJ0701\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-12
20A-63
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
A jurisdictional delineation was prepared to address the Santa Ana River within the study area. The
total area of ACOE nonwetland waters of the U.S. within the study area is approximately 1.86 ac.
There are no locations in the study area where potential ACOE jurisdictional wetlands occur (i.e.,
areas that satisfy all three criteria [i.e., soil, hydrology, vegetation] for ACOE jurisdictional wetlands).
The area satisfying the ACOE jurisdictional criteria for nonwetland area, (waters of the U.S), is also
subject to CDFG jurisdiction. In addition to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), the width of the
concrete banks can also be considered jurisdictional by the CDFG. Within the study area,
approximately 2.50 ac of nonriparian (concrete-lined) streambed are under CDFG jurisdiction;
however, due to the small area and the nonwetland status of the concrete channel, it is at the
discretion of CDFG whether it chooses to take jurisdiction over the project.
Construction activities include demolition of four existing bridge piers in the Santa Ana River. These
four piers will be replaced with two new piers for the new bridge. The reduction of piers in the Santa
Ana River is an overall benefit because it reduces flow impediments in the river.
Authorizations required will include the following:
(1) An ACOE Nation Wide Permit (NWP) No. 14 for linear transportation projects with
permanent impacts less than 0.50 ac within the OHWM of the SAR,
(2) An ACOE NWP No. 33 for temporary structures, work, and discharges necessary for
construction activities,
(3) Compliance with the General Conditions of any NWP, including notification to the ACOE
District Engineer with a preconstruction notification (PCN) as early as possible,
(4) A Streambed Alteration Notification (SAN) must be filed with CDFG for the permanent
bridge structure over the channel, and
(5) The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) needs to certify the use of
NWP Nos. 14 and 33 for this project.
D. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
No impact. The Santa Ana General Plan identifies two locally significant plant species: hibiscus is
the official city flower and jacaranda is the official city tree. There are neither hibiscus flowers nor
jacaranda trees on the project site. Moreover, the City of Santa Ana has not adopted any plant or tree
preservation policy or ordinance concerning those species. Therefore, no impact is anticipated and no
mitigation is required.
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?
07/25/10 <PA\DMJ070l\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-13
20A-64
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDYIMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
No impact. The proposed project is a bridge replacement and street widening in an urban and built-
out environment. Because the project would not affect any existing structures (the project occurs in
existing right-of-way) no historic properties will be affected according to the Historic Property
Survey Report (LSA, July 2010). First Street Santa Ana Bridge was initially built in 1937, widened in
1959 and seismically retrofitted in 2005. The existing bridge is listed as Category 5 in the Caltrans
Historic Highway Bridge Inventory: Bridge Number 5500022 and is not eligible for listing on the
National Register. The construction activities will be also conducted along First Street with no off-site
construction activities or staging. The shoulders of the First Street are highly unlikely to contain
significant historical resources within the project limits. The shoulders of the road were previously
disturbed, and the soil was graded and compacted. Therefore, minor excavation, grading, and other
construction activities that will occur within the street shoulders are not expected to result in the
discovery of previously unknown historical resources. Therefore, no impacts to historic resources as
defined in Section 15064.5 are anticipated.
B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource
pursuant to define Section 15064.5?
No impact. The proposed project is located in a completely built-out area and construction will occur
on previously disturbed lands. The site was previously graded, and covered with concrete or asphalt.
In addition, the depth of excavation for the bridge foundations (4 feet maximum) is not expected to
exceed the previously prepared soils under the bridge foundation. The widening of First Street will
also occur in previously disturbed soils, where no archaeological resources are expected to be found.
The proposed project is not anticipated to impact archaeological resources, and no mitigation is
required.
C. Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
Less than significant impact. The area of the project site is already built out and completely covered
with impervious surface (paved). The soils were previously disturbed and compressed, so the
sensitivity of the area for paleontological resources is low. The project site may contain unknown
subsurface fossil remains below grade or in the alluvium of Santa Ana River. Implementation of the
project will require excavation of up to 4 feet and some trenching for the bridge piles, and
foundations under the surface in the Santa Ana River Channel. Excavation deeper than 10 feet bgs
may result in encounter of Pleistocene sediments (greater then 10,000-year-old) which are rich in
paleontological resources. Since no excavation deeper than 10 ft bgs will occur during the project
construction there is very low potential to encounter Pleistocene aged sediments.
The First Street widening will occur on both sides of the street and will result in addition of one
through lane in each direction. The shoulders of the First Street within the right-of-way were
previously disturbed, compacted, and graded and the likelihood of finding known or unknown
paleontological resources is low. The construction activities will not likely affect paleontological
resources since none of them exist on the site. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources are not
anticipated to occur as a result of the project, and no mitigation is required.
D. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
07/25/10 «PA\DMJ070l\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-14
20A-65
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
No impact. The site has been previously graded and paved. As discussed in the V a) and V b) the site
has been disturbed for many years and no human remains are known or likely to exist on site.
However, if any unknown human remains are encountered the work will be halted and County
Coroner will be informed about the finding. As a result, no impact is anticipated, and no mitigation is
required.
VI. Geology and Soils
Would the project:
A. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
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 or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
Less than significant impact. As with all of Southern California, the proposed project site will be
subject to strong ground motion resulting from earthquakes. According to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) earthquake database (HAZUS) and the 1999 Index to Fault Zone Maps
(State Conservation Service Web site: http://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sp/sp42.pdf), there are
no major faults in the City of Santa Ana and no fault or fault Zone crosses the project site. Therefore
the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to rupture of a known earthquake
fault as delineated on the most Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map, and no mitigation is
required.
2. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than significant impact. The project site, like all of Southern California, is located in an active
seismic region. Ground shaking resulting from earthquakes associated with both nearby and more
distant faults is likely to occur. Several earthquake fault zones are located in Orange County,
including the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone which trends northwards and is located along the coast
line, the Whittier fault zone which trends north east along the Puente Hills, and the Norwalk Fault
which trends eastward along the southern edge of the Coyote Hills. Earthquakes on faults located
within the 50 miles from the City can cause damage within the City. Depending on their magnitude,
earthquakes generated within a 50-mile radius of a given point are considered noteworthy and could
cause minor to moderate damage.'
The project site will experience effects of the regional seismic activity; the risk of strong seismic
events would remain the same on site with the new bridge and street widening. The project does not
propose any additional structures and the potential risk is considered the same or less than the existing
risk due to the fact that the new bridge and First Street will conform to current building and seismic
1 Orange County General Plan, Safety Element, p. IX-80.
07/25/10 «P:\DMJ070l\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doa>
4-15
20A-66
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
standards. Project impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than significant impact. According to the California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard
Zonation Program,' the project area is in a potential liquefaction zone. The City of Santa Ana General
Plan also shows that the project site is located in the area of high to very high liquefaction zone.
Because the proposed bridge is located over Santa Ana River and extends 300 ft west and east from
the bridge the liquefaction potential is a function of the alluvial soil characteristics on site. The bridge
construction and First Street widening will be consistent with the City's Building Code and the
California Standard Building Code. Therefore, the project construction is not expected to create
additional potential liquefaction risk. The potential risk associated with the new bridge construction
and street widening may actually decrease the potential for seismic-related failure because the
proposed bridge would comply with existing seismic design criteria. Due to compliance with modern
building practices, project impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
4. Landslides?
No impact. According to the California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zonation Program,
project site is not located in the earthquake induced landslide zone. The site is already developed and
the replacement of the bridge and street widening will not create additional structures that could
expose people to landslides, mudslides, or elevated erosion on or off site. No impacts are anticipated,
and no mitigation is required.
B. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than significant impact with mitigation. During construction activities, soil would be exposed
and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion compared to existing conditions.
Construction would occur in an already built-out area, which was previously graded and compacted.
Construction activities would result in minor excavation occurring mostly in the channelized Santa
Ana River and are not anticipated to expose substantial areas of soil to additional erosion impacts.
The disturbed soil area during construction of the proposed project would be approximately 0.33 ac.
Erosion impacts would be minimized through implementation of Erosion and Sediment Control Best
Management Practices (BMPs). As specified in Mitigation Measure WQ-1, presented later in Section
VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, an Erosion Control Plan would be prepared for the proposed
project and would specify the specific BMPs, such as sand bags, to be implemented during
construction. The Erosion Control Plan would ensure the implementation and maintenance of BMPs
to reduce or eliminate sediment in storm water. With implementation of Erosion and Sediment
Control BMPs, as specified in Mitigation Measure WQ-1, impacts related to soil erosion during
construction would be reduced to below a level of significance.
' California Division of Land Resource Protection, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp/,
2007-08-10.
07/25/10 «PADMJ070l\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-16
20A-67
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
The proposed project would increase the impervious surface area by approximately 0.30 ac compared
to the existing roadway facility. Any increase in volume and velocity of runoff would not be
substantial and would be conveyed to the existing downstream conveyance channels which are
engineered, hardened, and regularly maintained. Project runoff would not be directed to unpaved
areas prone to erosion. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts
related to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil and no mitigation is required.
C. Would the project result in the loss of a unique geologic feature?
No impact. The proposed project is located in a built-out area, where no unique geologic features are
present. The proposed project would not impact any unique geologic features on the site and no
mitigation is required.
D. Is the project located on strata or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
No impact. The site is already built-out and the vicinity of the site is relatively flat and developed
with urban uses. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in on-or off-site landslides, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. No impact is expected and no mitigation is required.
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?
No impact. The proposed project does not include the use of septic tanks or alternative methods for
disposal of wastewater. The proposed project is a bridge replacement and street widening project; no
sewage disposal systems are planned. There would be no project impact related to the disposal of
wastewater and no mitigation is required.
VII. Hazards 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?
Less than significant impact with mitigation. According to the Initial Site Assessment (LSA, July,
2010) no hazardous materials are associated with the operation of the bridge or roadway. However,
lead-containing materials and asbestos-containing materials (AGMs) and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) may be present in the existing bridge structure and on the First Street. In general, ACMs and
lead-containing materials have been documented in the rail shim sheet packing, bearing pads, support
piers, and expansion joint material of bridges as well as asphalt and concrete. Short-term impacts
related to construction activities consist mostly of fugitive dust emissions and equipment exhaust.
07/25/10 «P:\DMJ0701\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-17
20A-68
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
The bridge demolition and street widening will generate different pollutant emissions. There is a
potential that during the demolition of the bridge, ACMs, could be released into the air. Any activity
that involves cutting, grinding, or drilling during demolition could release friable asbestos fibers
unless proper precautions are taken.
Utility pole-mounted electrical transformers were observed within the project limits. Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) were used in electrical transformers manufactured between 1929 and 1977. Leaking
transformers are considered a potential hazard for PCB. Therefore, surveys will be required prior to
relocation of these utilities.
First Street and the bridge contain some traffic stripes and pavement-marking materials (i.e., paint,
thermoplastic, permanent tape, and temporary tape) which may consist of lead. Yellow paints made
prior to 1995 may exceed hazardous waste criteria under Title 22, California Code of Regulations,
and may require disposal to a Class I disposal site. Therefore, any yellow traffic striping and
pavement-marking material should be tested and removed in accordance with Caltrans Standard
Special Provisions (SSP) XE 15-300.
Mitigation Measure HM-1 and compliance with current standards will reduce potential impacts
related to public and transportation of hazardous materials. All materials containing PCBs, lead based
paint, and asbestos will need to be removed, handled, and disposed of in accordance with State and
federal laws regulating remediation and disposal of these materials. Mitigation Measures HM-1
through HM -7 will reduce potential impacts to a level below significance.
Mitigation Measures
HM-1 Prior to bridge demolition and First Street widening testing and removal of any yellow traffic
striping and pavement-marking material will be required in accordance with Caltrans
Standard Special Provisions (SSP) XE 15-300.
HM-2 Prior to relocation of the utility pole-mounted transformers from the project site, transformers
should be inspected for leaks. Leaking transformers should be considered a potential for
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) hazard unless tested and should be handled accordingly.
HM-3 Prior to demolition a certified asbestos consultant should conduct asbestos testing of the
existing bridge.
HM-4 Prior to commencement of any construction activity, AGMs should be removed and disposed
of by a licensed and certified asbestos abatement contractor in accordance with Caltrans SSP
5.1-7, "Removal of Asbestos and Hazardous Substances.
HM-5 Any demolition or renovation of a structure requires notification and submittal of fees to the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at least 10 days prior to
proceeding with the demolition work (refer to SCAQMD Rule 1403). Failure to do so may
result in the City being cited for regulatory noncompliance. Notification would fall under
Sections 7-1.01F, Air Pollution Control, and 7-1.04, Permits and Licenses of the Standard
Specifications. Contractors will adhere to the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 1403 during
renovation/demolition activities.
07/25/10 uP:\DMJ0701\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doe. 4-18
20A-69
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDYIMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
HM-6 To ensure that utility owners mark the locations of underground transmission lines and
facilities, notify the Underground Service Alert of Southern California by calling 1-800-227-
2600 at least two working days prior to subsurface excavation.
HM-7 As is the case for any project that proposes excavation, the potential exists for unknown
hazardous contamination to be revealed during construction of the proposed First Street
Bridge widening improvements. For any previously unknown hazardous waste/material
encountered during construction, the procedures outlined in Appendix E, Caltrans Unknown
Hazards Procedures for Construction, will be followed.
B. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project does not have the potential to create a hazard to
the public or environment through upset or accident conditions that may lead to release of hazardous
materials. No chemicals will be used in the replacement of the bridge structure and street widening or
during the operation of the project that could result in foreseeable release of the hazardous materials.
However, the northern and southern bridge structure that will be demolished may contain lead-based
construction materials and asbestos, which will be removed and disposed of in accordance with State
and federal laws regulating asbestos remediation and disposal. The construction of the additional
through lanes on the First Street is not anticipated to create hazards to the public or environment. The
street may contain some traffic stripes and pavement-marking materials of the paint, however, they
will be tested, removed and disposed of to the Class I disposal site. Mitigation Measures HM-1
through HM-4, and HM-7 will further reduce the potential impact associated with ACMs and lead-
based materials that may occur during demolition of the bridge to less than significant levels.
C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than significant impact. The operation of the proposed project would not emit or involve
handling of hazardous materials or substances because the project is constrained to a bridge
replacement and street widening. No hazardous materials are associated with these uses. No existing
or proposed schools are located within the one-quarter from the project site. Less than significant
impacts are anticipated and the mitigation measures HM-1 through HM-4 will help to further reduce
the impacts.
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?
Less than significant impact. The project is located in a built-out area, and previous uses of this site
have not involved the use or operation of any hazardous materials. However, according to the ISA
(LSA, July 2010) five known releases of hazardous substances occurred within 0.33 mile of the
project vicinity, consisting of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST). Three leaking
underground storage tanks (LUSTS) containing gasoline were issued closure letters and therefore, are
not considered to pose a concern to the project site. Two other LUSTS affected groundwater and are
currently undergoing remediation. According to records obtained from the RWQCB and the
07/25/10 «P:\DMJ0701\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-19
20A-70
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDYIMITI GATE D NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
GeoTracker database, groundwater impacts at these properties are limited to areas immediately
surrounding the release site. Therefore, no significant hazards on or in the vicinity of the project site
currently exist that would impact the public or environment. Less than significant impacts are
expected and no mitigation is required.
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?
No impact. The proposed project is not located within the airport land use plan or within two miles
from the airport. The nearest airport, John Wayne Airport in Santa Ana, is located approximately 5
miles south from the project site. According to the Airport Environs Element of General Plan, the
proposed project is also located outside of the Federal Aviation Administration Notification Area.
Therefore, no impacts are expected and no mitigation is required.
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?
No impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of the private airstrip and therefore, will not
result in a safety hazards for people residing in the project area. No impact is anticipated and no
mitigation is required.
G. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
No impact. The proposed project will not change the access to and from the project site in case of
emergency. The proposed project will widen First Street and the bridge over Santa Ana River to the
master planned width of 6 lanes. Access to the project will be accomplished through existing access
via First Street, the OCFCD maintenance road on the west side of the Santa Ana River, and the Santa
Ana River Bicycle Trail on the east side of the Santa Ana. During construction activities one through
lane in each direction will remain open. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would
not interfere with any adopted emergency plan. No mitigation is required.
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?
No impact. As shown on Figure 2 of Section 2, the project is located in an urban area and most likely
would not be affected by wildland fires because they tend to occur on an urban/rural fringe and in
undeveloped natural areas. No impact is anticipated, and no mitigation is required.
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
A. Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
07/25/10 «PA\DMJ070l\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-20
20A-71
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDYIMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Construction. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be
an increased potential for soil erosion due to rainfall/runoff and wind compared to existing conditions.
The disturbed soil area during construction of the project would be approximately 0.33 ac. In
addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and
concrete-related waste may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to be transported via storm
runoff into receiving waters. Dewatering of groundwater is not anticipated during construction.
Construction impacts would be minimized through implementation of Erosion and Sediment Control
Best Management Practices (BMPs), as well as BMPs that control other potential construction-related
pollutants. As specified in Mitigation Measure WQ-1, an Erosion Control Plan would be prepared for
the proposed project and would specify the specific BMPs, such as sand bags, to be implemented
during construction. The Erosion Control Plan would ensure the implementation and maintenance of
BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment, pollutants adhering to sediment, and other nonsediment
pollutants in storm water as well as non-storm water discharges.
Operation. Pollutants of concern during operation of a transportation facility include sediments,
trash, petroleum products, metals, and chemicals. Because the project would widen First Street and
the First Street Bridge, it would result in a permanent increase of impervious surfaces and a
permanent increase in runoff and pollutant loading. The project would increase the impervious
surface area by approximately 0.30 ac compared to the existing roadway facility. An increase in
impervious area would increase the volume of runoff during a storm, which would more effectively
transport pollutants to receiving waters. Proposed conditions would follow the drainage pattern of the
existing conditions.
Currently there are no Treatment BMPs within the project area, and runoff from the project area is
untreated. In order to prevent degradation of receiving water quality with construction of the proposed
project, the City would implement Source Control, Site Design, and Treatment Control BMPs,
consistent with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the City's Local
Implementation Plan (LIP). Implementation of these BMPs is specified in Mitigation Measure WQ-
2.
Proposed Source Control BMPs include common area landscape management, BMP maintenance,
storm drain stenciling, and slope protection and energy dissipation. Proposed Site Design BMPs
include minimizing impervious areas and connectivity. Proposed Treatment Control BMPs include a
biofiltration swale and catch basin inserts. The proposed Treatment Control BMPs would target
sediment, heavy metals, organic compounds, trash and debris, oil and grease, and bacteria and
viruses. The biofiltration Swale would be located in the southwest portion of the project area, within
the landscaped area. The catch basin inserts would be installed in the existing catch basins located on
the east side of North Harper Street and West First Street and on the south side of West First Street
and North Gunther Place.
With incorporation of construction and postconstruction BMPs, as specified in Mitigation Measures
WQ-1 and WQ-2, impacts related to waste discharge requirements and water quality standards would
be reduced to less than significant levels.
07/25/10 ,TA\DMJ0701\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-21
20A-72
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Measures
WQ-1 During final design, the City of Santa Ana shall prepare specifications for an Erosion Control
Plan, to be included in the bid package that describes the best management practices (BMPs)
to be implemented during construction. The BMPs shall include Erosion and Sediment
Control BMPs from the California Stormwater Quality Association's Stormwater Best
Management Practice Handbook - Construction. The City of Santa Ana shall ensure that the
construction contractor implements and maintains the BMPs identified in the Erosion Control
Plan during project construction.
WQ-2 During final design, the City of Santa Ana shall prepare a Final Water Quality Management
Plan (WQMP) that details the Source Control, Site Design, and Treatment Control BMPs to
be incorporated into the proposed project. The BMPs shall be consistent with the Orange
County Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) and City of Santa Ana Local Implementation
Plan (LIP) and shall be properly designed, installed, and maintained to target pollutants of
concern. The Source Control, Site Design, and Treatment Control BMPs shall include, but
not be limited to, common area landscape management, BMP maintenance, storm drain
stenciling, slope protection and energy dissipation, minimization of impervious areas and
connectivity, a biofiltration swale, and catch basin inserts.
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)?
Less than significant impact. The project does not require use of water from a groundwater well or
aquifer; therefore, groundwater supplies would not be affected by the proposed project. Historically,
groundwater has been encountered between 5 and 28 ft below ground surface (bgs). Groundwater is
not anticipated to be encountered during construction of the proposed project; therefore, groundwater
dewatering is not anticipated. The project proposes bridge replacement and street widening. These
uses currently exist on the site and do not require provision of potable water. Consequently, the
proposed project will also not require an additional provision of potable water.
The project would result in an addition of 0.30 ac of impervious area on site due to the street
widening and thus reducing the amount of area available for groundwater infiltration. The project site
is not considered an important area for groundwater recharge due to its high level of development.
Therefore, impacts to groundwater supply are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is
required.
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?
Less than significant with mitigation. As discussed in detail in VII1.A., during construction the
project would be required to implement an Erosion Control Plan and implement Erosion and
07/25/10 ,P:\DMJ0701\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-22
20A-73
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Sediment Control BMPs to prevent soil erosion during soil disturbance activities. Implementation of
the Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs, as specified in Mitigation Measure WQ-1, would prevent
adverse soil erosion and subsequent siltation impacts during construction.
Existing runoff from the project site sheet flows into the curb and gutters and then into catch basins.
The street widening and bridge replacement would not alter the drainage pattern on or off-site and
runoff would continue to follow the same drainage pattern as the existing conditions. The Proposed
project would increase the impervious surface area by approximately 0.30 ac compared to the existing
roadway facility. Any increase in volume and velocity of runoff from the 0.30 ac increase in
impervious surface area would not be substantial and would be conveyed to the existing downstream
conveyance channels which are engineered, hardened and regularly maintained. Project runoff would
not be directed to unpaved areas prone to erosion. The replacement of the bridge piers and nosing
would occur within the Santa Ana River, which is concrete-lined within the project area and not
subject to erosion. Therefore, the modifications within the Santa Ana River would not increase
erosion. For these reasons, erosion and siltation impacts as a result of changes to existing drainage
patterns would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
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?
Less than significant impact. As discussed above in VIII.C., the proposed project would not alter
the existing drainage pattern of the site. The project would increase the impervious surface area by
approximately 0.30 ac compared to the existing roadway facility. However, the rate and volume of
surface water runoff from the facility would not increase substantially and would not cause flooding
in the area. Therefore, impacts related to capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system would
be less than significant.
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-off?
Less than significant impact with mitigation. The proposed project would not create or contribute
runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial sources of polluted runoff. The Proposed project would increase the impervious
surface area by approximately 0.30 ac compared to the existing roadway facility. This small increase
in impervious area is not large enough to exceed the capacity of the existing storm drains. However,
an increase in impervious area could result in an increase in pollutant loading to receiving waters. As
specified in Mitigation Measure WQ-2, Source Control, Site Design, and Treatment BMPs would be
incorporated into the project design to treat pollutants of concern in runoff from the project site prior
to discharge to the City storm drain system. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure
WQ-2, impacts related to addition of polluted run-off to the stormwater drainage system would be
reduced to less than significant.
F. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
07/25/10 «TA\DMJ0701\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-23
20A-74
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Less than significant impact with mitigation. Refer to VIILA., above. The site is currently
developed; the proposed project does not result in greater water quality impacts other than existing
uses. Vehicles using the existing site are already generating some pollutants which settle down on the
street surface. The proposed project does not increase traffic volumes and therefore, will not result in
substantial increase of the pollutants on site. Due to the high percentage of impervious surfaces
already existing on site, no aspect of the proposed project could result in a substantial degradation of
water quality because of the small amount of infiltration. No excessive runoff or discharge is
anticipated to occur as a result of the project. Less than significant impacts are anticipated with the
implementation of Mitigation Measures WQ-1 and WQ-2.
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?
No impact. The proposed project does not involve housing development and would not place
housing within a 100-year floodplain. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is
required.
H. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than significant impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06059CO256J (December 3, 2009), the Santa Ana River 100-
year floodplain within the project area is designated as Zone A, with the 1 percent annual chance
flood discharge contained in the channel. The portions of the project area outside of the Santa Ana
River are designated as Zone X, which is an area determined to be outside of the 100-year and 500-
year floodplains.
Construction activities would be required within the Santa Ana River 100-year floodplain in order to
replace the bridge piers and nosing. All construction activities in the channel would be conducted
during the dry season (April 15 to October 15). Therefore, construction activities associated with
replacement of the bridge within the 100-year floodplain is not expected to impede or redirect flood
flows.
Four existing bridge piers and nosing, totaling 0.024 ac, would be permanently removed from the
Santa Ana River channel and be replaced with two bridge piers and nosings totaling 0.015 ac
resulting in a net decrease of 0.009 ac of structures within the 100-year floodplain. Replacing the
bridge piers would result in a minimal decrease in flood flow elevations, which would continue to be
contained within the Santa Ana River 100-year floodplain. Replacement of the bridge piers would not
substantially impede or redirect flood flows; therefore impacts related to flood flows would be less
than significant. No mitigation is required.
L 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?
Less than significant impact. According to the Santa Ana General Plan, Safety Element, Santa Ana
River has a normally dry river bed and broad engineered channel banked by high earthen levees.
Although the likelihood of significant flood hazard is low, Santa Ana River has a history of
07/25/10 «P:\DMJ0701\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doe.
4-24
20A-75
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
overflowing its banks. Throughout Santa Ana River Basin the potential exists for massive
downstream flooding resulting from the failure of the Prado Dam, which is located 24 miles north-
east of the project site. If Prado Dam failed while at full capacity the project site would be located
within the potential flood inundation area. However, the proposed project would not expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding to a greater extent that under
existing project conditions. Therefore, less than significant impact is expected and no mitigation is
required.
J. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No impact. The proposed project is located within a developed urban area and there are no water
bodies such as lakes or reservoirs that could generate a seiche large enough to inundate the area. The
proposed project is located inland, approximately 9.5 miles from the ocean (USGS mapping), and is
not within a tsunami zone.' The project site and surrounding area are relatively flat and there are no
hillsides or slope areas adjacent to the site that could generate a mudflow. Therefore, no impact
related to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow is anticipated to occur in the project area. No mitigation is
required.
IX. Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
A. Physically divide an established community?
Less than significant impact. The communities around the project site consist mostly of the
manufactured housing parks, and apartment complex buildings that are already physically separated
by the existing First Street and bridge over Santa Ana River. The proposed project will not change
this configuration of the First Street and bridge. The proposed project will widen the First Street by
adding one through travel lane in each direction and replace existing bridge structure. The project will
also incorporate continuous pedestrian walk along the First Street and Santa Ana Bridge, thus
improving the mobility among the manufactured housing park communities. Because the project will
implement a sidewalk, it would provide beneficial effects for the surrounding communities. The
bridge replacement will be conducted in two phases in order to reduce impacts to traffic. During
northern bridge structure replacement, the traffic will continue to use the southern bridge structure.
After completion of the northern bridge structure activities, the southern bridge structure will be
replaced, and the traffic will utilize the northern bridge structure. Therefore, First Street will remain
open during all construction activities. The construction activities will temporarily obstruct the
movement of bicycles on the Santa Ana River Trail and therefore will require implementation of the
detouring plan. The plan will reduce the temporary construction impacts allowing the cyclists to use
nearby streets during the time of construction. Please refer to Section 2.0 for details regarding the
detouring plan. Less than significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
1 http://nmviewogc.cr.usgs.gov/viewer.htm (USGS mapping), 2007-08-30.
07/25/10 «PA\DMJ070l\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc
4-25
20A-76
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
JULY 2010
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
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?
No impact. The improvement and enhancement of existing roadways are consistent with the goals
and policies identified in the City's General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the OCTA's
Master Plan of Arterial Highways as well as the SCAG anticipated growth in the region. According to
the City of Santa Ana General Plan, Land Use Element, First Street is located in a completely built
out area and the Santa Ana River Bridge is located in the open space zone. The surrounding land uses
encompass low density residential in north-west quadrant, general commercial and low density
residential in south-west quadrant, medium density residential and general commercial in south-east
quadrant, professional and administrative in north-east quadrant. The proposed project will continue
to utilize the bridge and the First Street and would not change the existing land use of the site or
conflict with any specific plan or zoning ordinance, or regulations. No impact is anticipated, and no
mitigation is required..
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
No impact. The First Street Santa Ana Bridge is located in a developed urban area (City of Santa
Ana; Google Maps, accessed August 2007). There are no habitat/natural community conservation
plans delineated in the area. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation is required.
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?
No impact. According to the California Geologic Survey, no known mineral resources or locally
important resources exist on site.' The proposed project will not affect this status. Therefore, no
impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation is required.
B. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No impact. Please refer to the X.A. The City of Santa Ana General Plan states that there are no
mineral resources and no mineral extraction activities. Therefore, no impact is expected, and no
mitigation is required..
XI. Noise
' http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/geologic-resources/mineral_resource_mapping/
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/minerals/images/YellowMap.pdf, 2007-08-27
07/25/10 «PADMJ070l\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-26
20A-77
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Would the project result in:
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?
Less than significant impact with mitigation. Implementation of the proposed project would not
result in a noticeable increase in noise levels on site due to the fact that the proposed project does not
introduce any new land use type. The project will replace the bridge and widen First Street, and
therefore, would not introduce new noise sources. According to the Noise Analysis (LSA Associates,
Inc., 2010) the noise levels under the proposed project conditions will be similar to the existing noise
levels.
A slight increase in noise level is some locations may be expected and therefore, the abatement
measures like sound barrier walls will be implemented to reduce noise levels so it will not affect the
nearby receptors. Sound barrier walls were necessary only on the north side because the centerline of
the roadway would shift to the north and relocate travel lanes closer to residences on the north side of
First Street (in the area where there are only two travel lanes in each direction today). Whereas, the
curb on the south side remains very close to its existing location and therefore noise levels on the
south side would not be substantially affected by the project. Two sound barrier walls are proposed,
one in the northwest quadrant and one in the northeast quadrant of the project site, protecting
apartment complex and mobile home park from elevated noise levels, accordingly. The locations of
these sound barrier walls are shown in Figure 17 in Section 2. Sound barrier wall number 1 (north
west quadrant) will be located in place of the existing 5 ft wall which separates the First Street from
the apartment complex. The sound barrier wall will be approximately 9-12 ft height and extend 238 ft
from the existing entrance on the First Street westerly to the N Susan Street. Sound barrier wall
number 4 along the edge of shoulder on the north east side of the First Street will be 6-14 ft high and
will extend 477 ft easterly from Santa Ana River to the existing entrance to the park at First Street.
The sound barrier walls will be located approximately 12 ft from the nearest travel lane.
These two sound barrier walls satisfy noise standards for the Federal Highway Administration Noise
Abatement Criteria and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), so they have been
incorporated into the project. In addition, sound barrier wall number 2 would extend from the
northwest edge of the bridge abutment and proceed west to the edge of the driveway access to the
apartment complex would be required to meet the City's noise standards. This wall would be 10 feet
high. This sound barrier wall is also shown in Figure 17 in Section 2.0. Table 4.1 shows the existing
and after project noise conditions using a 24-hour noise standard called Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL).1 Table 4.1 shows the existing 2007 measured CNEL levels, future without the project
modeled noise levels, and future with project modeled noise levels. The last two columns show the
change from the with project and without project future conditions and whether the change triggers
abatement under the City's policies. Where there is a 3 dB CNEL increase in the change, abatement is
' CNEL measurements are a weighted average of sound levels throughout a 24-hour period.
Different weighting factors apply to day, evening, and nighttime periods. This recognizes that
community members are most sensitive to noise in late night hours and are more sensitive during
evening hours than in daytime hours.
07/25/10 «PADMJ070l\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doco
4-27
20A-78
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
JULY 2010
INITIAL STU DY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Table 4.1: Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) Calculations With and Without
Project
With Calibration (CNEL)
Sound
Barrier
No.
Modeled
Receptor
Existing
(2007)
Without
Project
(2030) Future
With
Project
(2030) Change
from
Without
Project
Requires
Abatement
1 R-1 70 71 72 1 no
1 R-2 71 72 73 1 no
2 R-3 69 70 72 2 no
2 R-4 67 68 70 2 no
2 R-5 67 67 70 2 no
2 R-6 66 67 70 2 no
2 R-7 66 67 69 2 no
2 R-8 64 65 67 2 no
2 R-9 63 64 67 3 es
2 R-10 64 65 67 2 no
NR R-11 67 68 70 1 no
NR R-12 68 69 70 1 no
NR R-13 63 63 65 2 no
NR R-14 62 63 64 1 no
NR R-15 62 63 64 1 no
4 R-16 66 67 70 3 es
4 R-17 65 66 69 3 es
4 R-18 62 63 65 3 no
4 R-19 62 62 65 2 no
4 R-20 60 61 63 2 no
4 R-21 55 56 58 2 no
4 R-22 70 70 73 2 no
4 R-23 64 65 67 2 no
4 R-24 56 57 58 2 no
4 R-25 71 72 75 3 nol
4 R-26 52 53 55 2 no
NR R-27 58 58 60 1 no
NR R-28 58 59 61 2 no
NR R-29 57 58 59 2 no
NR R-30 54 55 56 2 no
NR R-31 64 65 66 2 no
07/25/10 «P:0MJO7Ol\MNDk1.0 Environmental Analysis.docu
4-28
20A-79
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
JULY 2010
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
With Calibration (CNEL)
Sound
Barrier
No.
Modeled
Receptor
Existing
(2007)
Without
Project
(2030) Future
With
Project
(2030) Change
from
Without
Project
Requires
Abatement
NR R-32 53 54 55 2 no
NR R-33 66 67 69 2 no
NR R-34 64 65 67 2 no
NR R-35 67 68 68 1 no
NR R-36 63 63 64 1 no
NR R-37 71 71 75 3 not
NR R-38 60 61 62 1 no
NR R-39 49 50 51 1 no
NR R-40 68 69 70 1 no
1. No outdoor use area exists at this location.
2. No sensitive receptor is located at this location.
Highlight indicates that the Future With Project noise level exceeds 65 CNEL.
NR = Not required
07/25/10 «PADMJO7O1\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-29
20A-80
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDYIMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
required unless there is no sensitive receptor at that location or there is no outdoor use such as a patio,
balcony, or backyard. Calculations have been rounded to the nearest integer in Table 4.1 for ease of
expression. Under CEQA, sound barrier walls 2 and 4 are necessary to abate traffic noise with the
bridge replacement and road widening.
The construction phase of the proposed project will generate short-term construction-related noise
that will expose sensitive receptors to some noise levels exceeding City of Santa Ana noise standards.
The bridge demolition and pile driving will require use of loud construction equipment and activities,
which will take place during the hours allowed by the "City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance". Loud
equipment will be used during the midday to provide quiet hours. Following completion of
demolition and street widening, noise associated with the construction will cease.
City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance
According to the City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance Article VI, the City is designated a Zone 1,
which means that exterior noise levels during the day (lam-10 pm) should not exceed 55 db, and
should not exceed 50 dB during the night (10 pm- 7 am). The City further exempts certain categories
of noise (including construction related noise) from this provision.
(e) 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.
All construction activities will be in compliance with the City Noise Ordinance, which limits
construction-related noise to the hours of 7:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m. weekdays and Saturdays, with no
construction allowed at any time on Sundays or federal holidays.
Although the City recognizes that construction noise is a nuisance, it acknowledges that noise is an
inevitable part of construction activities, which are temporary and necessary for development.
Construction activities are generally short-term, and noise from these activities ceases subsequent to
the project build out. The Municipal Code exempts construction noise from the noise ordinance by
scheduling construction activities during the least noise-sensitive part of the day.
Also, to minimize the construction noise impact for sensitive land adjacent to the project site,
construction noise is regulated by Caltrans Standard Specifications, Section 5-1, "Sound Control
Requirements," in the Standard Special Provisions. These provisions follow:
"Sound control shall conform to the provisions in Section 7-1.01I, Sound Control
Requirements, of the Standard Specifications and these special provisions. The noise level
from the Contractor's operations, between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., shall not
exceed 86 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. This requirement in no way relieves the contractor
from responsibility for complying with local ordinances regulating noise level. The noise
level requirement shall apply to the equipment on the job or related to the job, including but
not limited to trucks, transit mixer or transient equipment that may or may not be owned by
the contractor. The use of loud signals shall be avoided in favor of light warnings except
those required by safety laws for the protection of personnel. Full compensation for
conforming to the requirements of this section shall be considered as included in the prices
07/25/10 «PADMJ0701\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doe.
4-30
20A-81
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
JULY 2010
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
paid for the various contract items of work involved and no additional will be allowed
therefor."
Implementation of the Mitigation Measure N-1 and compliance with the City Noise Ordinance and
Caltrans Standard Specifications will minimize short-term noise impacts to a level below
significance.
Mitigation Measure
N-1 Prior to authorization of final construction plans, the following measures shall be included in
the numbered specifications of the plans:
a. Sec. 18-314. Special provisions of the Article VI City Municipal Code requires that
construction activities be prohibited between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on the
weekdays and Saturdays, with no construction activities occurring at any time on
Sundays or federal holidays.
b. Noise-generating construction equipment operated on site shall be equipped with the
most modern and effective noise control devices (i.e., mufflers, lagging, and/or motor
enclosures). All equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise
due to worn or improperly maintained parts would be generated.
c. Truck deliveries and haul-off shall use approved haul routes that are away from noise-
sensitive locations.
d. Noisier construction (e.g., demolition, backhoe operations) activities shall be scheduled
during the midday, if feasible, so that a quiet period can be provided.
e. The contractor shall notify the existing tenants in advance of any and all construction
activities. The construction manager's (or representative) telephone number shall also be
provided with the notification so that community concerns can be communicated.
f. Construction noise should be monitored during high levels of activity to determine
compliance with local noise criteria. In the event that the noise criteria is exceeded, the
construction activities would be reviewed to determine whether there are reasonable
means to further mitigate the construction noise.
g. Mechanical equipment used during the operation of the project shall be acoustically
engineered, incorporating quite designs, mufflers, enclosures, parapets, etc., so that noise
generated by theses operations would not exceed the noise standard at receptor locations.
B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would involve use of equipment or vehicles that
could create a substantial groundborne vibration to nearby uses or expose nearby residents to an
excessive vibration during demolition activities. These effects are temporary and will cease upon the
project completion. The operation of the project will not result in generation of vibration impacts
other than impacts that already occur on the site. Therefore, the impacts are considered less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
07/25/10 «PADMJ0701\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-31
20A-82
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
JULY 2010
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
Less than significant impact. According to the Noise Analysis (LSA Associates, Inc.) the noise
levels under the proposed project conditions will be similar to the existing noise levels. The proposed
project does not introduce new land use types and does not generate substantial increase in traffic
levels in the project site. Slight increase in noise level may be expected in some locations; 3 sensitive
receptor locations were identified along the First Street that will require incorporation of noise
abatement measures. Noise levels at these locations approach or exceed 65 dBA CNEL which is the
City's noise standard in the General Plan Noise Element. Therefore, three sound barrier walls will be
implemented as part of the project (and are described in Section 2.0) to reduce the traffic noise so that
it will not affect the nearby receptors. Therefore, with incorporation of these noise abatement
measures as part of the project design, less then significant impacts are expected.
D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without project?
Less than significant impact with mitigation. The proposed project will result in a temporary
increase in ambient noise levels during construction. The first type of construction noise would be
generated by commuting construction crew and the transport of construction equipment and materials
to and off site. The second type of construction noise would be generated during demolition of the
bridge, excavation, grading and street widening due to the use of loud construction equipment. The
site preparation phase, which includes demolition and grading, tends to generate the highest noise
levels, because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment which includes
excavating machinery such as backfillers, bulldozers, front loaders, and compacting equipment such
as compactors, scrapers, and graders. Construction of the proposed project is also expected to require
the use of water trucks, and pickup trucks. Table 4.2 shows the typical construction equipment
schedule during the construction activities.
Table 4.2: Typical Construction Equipment Schedule
Type of Equipment Range of Maximum Sound
Levels Measured (dBA at
50 feet Suggested Maximum Sound
Levels for Analysis
(dBA at 50 feet
Pile drivers, 12,000 to 18,000 ft-lb/blow 81-96 93
Rock drills 83-99 96
Jackhammers 75-85 82
Pneumatic tools 78-88 85
Pumps 74-84 80
Dozers 77-90 85
Scrapers 83-91 87
Haul trucks 83-94 88
Cranes 79-86 82
Portable generators 71-87 80
Rollers 75-82 80
Tractors 77-82 80
Front-end loaders 77-90 86
Hydraulic backhoes 81-90 86
07/25/10 «PADMJ070l\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-32
20A-83
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Type of Equipment Range of Maximum Sound
Levels Measured (dBA at
50 feet) Suggested Maximum Sound
Levels for Analysis
dBA at 50 feet
Hydraulic excavators 81-90 86
Graders 79-89 86
Air compressors 76-89 86
Trucks 81-87 86
Source: Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, Bolt, Beranek & Newman (1987).
dBA = A-weighted decibels
ft-lb/blow= foot-pounds per blow
The closest sensitive receptor locations are located approximately 50 ft from the new sound barrier
construction areas. These receptor locations may be subject to short-term noise exceeding acceptable
levels (91 dBA L.x) generated by construction activities along the project alignment. However, as
provided in the X "A" the construction activities will be limited to the allowed hours and with
incorporation of Mitigation Measure N-1, noise related impacts will be reduced to less than
significant levels.
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?
No impact. The proposed project is not located near an airport and would not be affected by any land
use or noise regulations associated with an airport because the project site is 8 miles from John
Wayne Airport (Thomas Bros Maps, Orange County Street Guide, 2007, p. 828 J-3, p. 829 A-3). No
impact is anticipated, and no mitigation is required.
I. 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.
No impact. The proposed project is not located near a private airstrip and would not be affected by
any land use or noise regulations associated with the operation of a private airstrip (General Plan,
Airport Environs Element, 1987). No impact is anticipated, and no mitigation is required.
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)?
No impact. The project is already developed with commercial and residential land uses, as shown on
Figure 2 of Section 2.0. The proposed project will not change or add any new land use type on the
site.
07/25/10 «P:\DMJ0701\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-33
20A-84
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
The proposed project is not growth inducing because it does not propose any new development, or
does not extend the roads or other structures beyond what was already master-planned for the First
Street. The proposed project would replace Santa Ana Bridge and widen First Street to its Master
Planned width of 6 lanes. Approximately 300 feet east and west from the bridge First Street is a 6
lanes major arterial, whereas the existing bridge accommodates only 4 travel lanes. The proposed
bridge over Santa Ana River will accommodate 6 lanes to fit the current capacity of First Street on
both sides of the bridge. Therefore, the proposed project is considered a gap closure project, and will
not result in direct or indirect growth impacts. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is
required.
B. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No impact. The proposed project will not result in displacement of existing housing. The proposed
project right-of-way is confined to the First Street and the project will not permanently acquire any
new parcels. However, the First Street widening will require utility relocations and may require
implementation of temporary construction easements due to addition of one lane in each direction.
Upon the completion of the project design, the number of construction easements will be determined.
A very small amount of right-of-way may be required off-site for the construction of sound and
retaining walls. No residential relocation would occur as a result of the project. Because the project
does not displace housing or result in need in provision of additional housing no impacts are expected
and no mitigation is required.
C. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No impact. The proposed project will not lead to displacement of people. The proposed project will
not require any temporary or permanent parcel acquisitions and will not lead to relocation of people.
The proposed project will require only minor temporary construction easements for construction of
the sound wall. However, these easements will not result in displacement impacts. No mitigation is
required.
XIII. Public Services
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 governmental
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:
Less than significant impact. The proposed project will not require provision of additional public
services or utilities. However, construction of the bridge and widening of the First Street will result in
the relocation of several utility lines: overhead power poles and telephone lines, and water mains.
Construction activities will relocate overhead electrical lines owned by SCE and overhead telephone
07/25/10 ,P:\DMJ070 1\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-34
20A-85
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDYIMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
lines owned by AT&T which are currently located along the north side of the First Street. After the
completion of the improvements on the north side of the project limits the utility lines will be
relocated to the proposed sidewalk. The construction activities will also impact water mains. One
water main owned by the City is affixed to the deck on the south side of the bridge, on the outside of
the exterior girder. After construction of the north side of the bridge, the existing water main will be
relocated to the north side of the new bridge, affixed to the deck on the outside of the exterior girder.
A 6-inch reclaimed water main and a 2-inch electrical conduit run parallel to the Santa Ana River, on
the east side and crosses under the bridge. These facilities are utilized for the landscaping within the
channel right-of-way and will require relocation as part of the bridge construction. The final
relocation plans of these utility lines have not been determined yet, however, two relocation
alternatives are taken into consideration:
1. Temporary relocation by affixing the main/conduit to the slope paving during the
construction of the abutment, then permanently relocate the main/conduit to the abutment
face, at the top of slope paving, once the bridge construction is completed. This will provide
full access to the facilities.
2. Permanent relocation by installing the main/conduit in a steel casing behind the abutment,
crossing First Street. This will limit the future accessibility to the facilities; however, the
relocation could be done in single stage.
The construction impacts will be temporary and after relocation of the utilities, there will be no
additional impacts are expected. All utility lines relocation will be conducted wit the close
coordination with involved agencies/owners, and therefore, less then significant impacts are expected
and no mitigation is required. Below is a list of the utilities that could be affected and the parties that
the City will coordinate with for access or relocation.
Overhead Electrical (Southern California Edison)
Overhead Telephone (AT&T)
Gas (Southern California Gas)
84-inch RCP Sewer (Orange County Sanitation District)
Fiber Optic (Multiple Owners)
Storm Drain (private)
Water (City)
6-inch Reclaimed Water (County of Orange)
Fire protection?
No impact. The surrounding area is served by the Station Number 8, located just west of the project
site at 501 N. Newhope Street. No major changes other than bridge replacement and street widening
are anticipated to occur to the current configuration of First Street . Therefore, there is no additional
requirement or need for fire protection or emergency services or facilities in the project area. No
impact is anticipated, and no mitigation is required.
Police protection?
07/25/10 ,<PA\DMJ0701\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc,,
4-35
20A-86
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
No impact. The surrounding area is served by the City of Santa Ana Westend Substation 1, located
just south of the project site at 3750 W. McFadden Avenue. The proposed project will not change the
land use type and therefore will not require provision of additional police services. No impact is
anticipated, and no mitigation is required.
Schools?
No impact. The proposed project does not anticipate the provision or need for any education-related
services. The proposed project is a bridge replacement and widening of First Street. There is no need
for the provision of educational facilities because the project does not propose housing development
or student-related faculties. The project will not result in the physical deterioration of any existing
school buildings, as its operation does not relate to the provision or need of any educational services.
No impact is anticipated, and no mitigation is required.
Parks?
No impact. There are 3 recreational parks and a golf course located within 1 mile distance from the
bridge: Spurgeon Park, Caesar Chavez Campesino Park, Santa Anita Park, and the Willowick golf
course. The proposed project would not result in the physical deterioration of park facilities or a need
for additional park facilities. The proposed project will replace the bridge over Santa Ana River and
widen First Street to accommodate 6 travel lanes. The project does not involve new housing
development and therefore will not increase the amount of local residents who will be using local
parks or recreational trails. Therefore, the project would not increase the demand for the existing park
facilities. No impact is expected, and no mitigation is required.
Other public facilities?
No impact. The proposed project will widen portions of the First Street in order to match the existing
street configuration at the east and west ends of the project limits. There will be no other changes to
First Street and the bridge over Santa Ana River. There is no additional need for the provision of
public and governmental services or facilities in the project area. No impacts are expected and no
mitigation is required.
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?
No impact. The proposed project will not increase the use of or demand for recreational facilities.
According to the Santa Ana General Plan, the Santa Ana River is a regional inter-city corridor and a
part of the regional open space network. The Santa Ana River Bicycle Trail runs north-south along
the east side of the Santa Ana River and underneath the First Street/Santa Ana Bridge. The OCTA
CBSP designates the bike trail as Class 1, and extends from the Chino Hills State Park in north
Orange County to the mouth of the Santa Ana River in Huntington Beach.
07/25/10 uPA\DMJ070l\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-36
20A-87
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Four other recreational facilities including a golf course are located within a 1-mile radius. The
proposed project will not increase the demand and use of the above recreational parks and would not
cause substantial physical deterioration of these facilities. The proposed project will not incorporate
any new housing that would foster the use of these parks. Cyclists will continue to use the Santa Ana
River Trail or other recreational parks, but the project would not cause an increased demand for these
recreational uses because road widening does not affect bicycle trail use. During construction, the
trail will be temporarily rerouted and a bike detour plan will be implemented to accommodate users
of the Santa Ana River Trail.
As stated in Section 2.0, the detour plan will reduce the impacts associated with the bridge
construction and will help to avoid full bike trail closure. After the completion of construction
activities the bicycle traffic will continue to move along Santa Ana River Trail. Therefore, the
implementation of the detour plan will result in no impact to recreational facilities and no mitigation
is required.
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?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project is not required to build recreational facilities
subject to local or State park standards as these apply to residential uses. Refer to XIV.A for
additional discussion. However, the construction activities on the bridge will require temporary bike
detour to the nearby streets, Mc Fadden Avenue and Fifth Street. According to the OCTA Commuter
Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP), the following safety policy applies to all classes of bikeways.
1.12 Bicycle Safety:
Separate bicycle and automobile traffic wherever possible, taking into consideration safety, users of
the facility, economic factors, and physical feasibility, and by designing only one-way bike lanes,
thereby minimizing conflicts at intersections and reducing the hazards of bicyclists traveling against
traffic.
The detour plan is designed to prevent bicyclists from crossing lanes as they access local streets from
the Bicycle Trail. Because the detour will be temporary, the plan will not interfere with the goals set
in the City's Recreation Element, the OCTA CBSP and will not have an adverse physical effect on
the environment. Construction activities will be temporary and will cease upon the project
completion. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation is required.
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 the street system (i. e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,
the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
07/25/10 «PADMJ070l\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-37
20A-88
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Less than significant impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in the amount of
traffic that could load or exceed the capacity of the street system. The objective of the project is to
lessen traffic congestion and improve public safety.
First Street between Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Street (over the Santa Ana River) is identified as
a Major (six-lane) arterial highway in the City's Circulation Element and on the City of Santa Ana
Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The bridge over the Santa Ana River currently provides
two lanes in each direction. Implementation of the MPAH will widen this bridge to accommodate
three lanes in each direction. Pedestrian facilities (i.e., sidewalks) will be improved to provide a
continuous sidewalk on both the north and south side of the bridge and approaches along this
segment.
First Street east and west from the bridge will also be widened to accommodate 6 travel lanes in order
to match the existing street configuration at the east and west ends of the project limits. The proposed
project is not expected to generate any additional traffic and will not result in substantial increase in
the number of vehicle trips. The proposed project is expected to improve traffic movement in the
project vicinity.
According to the Traffic Analysis, (LSA, July 2007), based on the existing traffic counts, the First
Street/Santa Ana bridge currently operates at an unsatisfactory Level of Service (LOS) F. The
existing traffic volume exceeds the capacity of a four-lane facility. This situation will continue to get
worsen over time and the bridge is forecasted to operate at the LOS F in 2030. After implementation
of project, the First Street is forecasted to operate at a satisfactory LOS B in 2030 based on its
corresponding six-lane daily roadway capacity. Thus, the proposed project will relieve traffic
congestion. Table 4.3 presents a summary of traffic LOS in the project area.
The intersections located in the vicinity of the bridge (Harbor Boulevard/First Street and Fairview
Street/First Street) currently operate at a satisfactory LOS C or better. The proposed project will not
affect the satisfactory LOS of these intersections in the study area. With or without the
implementation of the proposed project the study area intersections will continue to operate at
satisfactory LOS. Less than significant impacts are expected and no mitigation is required.
B. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less than significant impact. The County Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires a
traffic impact analysis for projects that generate 2,400 average daily trips (ADT). The proposed
project will not result in the additional generation of ADT as it does not change the land use type
within the project limits. MPAH designates First Street between Harbor Blvd and Fairview Road as a
6 lanes arterial, whereas the existing bridge accommodates only 4 travel lanes. The current levels of
service has been already exceeded as the overcrossing operates at the unacceptable LOS F under the
ADT analysis. The proposed project will alleviate traffic, and through accommodation of 6 travel
lanes will improve the traffic operation of the bridge and First Street. After bridge replacement and
widening of First Street, the road is expected to operate at the satisfactory LOS B.
07/25/10 «P:\DMJ0701\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-38
20A-89
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
JULY 2010
INITIAL STUDYIMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Construction phase of the project may result in a slight increase in traffic volumes during bridge
demolition activities. The existing bridge consists of two separate structures (a north structure and a
south structure). While replacement of the north structure, south structure will remain operational, so
one through-lane in each direction will remain open at all times. During the replacement of the south
structure, north structure will carry the First Street traffic in both directions. Therefore, the proposed
project will not produce significant traffic flow changes on the adjacent streets during construction
phase. The impacts to the traffic will be temporary and will cease upon the project completion. It is
anticipated that in the long term, intersections and roadway segments in the project area would
continue to operate at an acceptable LOS.
Therefore, the proposed project will not exceed individually or cumulatively, the level of service
standards established by the Congestion Management Program. Less than significant impacts are
expected and no mitigation is required.
07/25/10 «PADMJ070l\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-39
20A-90
z F <
R U Z
F5<
< C <
< ? F
<0.z
.]F <
U
wzw
oho
w w y .--.
?UF ?r
a0. h
ww
ow
w°
F° o
< U
^ m
F? rA
w C.
99
r F,
F y
0. V1
C!!
u
u
O
a
O
it
C
a?
U
Fil
on
i.+
u C/?
co?
w
F
U M
y x O Ca Q
M ,
0 Q
a x r
b U Oo OOo
?U
? O W Q
? ?
O ? CQ
{r i?+
FBI 00 00
? T `
v 00 00
? I
?l O O
~ ? Q Q
OM ?
o C°
a
OO O0
V a o 0
O ?
? ? O W U
o
u ?
s
,
N w' a
rn
0
U 0
0
O O
,? O U U
ag
C 1?1 O O
O
U ?
O G0 U
? O a
a
F O O
V] N
0-4
oa
ELI .;
ti
x t w
U
r.a
u
a>
L
C
Y
h
M O ?
O
bQ C."
Q
? o
?, y O N
O CCi
Q
c O w
ov ?
a o
P?
O O O
? •? ? M
M ? e
N w ? O
? V] ? O
4 N
O W
N?
O
0 0 ?
U o
A
W
°
U o
O
GC N
U
it
b0 ?
?
C r. to
cqs
V
? Q
?-
a
a
F+
U
C?
E-+
RS
A
a?
oc
Q
20A-91
O
0-0 y
o W
v Con
=' Oa
tl?
U b
c •o ?
E
? N
M?
A
C
NO ?
v
` O 8
.d v
?w
c
o ?
U .o
o ?
a?
a`?i o ? ? c
a w ? o
as
°
M O c > N
a? N L w O O
c N 'r-4 G
N U ? W h
c > O N U
O U
kr-
b4 ?
p c -d U cC at
O
.U O th i > O
U U •c y 'V U U
? U ti ? cd k+ w
.?0. W [i.UHF-
y-.
0
z
O
T
v
C
W
Q
z
O
g
0
0
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
JULY 2010
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
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?
No impact. The proposed project is a bridge replacement and street widening project and will not
alter air traffic patterns. The site is located approximately 8 miles from John Wayne Airport. No
impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
D. Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project will replace a bridge over Santa Ana River and
widen First Street 300 feet east and west from the bridge. The proposed project will require only
minor changes to the roadway profile. The existing bridge deck width is about 80 feet, whereas under
the proposed project conditions the bridge will increase by about 30.5 feet to the north and 7.5 feet to
the south. The total width at First Street will increase from 53 feet to 80 feet. A new proposed vertical
crest curve over the bridge will meet the 45 mph design speed requirements and will be in close
relationship to the existing profile. In addition, a new approximately 410 foot long, 4 to 12-foot high
retaining wall will be built in northeast quadrant to address the grade difference resulted from the
First Street widening. The proposed project will not change the design of any local intersections. The
new bridge will conform to current building standards and would not increase hazards to a design
feature. Therefore, less than significant impacts are expected and no mitigation is required.
E. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project will not result in inadequate emergency access
because it will improve operation of First Street. The proposed project is a bridge replacement and a
street widening to match up the existing configuration at the east and west ends of the project limits.
An approximate 30 foot widening will occur on the north side of the First Street, whereas the
widening on the south side of the First Street would be minimal. The widening will not substantially
impact the Santa Ana River Access/ Maintenance Road which is located on the project site because
safe passage and minimum clearances will be maintained. The access from both sides of First Street
to the maintenance road will require construction of new driveway approaches, and will result in
minor realignment and asphalt paving to join the existing maintenance road. The widening on the
north side may also require the westerly end of the retaining wall in the northeast quadrant to extend
northerly along the Manufactoring Housing Park to support the access road and address grade
differential in that areas. During the project construction, First Street will remain operational and one
travel lane in each direction will be maintained. Therefore, less than significant impacts are expected
and no mitigation is required.
F. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No impact. The proposed project does not involve expansion of any dwelling units, and therefore,
will not result in inadequate parking capacity. The proposed project will replace a bridge over Santa
07/25/10 «P:\DMJ0701\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-41
20A-92
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Ana River and will widen First Street. No existing on-street parking will be removed. The land use
types on the project site will not change, and therefore no new parking spaces are required for the
proposed project.
G. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project is not in conflict with any adopted policies or
programs supporting alternative transportation. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus
route 64 runs along the First Street from Huntington Beach to Tustin. The nearest bus stops are
located at the Harbor Boulevard and First Street intersection to the west of the bridge and the First
Street/Raitt Street intersection to the east of the bridge. Therefore, implementation of the proposed
project would not conflict with the existing bus stops locations. OCTA bus route 64 will continue to
operate during construction activities on the bridge because one travel lane in each direction will
remain open.
The CBSP established the Santa Ana River Trail, which provides a trail for bike users along the Santa
Ana River from the Chino Hills State Park boundary to the river's mouth in Huntington Beach. The
Santa Ana River Bicycle Trail runs north-south along the east side of the Santa Ana River and
underneath the First Street/Santa Ana Bridge. The construction phase of the proposed project will
temporarily impact the existing bike trail traffic and thus will require rerouting of bicycle traffic onto
local streets at various times during construction. The Bicycle Detour Plan, which is described in
detail in Section 2.0, has been designed to prevent bicyclists from needing to cross lanes as they
access local streets from the bicycle trail. Implementation of the Bicycle Detour Plan will reduce
impacts bicyclists to less than significant levels. No mitigation is required.
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project
A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
No impact. The project will not require the need for additional treatment of wastewater. The
proposed project does not involve expansion of any dwelling units. The proposed project is a bridge
replacement and street widening project. Due to the nature of the project, no demand for water
services is expected. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
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?
No impact. With regard to wastewater, refer to XVI.a. The proposed project does not involve any
uses that would increase the demand for water on site. The project does not change the land use type
on site. Therefore, no impact to existing water supplies or water supply facilities, or wastewater
07/25/10 ,PA\DMJ070l\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-42
20A-93
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
JULY 2010
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
treatment facilities would occur as a result of the project. No impact is expected, and no mitigation is
required.
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?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project will not involve the need for an additional storm
water drainage system. The proposed project would widen the bridge to accommodate two additional
lanes. The site under the bridge is channelized and therefore, addition of two lanes will not add new
impervious surface to the site. However, the widening of First Street 300 feet east and west will add
some impervious surface to the project site. The project would increase the impervious surface area
by approximately 0.30 ac compared to the existing roadway facility. However, the rate and volume of
surface water runoff from the facility would not increase substantially and would not cause flooding
in the area. Therefore, impacts related to capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system would
be less than significant, and no mitigation is required..
D. Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
No impact. The proposed project is a bridge replacement and street widening and does not involve
incorporation of any dwelling units. No demand for potable water currently exists on the site. The
proposed land use type will be the same as under existing conditions, and therefore would no
introduce demand for potable water. Therefore, no impact is expected and no mitigation is required.
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?
No impact. There is no release of wastewater on the project site. The proposed project will also not
result in the additional release of wastewater. Therefore, no impact is expected, and no mitigation is
required.
F. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs?
Less than significant impact. The city of Santa Ana is served by the three Orange County sanitary
landfills: Olinda Alpha, Frank R. Bowerman, and Prima Deshecha. These landfills currently have the
capacity to absorb additional solid waste generated during the demolition of the First Street bridge.
The proposed project will comply with Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939), which mandates local
jurisdictions to meet numerous diversion goals and thus reduce impacts to landfills. The proposed
project will comply with the County Source Reduction Ordinance and will further reduce impacts to
landfills by recycling construction materials where feasible. The materials from the demolition will be
disposed of at one of the local landfills. Construction and demolition waste is the project's primary
solid waste contribution. No additional solid waste is expected to be generated during the construction
07/25/10 ,,PADMJ0701\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-43
20A-94
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDYIMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
and operation of the proposed project. This impact is considered less than significant, given its limited
nature, and no mitigation is required.
G. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No impact. The proposed project will be in compliance with State and federal laws related to solid
waste. No solid waste will be generated during the operational phase, and demolition activities will
comply with the County's Source Reduction Ordinance. No impact is expected, and no mitigation is
required.
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 setf-
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?
Less than significant impact with mitigation. Based on this analysis, the proposed project will not
degrade the quality of the natural environment, significantly impact sensitive biological resources, nor
will it destroy archaeological or paleontological resources. There are no known biological,
archeological, or paleontological resources on or in the vicinity of the project site and, therefore, the
proposed project has no potential to physically interfere with these resources. No sensitive wildlife
species, plants, or animal communities are present on site or in the vicinity of the site. However, some
marginal suitable habitat exists on the site that may by used by some species. Therefore, incorporation
of the minimization measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 will be incorporated prior to construction activities.
The proposed project occurs in an urban built-out environment and thus is not anticipated to have the
potential to degrade the overall quality of environment. Mitigation Measures BIO-I and BIO-2 will
reduce any potentially significant impacts to a level below significance.
B. 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 current projects and the effects
of probable future projects.)
Less than significant impact. The proposed bridge replacement and road widening has a very
limited impact area. Project impacts are confined to the project construction limits and are temporary
in nature in that they only occur during construction. The only operation impacts requiring mitigation
are noise impacts that will be mitigated by the incorporation of sound barrier walls into the project
design. All other environmental parameters either return to their existing condition or are improved
by the project (e.g. air quality, water quality, flood potential, traffic). These beneficial effects, when
considered with other projects in the area do not pose any potential to result in cumulative effects
because the project area is not particularly sensitive because it is highly urbanized and the project
contributes only nominally to impacts under all environmental parameters.
07/25/10 «P:\DMJ070]\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-44
20A-95
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than significant impact with mitigation. No adverse environmental impacts are anticipated
with implementation of the proposed project. The proposed project is limited to the bridge
replacement and widening of First Street to match the existing width of 6 lanes at the east and west
end of the project limits. The proposed project will bring First Street into compliance with the Orange
County Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
All of these activities are anticipated to have a minimal impact on the environment and will occur on
an already developed and urbanized site. Although the project is a bridge replacement and street
widening, it will not add a significant amount of pollutants to the site. A bridge already exists at the
project site, and the addition of two travel lanes to First Street will relieve traffic congestion in the
area but will not affect humans to any greater extent. Construction nuisance impacts related to air
quality, water quality, and potential hazardous waste emissions will be reduced to a level below
significance through the implementation of the identified Mitigation Measures and compliance with
City standards. Therefore, all potential project impacts are less than significant with the
implementation of the identified Mitigation Measures and the project would not have an adverse
direct or indirect effect on human beings.
07/25/10 «P:\DMJ0701\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc»
4-45
20A-96
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
JULY 2010
INITIAL STUDYIMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5.0 CONTACTS AND PREPARERS
5.1 LIST OF CONTACTS
5.1.1 Project Contacts
Kosal Krishnan- Project Engineer, AECOM
5.1.2 City of Santa Ana Contacts
Jason Gabriel, Project Manager, City of Santa Ana Public Works Department
5.2 LIST OF PREPARERS - LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Rob McCann- Principal-In-Charge
Romi Archer - Environmental Project Manager
Agnieszka Napiatek - Environmental and Planning Research
Angie Kung - Hazardous Materials
Ken Wilhelm - Traffic
Keith Lay -Air Quality
Nicole West - Water Quality
Nicole Dubois - Geology and Soils
Jason Lui - Noise
Debra Cooper - Graphics
Justin Roos - GIS
07/25/10 «P:\DMJ0701\MND\5.0 List ofPreparers.doc,,
5-1
20A-97
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
JULY 2010
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
6.0 REFERENCES
The following references were used in the preparation of the IS/MND for the proposed First Street
Bridge Replacement project.
California Building Standard Code (2001)
California Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5.
CEQA Air Quality Handbook, South Coast Air Quality Management District (1993)
City of Santa Ana General Plan 1982
County of Orange Drainage Area Master Plan (2003)
County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (2005)
Eagle Aerial (2005)
Government Code Section 53090-53091; 40 Ops.Cal.AHy.Gen.243 (1962)
Orange County General Plan, Safety Element, p. IX-80 (1989)
Santa Ana River Mainstem Project-Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (August
1988)
Web sites:
California Department of Fish and Game
http:// www.dfg.ca.gov/lands/er/region5/index.html, 2007-08-30
California Division of Land Resource Protection
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmp/images/fmmp2002-200.pdf, 2007-08-29
City of Santa Ana
http://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us/
County of Orange
http://www.oc.ca.gov/
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps
http://www.msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeld=10001 &catalogld=
10001&langld=-1, 2007-08-26
Orange County Drainage Area Master Plan
http://www.ocwatersheds.com/stormwater/documents-damp-lip.asp
07/25/10 «PA\DMJ0701\MND\6.0 References.doc- 6-1
20A-98
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
JULY 2010
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE. DECLARATION
FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Orange County Transportation Authority
http://www.octa.neU
South Coast Air Quality Management District
http://www.aqmd.gov/ej/I-4/1-4.html, 2007-08-31
United States Geological Survey mapping
http://www.nmviewogc.cr.usgs.gov/viewer.htm, 2007-08-30
Technical Reports:
Draft Water Quality Assessment Report, LSA Associates, Inc., July 2010.
Initial Site Assessment, LSA Associates, Inc., July 2010.
Draft Historic Resources Survey Report, LSA Associates, Inc., July 2010.
Draft Noise Study Report, LSA Associates, Inc., July 2010.
Natural Environment Study, LSA Associates, Inc. April 2010.
Jurisdictional Delineation, LSA Associates, Inc., April 2010.
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, AECOM, April 2010.
07/25/10 «PADMJ0701\MND\6.0 References.doc» 6-2
20A-99
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. IN ITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AUGUST 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA ANA
MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was formulated based on the findings
of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed First Street
Bridge Replacement Project (proposed project). This MMRP is in compliance with Section 15097 of
the CEQA Guidelines, which requires that the Lead Agency "adopt a program for monitoring or
reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to
mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." The MMRP lists mitigation measures
recommended in the IS/MND and identifies mitigation monitoring requirements. These requirements
are provided only for mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid significant impacts of the
proposed project.
Table A presents the mitigation measures identified for the proposed project. Each mitigation
measure is numbered according to the topical section of Section 4 to which it pertains. For example,
Mitigation Measure VIS-1 is the first mitigation measure identified in Chapter 4, Section I,
Aesthetics. In addition, Standard Conditions pertaining to dust suppression as promulgated by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and discussed in section III, have also
been incorporated into the monitoring report to ensure their incorporation into final plans.
The first column of Table A provides the mitigation measures that were identified in Environmental
Analysis Checklist Explanation and Initial Study, Section 4.0 of the IS/MND. The columns entitled
"Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation" and "Implementation Timing" identify the party
responsible for carrying out the required actions and the approximate time period over which the
actions will be implemented, respectively. The columns entitled "Party Responsible for Monitoring,"
"Action by Monitor," and "Monitoring Timing" identify the party ultimately responsible for ensuring
that the mitigation measure is implemented, the steps for monitoring the action identified in the
mitigation measure, and the approximate timeframe for the oversight agency to ensure
implementation of the mitigation measure, respectively.
08/09/10 <<P:\DMJ0701\MND\MMRP.doc»
20A-100
7ZF<
<oUZ
C F ' <
V < 0 6
O p? PC F
C < h Z
a?F<
m
FQ?O
p ?UF
aF'<U
Oda
Z Z
aom
Z F D
_<a
zvm
?=F
z?W
p?'F
? Grp
Z?F
oyti
« m
OF
.F. Z
F
U?
OF
hU
bA
G'
0
C
O
C
0
ea
H
C b
O b
•? C
O W C
O c
C
U O
O ?
C
•? E ?? y
o>?? U
o U
v U
° b y
a cn
Y 3 ?
a R w- a a. U a 4. a ? ._ a
O U ,b
w
O O'
U a p
a U 4y
?, o R
y a.
O _
U
?
O • ?
cOd
p cU3 O R
'O
bA R `? C Y U 'O
C v
'O a~i
O T
?
CO
O
O •O
?? C
Q
? o
o= 0
0
0? CII
.y o
°?
° 3
' o
*
o
G a
i
a4"-.
> N
> v
O
> U C,3
Y
vC
W ? ? C
R? vUi 0U u
0.i ID
fx .? i C b
W OU R
_d N
Gi G ?« = Q U° 0. bUA a bU4 004 bb
0.
rn p
a ?C U b0
C 9 4 v R
cz R R . R
c2CL 6-8,
o w :?
•
41
£' E v0i U
= U C
o •U N
=. - U
U
?? R
•U N
o =.
o> c
in. C,
c
v
o c
aai c
c
o 'c >
a ° U° i° a° a` o 0
cn c
= y R
o
°c E cd
c c ? c
, ? ?
?
U O U O U O
j
y, y.
Cti ?
R y, U
R [ U
R ? U
R
U U U U
U ° ° °
O
h .O R C v
Y O •? ? R
U C
18,
U C
R
N ? 'O y^
U T1 v
i
U iC O U .L R
w C1. bA ^, U
? .Y
R
0 0
a ?° ° U
c a R
0
o
c R
" w
3 CL
N
o
n
w
o a b v o
o
b cTi o c a
i a
i
._ 8 a «
?w
w R R ?
61 °
o ° 0 G
? v 3
,
. y
C
?
?
? Y
c
4 t
Y ?
R ?
O
? 4
O
U C
O ID
?
?
y U
b
-0 .?
a
i
C '"
U
R
' •'
.
i
G• C R
0
Y N y C
Y 'O N C
'
c4 O ' R .
C3 «.
?- r
.
a) cc o
j Q U v
i
N E r"'.
p O U p„ O p «U+ p in
c ca l 3> R 1
U-o a o-o o
U
0
C u.? 5
C U v
C
?' o
'
. G N .O i
O-
O v
C
,b v,
0
" R ..
.
O O C C
b
O
N
C13 . 46 R
° o c 0 tic o o •> °° 3 0 t 3
R 3 as
R
¢
? aUi aai 4 0 .? ^ U 4
?' 3 U o o
R a o U v v
44 a?
- c K a c 3?
? R
w E, o u
F" o ° v c o
- F" o
s A Uf R O d .
U C V C- N U i n
U ?
C's U
C/1 O
C
Q
.-r
O
N
M
t
cL 03
y
d, O C b O 'y
C' C 4. C a '::
o O
N
0
0.
0
rn
0
0
20A-101
2zF<
<OUz
aF'<
V 6 0 <
OaaF
z<az
a ? F <
zwz?.
QwO
zwwr
O^UF
w<a
y.Va
ww
D
Zza
<Qw
wv
zFo
<a
acc?m
Z ? w
o}a
OWN
« w
? F
F Z
F
Uc
O f'
N y
N ?
a<
C O
c0 F. O
O ••.•
N U
•i O ? O ?
O
.
+
H
cCe •
?
L
p.. L=. R P. cC W J]
U
O O O
L b Q lu
R1 v,
c C C
c i d .a ? ;D
a o ?
o c a? p U
ca
U N F
a c
C
R?
S F
>
W C vi .? ? Q
y •?.? aS p ? cC
U
L c
•-n L
U
U
cC O W ? U
? N U
? U
p„ a c y eoq o. c?a
CG ?
U? U?
C
O
•
R
C
? . O O
h CL. U cUd C. U ?
? C bq
c Y
O
_
O U
~ O O
L L L i
ti
O-i
a, .? 00 C ?'
U ° U
N
a? o ?
iC ?
°- o
W N U
N N o
O c
c o
0
p ? ?
;a U O
N O U
Q ? C O .
??-
?.? N
'D
P O
c>3 ? Q V
N
•
?
? pq r
O C N L R
5 vi
_ N
O .
C N
O U W .?.
N cC
W G -r- .9 O p d N
N
^d Q
.
? R O N t
.
U O in
R •N Ri
? -p 73 Q.
R
q O '_'
Y T
•
N
N cNC N C R .
.
N
cd U O n
.
. y O O •
' in O" c
C
C
K O O bA N
c,.,, •>
O
R.? R m N ,L > Con
O d .?
in h c? ai"i
O >,
cFC 4;
O
?
W cu
U yO
L
" ..N,
Y
?
O bb ? O
•.>-A ? O O
c
O . ry-
O U N cG
a c O'
U .? a]
v'^i '
N i.
N F- R
O
O- O
p
O 4" .O
VJ
o
G - > CO W O y
O N 3 C .p U
U N
7 bA U C C N
U
R O
ca
O U U
-0 .
- 8, 0
>
N to bl)
O
7 N
ti N ? O c" r
> •C N
a+ ,--N () .O ^O
? '., .b
c
d .^
rU. '? > U ? j N
O id 7 G U
U .
C b
? ? R U
N ?
.D
"" 00 Ll, .U C
O O •b4 cC Q
CIS
W y
O "O O ^. U U O
N
` bq ,
R
O
N 0
'M6 ^ N >.
i
<G .-.
ll
y
r. ^p ,?.+ y U Y
O C N U N ,?
U ?, Q N O
U O N M
w
C/]
w ?,
p> W U U
?' U iC >
'D
•? N
O N y
O ~
n
C
N O *
U U N O
.L"
A
O N
a p N
dD N ? '7 V U .b cUd ?' O L.
yU
Y Q' A U N
- ?' O .fl 3 CC
"O ? . bA ? C N :?N
? ? U G N .2 ? N
^ .?
c c? ? Q• c ? ,
o ? U ? ? ? is ._ . ? .? ao ^ U ? ? _. ? ' on 3 ? ?
LL= • • d d as U
m
q
•o
n
Q
a
0
0
0
20A-102
XzF<
<Ouz
w
?ya
cc
U < O <
O a a F
a<az
a,?F <
zw?w
Ado
aww}
O^uF
we,
aU?
zAzx
<Aw
U
w
ZFA
-<a
aUm
w
z?w
? Arn
zOF
O y n
- a
aew
U -
.. F
F -
-z
F
u=
o?
n
an
eU
c
'L O
F
Lo
.C
O
t
C
O
•
U
Q
.? L
L p L O
O p a+
y p
a ?
0
e
dF
c
E
on
O u
o
L y,
CQ p
Qy 4.
s.,
? O
r..
.D y .C ?F ,C L ^O bJ) C N
O 0.
O .
r~ o 3 3 o o ?' fl a i 3
?? s o c o o o v ° o
o ° w N aoi X w w o r ° on Y 3
3
rn ? ^'Y
O C X' ? ? .?-.. ? ? vi
N 'G a? G' G •N vOi N ?
a) p' 'D ?..i
O A O ? ¢
G O .OF-. G.'?
•O y CC
b Y M
"'d
48
co v .? A O '4? '?
b
O C `n 'D O cz '? O b0
"
ti O
O , C c: ccz ti
n
7 V o i
?' O ° s0 ct
0
0= O s-' w 0. °
r
y s .b
QJ
'a V Y .
Li C:S Y IOi k CC per' .
y
y C
.C ?j 4. ?'
,? a+
° +
+
.--
N CC ti
L. N
C' .t.
i E Y c ° '> y on o. b 3 o. o ° i o ro u ° o
.D
•- t- p
p N vi G N n•
U
N 0.
-°
0. N
y
Q a o n o o
O y O cC Y
w
. Y
t
F- c.
R O O 0.
Vm
c3
'a
?
X O
F
ui
w
C7
x
.-
?;
v
r
Q
a:
O
rn
0
«i
0
20A-103
?zFa
aouz
aFya
?aoa
OaaF
aaLZ
a?Fa
zw?w
Fm?°
aww?
O?UF
o. p. a U
waa
aVa
ww
m a
zz
aQw
v
w
Z F m
as
avm
?.F.F
w
z?w
O}a
z?F
oN?
F,?a
aa?.
? F
FZ
F
G o
Ue
6 5
hU
?a
.L c
o c ^
N U O O
c
. Y o on o
° rUn U •C v •- co
b
A
o F 0
q O
^O ?' U 7 Q
i
n •2 ?.,
• N U ? •L, ti y
'D O O v 'O O
O
•C
U
7 'b
Pr 'C3 cC 4- .? Q U to CL
U p WU cC
rr,,
C A 4 U
i
U
C
in •?.. O C
Q -0
o:a Y ? ,• v ?d ?.
>
D
c c Q c y o o
a
i
U.? o y 0 G E ° Z c
oit
L v C q •C O ai M O
? G'
N ? cG O?? C U ^O
F
v
°
° cl °
?
°' °
Q _
g n
ai a
i c
•?
c a s o auw m b k
a
.
r. bb
Cd o
`
> c
w U U
Cn f1 . ? N N A. F d ? ? Y °U c?C c~d
.n c
.
O
?'y L
cc O .w ?' U U
O' O y
0. °' C p. ca a ?
cc
c
0
C c a
y U •"
_ cn
O N v,
?
= ...,
cC
•? ? UO '? O O ?
S
I
° o
U
ccd
? v v
c c
? o c ccz ~
L y, O
a U ? ? U I
p. c? .
.
?'» C ?''O C
w ?
v wo c
U° > ?° 6 N one o °c v U'? c c
°
1
o c Y
.
2
o Y o °?
c
cad' rn c Y d o w >° c `o o Oc °° <° a°
U ca H
o ? U ^ <.. a? U v o °' ' o -
° _
°
on v ? U v c n ti R C7 w cc^4 : o ?' U? Y c>a
a •
m
o a?°i aoi o
? a o° o
d c Y c= o. o .?
c
O N O y0, 3 b0 O ' > .7 a•.. [ v, a'Oi ~ O U O. s, R --
a >
m C
1
X>
'o G? n4 atoi a
n^ c a L M w .?
°
o y c
U• p
p
c
O N 41
O L CCU U r?-i CO •U I"U
'
O
7 O FF
R C 4?' 'O O S" N °•?-. 7 C
U pp ,a y ate.. .D O ?
? p.
.O ? U y? O in ti .o b? .? .w.. n O y 'B ? yr` O N T O
b
•
«_, cd
A to v.
°O .C .? C w C 0 >, O
O N
U U b y
>
•? O=
i' O _
.D •
O
N d O N 'O a .?' > 5 y O .a U U F. cC cC N O N
a S ca 3 a a° 3 a Ua a c o
v +1 -0
s 7
c
? O
t: U
O
a > U .
?s
aac°a • •
cn
0
0
0.
0
Cl
0
20A-104
?zF<
<oUz
aF'<
co<o<
O a a F
a<az
zw?w
-oho
F
aww>
O>UF
a F, < U
w <''
CZ Vw
QZa
Z w
<aU
w
zF0
=U=
OFFF
w
z?w
o>ra
?Cy
zaF
oNN
a<_w
? F
F?
F
ae
Ue
o?
N h
<p
?U
as
? o 0 0 0
U U U U U U U U
• c c c c
a o o o
C
O F'? ?.. C O y? ? O y? O ? C
O
a -a c w p a -o ?s ?., ? o, •v ? ?.. ? n, -o a 4, .o
yU R C
.
..
L 4?
E U
> .? N N
`? p C p y
N A? 'c1
O vUi G
ate.:
C OU c
C
G' 4 "SE y ti
cC
4: ca
y y
.
..C
s., rn 4 cn
C to
^' iy
c°
? ? °0
•? .c c ? U
o a & ?
? •x
U ? •
? ?
a a. o
C
? hU .?.
? ? U W b
U ti
O O q ccf 0 in
c3 ?" 'O
•u
•v? ti
c
n c
d
¢' b U O
,b „p
cC to
4
c
`° ° o y o 0 y U
0 .c
C
W o E W v° .a W° W° cca ??
u
•
i
U
U
V
U
`?'
'
eL3 C w ?'
CL ° c U
O?
a U
O' a?i
a U
O N
a 7J
0?
a
, ca ca
c
0
as ? o ?
C
i c
•
d C
O
? Y d
OU
O C
O ?
::
O U O
C v ti
O
?y . y .
Y N •7 :Y
£ v C o w
v
0. 'O c o
0. 4 lu es
O. T7 cC o
Q. U O U m
d F Y
to c tLo
cc M
G ? R ? .G
r U U U V
F F
L L O
. Clr P. P
,
U U U U
c
U ? O
E o c -o
0 0
Y _ .a o o c
° k 4 x o a c U c Z °
lu
?' w O ti R 'C >,'C C/] Y>' v U ?'d ,? ? OT, ? •p w. N
yam,
_ .? Y ?
..+ ?
O •L
? cad >> N ? O
Od c3 ? O
C ? 6? f, ? N?
? 'p ? ,D cd j, N i
4; rn c3 ? ? ? .a
4, C U
u y
cd U c
a!
.:: O to GA
N U ?, N O
U U O id •.? O
K
G C c}3
O > rn
J O id U
.?
E> x 4- i ;b U b
° 4 0.. p ro -fl
a7 U cd c3
N by >'
O
• > ..
i. . O U
R :"' '? A. O
w eLC U sU. U f?
C U iC 4' N U O
O U
U
`n ..O
O C U •? O U
E "O O N
? U
O
N
N
cc 72 u
ro
B
. .
s
;6
4
N O
E
O
c
3
c ?'
?. '
7J r. C
?- 7
'a ^p O
G t
U rn 4 y .?.
`n
O C O
U O
C w. U
C3 m
r- 'N 4 cUC •> N
?n v? c3 U
e.. bA 'T3 V7
s, y .D U 4
0 3
.? ? o to a C ? C Y U a?.c o C C o
_ N _ .E ao o a? o bb °
O c O
7
Y o 4 a
0 3s o '
E n
3 ° X ?
V
n
Q
a;
0
rn
0
0
20A-105
EzF<
<ouz
C7<Oa
oaaF
a<az
d,,Fa
zWZ?
QWO
F ?
a W W }
p> UF
a F < U
a V a
W
Qza
z W
aqV
W
Z F D
as
ac?m
?.F.F
_ W
Z?W
p}a
O N
z°F
O ,F„ti
Faa
« W
OF
FZ
f
F
Ue
y y
<7
p?, o
U U 0
N U 0
GJ U
Y
it 'i?
'C
W
?
G i- "?_
C
'
? •b
0
'
-.
C?
. i
O CO 4
? C3 CO 4
G4
-I ?
C
`" O
R U
y .ro O Q •? G ? U rn
c G' N bU d p c..., ?' i d U 'b ? CC
v v
O
O c m o U _ca
G C
y o •? v
pp - N 7
F
bL
U
fd Cd U f..
U !''
_ O
'G
O 'Y
G M
LM C,3 -C
, 5
U ?, O .G "' M c
R U p? U td
d C d ¢ O +,?.' U R e) +75 pa
.a:
a U p
o. ° ? ? v°a k
w o. -c a aci
•L
p
yR °. 'e •N
a U
a b U
0. t0
CC ? as
?
U? et
U?
U
c
0
•
R
O
C b
O
•
? ?
O N C c
d O
O y 0 y C
O y
O N U O
O N U •O •O y
ra
P. b cd U X C.)
0., b cd N cG U
0. b cd
!
L C_
.C r C
y O ca
C
cC
o. E ? ?
d 6a c
O c
O v
? O U O G
y''
? ?
a ? 0 ? C ?
U T
U ° ° U
U U ?? ? W R
.?.•
U ,b O cC
ai O Q .? „O
p sU. U
O
.?
O U on y C',
N ^
o
o
' > c
a
4 a a?3o??o o
ur- 1)
c
c ,
a
3
?a
mob ?o
O .w Q r.. Q .O C () 'O U 'G
Ll
" O
G'
? .
_
'_' N 4-.
C ? .
.L,, ? 'D N .? U '? .D
,?E N U
O
?
L ?
?
O
Fr M
•? O a? O' U •0 V] '? ?
a? O C/1 O p , Q
c
C
G O O N
ai O u Cl)
R > ai o u t? ? = c- u 3 •E c -1 o d) ` T, x a?i
T `
> ' ^ O O
O
x. O
v, cn
p rn ^O cd; O v d ti O Q v
- .b N v t O C
c
C X O
C O Z V O. C w
R cOV `. IU. . ca w U d C
cQd <C Q >' >.
o
0 a.
N R U .?
U
aci 3 Y
= a x Tao d .o
0 00 0 c? .? oU U „ Y 3
C v, C cG
b
i O
Q c C W 4. F,
U U
G w
v
C
W O cu
.
0
d C O '" •O O
a? O E-O O C U O O
C
d 0
O X
O by
p
v £ o N U ?'
w d p
?o
° ' C
'
U 3 U
r o a
bio
?c
.?
G' U 'O y 7 O
bA
U •
^
o
O" Q y
.
R ^. ti U
?
U o
i o
a
?r U R? b ,Y 'C t1 U
p
c
y
¢,
?
cn cz o - U
? c?
x ° w n °? axi !-. LL s.
'?.' aXi s ° 3 o d w°
r-
0
0.
Z
Q
0
rn
0
20A-106
z I <
a O U z
aFna
vaoa
oaaF
aaaz
a.aF <
uU ti
Zw?w
Fm?p
aww}
p>UF
0.F < U
waa
aVa
ww
a a
zz
<mw
wV
ZFm
-aa
aim
?FF
w
z?w
p}a
zaF
F?a
aaw
? F
Fz
F
<o
Uc
o?
a?
?J
C
•L C ? c
tip C
t
O O O O O ?
Q 'O ? 'O Q 'O
a)
? ?..,
O cu
CIS ca
`? N '?
E
i p•' N Cpp
L •
0.
a:
R?? ? eam r
3
- R ?•J p
O U ?
o y /
y o o_
¢'
C 'D G Y y
o a.°_ 00.'1 3 ?'? O ai
•y
o 'y G
a
N
o
o
v. o ?4
C C y y
R w
w r
u ¢
0
U p v U 0 ca =
a E U b
Q a
i
E c' v ? ,
° `°
v
Y
tD . p•O Q
-0 72 pt^ yp 7tr-
O
V Ca c?•.1 ca ? ? vii Q U U o 5
U Ca a7 N K
U '
?.? tiC/]UQ C Y 0.Y C bq
L ?
?''?LO
m o w U
o i U
o a U
o a
a
R
.C
p
O
O
O
-
? u
a YO U y
•
W U It O. U cUa Q U
d bL
L C
C y O
O. E R
d Q C O
6..? C p
U ° C
U p C
U
°
to
ca y
ya
v' y W
? 'O '
O CL, o
ti L d? F'• p ? N R cNa
O N Q ?
U
O
.
ca c
a
_
U? p a a ?? v -o a. .
w U
? m v o 0 0 ?°?' '?
°'
c? c 6'
? •? b
c?
0 o Y o o c
i
n
o F o °' $ ?' `a o c
L ?
•- U W?? F. [ o v? °' U
n O Q
U U o v •? ? v aNi o ?.. E ca
' U
p w?
u 7
a a G O r
ai O
.?O-+ cpa c p
N
t?O N
G 0 'B fi a N O U 'O r O vi
o P: .c° c '? b $ awi ?' i q o a ou o o?
° N o
3 ,oyco0,eo°?? o* uoa? cRYN
S L)' R1 y 4J O '3 ? Q" . ? cS O N
G U C, 'O
o ZO^. `a p p O :? w ti C O •N t:;
c cOa
C,
F
p
¢ o
'
p OO G
• V "O O N
's
-,
J5 t .
v O C by U b ?, N '? ca
•? ca O
'p 2
Q 0. p O .O L. O Q Q .? O is .U C. •?, Fi. w
i?Ci R y ' ?7 mod ?'
v'
N R
v'
O
4? p y P,
'
U
E•-?
3
A
o
° z vi
?..?UcU Y w a .
m 3Qa
ca cn
W o o °., iC Z a
00
0
Q
0.
0
rn
0
0
20A-107
gzF<
<OUz
m F ^w<
a
?aoa
OO?F
?aaz
UU,
..o"O
F ?
a??a
O>UF
°'F<U
ova
m
z z
<QW
u
ZFG
^e0
09U0
?^F
z 2 W
°YF
? Orn
zOF
F
Oyu
V ^
^ F
-z
F
6c
U?
O`
a?
er,
C
L C
w '
•C
0
C
0
L
C
O
a+
Q
? o
41 i O
p p w
a ?
0
C
O
,
d
y ?
'
a >
U
?I O
d CG
L O
•
?' d
O
d
L L
R p
00
w
rn O
°>
? .b
G ?i .° O
G N
A R 'j ."'
? O O O v' `" O bA
O
cG OV
U
O •
,ti 7 v c
d
L. ??? x s O 5. 3° o o o O p °' O
CQ o v o o
3 .v
' a a o o E o a0i
° '^ °
on
o ro
a o
" c a?
Y °'
O Y' 5
a
, sZ 3
.?
Ir
C a o o ca
"
-
-
o ?' °
c
o"
a
g
o a o
Q
o O .14
o > a o 0
0
o
`a i a o 8
U ro kQ to
v c
w
°°
'
v a
p n o '3 C
w
RS 'v oo .? R a
y
w w
`o y ° ccz
.?
o
w
w
^ •v
a o OO t^y -o
>
c> o
v w O .? •3 o
o
a a ? c cc
°°° ?
M o°'n ? `? ? a°i ? c .a ? c ?
o b ?°
v1
c v ? c ? ?
U ? ?
> O
? .
o
o
,
,? ;? cd 'n ? 'D N ? ? O ? Q ?
^ J O •O •
? ? O
s' O Q ? y 'O aai ? c? O
a
v c?C v O
U p
O O, O oa°
?0. cOC Q
• O G, Y a¢i cd U
s ->p O O?
.
O ?bA .O.
. n
a d rX o s z o E E O 8 F- s z o F ro O t1 O U 3
8
C Cd U N CFi
rn
0
a
z
0
a.
Cl
0
20A-108
?zFa
<ouz
m F y 6
C1<O<
OC4 p F
99 z
zWZV.
F ?
CWW}
p^UF
yF<U
W <
CVa
W
°z?
z
aQW
u
W
zFc
-am
oC U_m
?FF
W
z?W
O>F
?Ow
z7F
F
U-
- F
F '-
-z
a?
U?
a?
y 7
as
bL
O b!i
O
o F.
0
.C
0
.G
C
O
,
V
Q
y-•C L •O
a ?
0
s?
d ?.
a
8
? c
? u o
a 8
d
_
L L
R O
0.n w
C vi cd
U
.?
00 N ? O U
U
¢ N U "'
W O G a> ti
V aV+ ti
? N ? N ~' ?
? 7.? cC C
U E ,u
d U O
.O C 'O bA 'C7
N 7? y N
? 'C •? ? •O^ G ? ? O N
U V ? U y p "O Cd O
cd ? L V O CC
V U ?
V
• Q. 0 O y L
O
?
U
?, ? ? O
c
C ai .
¢ ctl ¢
° N
c 3 E o . a. o
by
20A-109
0
O
0.
0
Q
0.
0
a
0
0
ERRATA
FOR THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
AUGUST 10, 2010
Several minor errors in the Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were discovered
after publication of the document the incorrect text and corrections, shown in str-ike threiigh and
underline below.
Page 4-9, last paragraph:
Less than significant impact. Sensitive receptors include the very young, the elderly, and those
suffering from certain respiratory illnesses or disabilities. Common locations of sensitive receptors
include schools, daycare centers, parks and recreational areas, medical facilities/hospitals, rest homes,
and convalescent care facilities. According to the above definition, sensitive receptors are present in
the project vicinity. Four schools are located within the 0.5 mile from the project site: Spurgeon
Intermediate and Edward B. Cole Senior Academy north-east of the project site, Lincoln Elementary
south-east of the project site, and Garden Grove USD: Russell Elementary School is located south
west of the project site. Students attending any of these schools may have respiratory sensitivity to
airborne dust during construction. However, the proposed project would not create a substantial
source of pollutant concentrations, as it will not create additional traffic. The project is not anticipated
to increase the CO levels such that they could have an impact on students. Because of the distant
location of the schools to the project site, the pollutants will most likely dissipate before reaching the
sensitive receptors. Therefore, the students will not likely be affected by the increase in pollutants
emissions on the project site. This is considered a less than significant impact. Refer to Hazards
Section VII for an additional discussion on airborne hazardous pollutants.
Should read as follows:
Less than significant impact. Sensitive receptors include the very young, the elderly, and those
suffering from certain respiratory illnesses or disabilities. Common locations of sensitive receptors
include schools, daycare centers, parks and recreational areas, medical facilities/hospitals, rest homes,
and convalescent care facilities. In addition, residential uses are considered as locations for sensitive
receptors. According to the above definitions, sensitive receptors are present in the project vicinity.
The project area is surrounded by residential uses. As discussed above in II.A and 11.13, the mitigation
measures AQ-1 through AQ-5 enumerated in the previous discussion address short-term construction
impacts to air quality and also address impacts to residences surrounding the project area.
In addition, fl=our schools are located within the 0.5 mile from the project site: Spurgeon Intermediate
and Edward B. Cole Senior Academy north-east of the project site, Lincoln Elementary south-east of
the project site, and Garden Grove USD: Russell Elementary School is located south west of the
project site. Students attending any of these schools may have respiratory sensitivity to airborne dust
08/10/10 (PADMJ0701\MND\Revised ERRATA.doe)
20A-110
during construction. However, the proposed project would not create a substantial source of pollutant
concentrations, as it will not create additional traffic. The project is not anticipated to increase the CO
levels such that they could have an impact on students. Because of the distant location of the schools
to the project site, the pollutants will most likely dissipate before reaching the sensitive receptors.
Therefore, the students will not likely be affected by the increase in pollutants emissions on the
project site. This is considered a less than significant impact. Refer to Hazards Section VII for an
additional discussion on airborne hazardous pollutants.
Page 4-26, second paragraph, fourth sentence:
The surrounding land uses encompass low density residential in north-west quadrant, general
commercial and low density residential in south-west quadrant, medium density residential and
general commercial in south-east quadrant, professional and administrative in north-east quadrant.
Should read as follows:
The surrounding land uses encompass low density residential in north-west quadrant, general
commercial and low density residential in south-west quadrant, medium density residential and
general commercial in south-east quadrant, medium density residential, professional and
administrative in north-east quadrant.
Pages 4-27/30, last sentence on page, first sentence on next page:
Where there is a 3 dB CNEL increase in the change and the noise level exceeds 65 CNEL, abatement
is required unless there is no sensitive receptor at that location or there is no outdoor use such as a
patio, balcony, or backyard.
Pages 4-28/29, Table 4.1, footnote 1:
1. No outdoor use area exists at this location.
Should read as follows:
1. No outdoor use area exists at this location. Outdoor use area as it pertains to residential uses is
defined as an area with a presumption of privacy (e.g. backyards). Front yards do not fall under the
definition of an outdoor use area. The City of Santa Ana Noise Element defines exterior uses:
Exterior areas shall mean: private yards of single family homes.
Page 4-33, first paragraph, first sentence:
The closest sensitive receptor locations are located approximately 50 ft from the new sound barrier
construction areas.
Should read as follows:
08/10/10 (PADMJ0701\MND\Revised ERRATA.doc)
20A-111
The closest sensitive receptor locations are located , ppr-exifn +°ly within 50 ft from the new sound
barrier construction areas.
Page 4-33, first paragraph, last sentence:
However, as provided in the X "A" the construction activities will be limited to the allowed hours and
with incorporation of Mitigation Measure N-1, noise related impacts will be reduced to less than
significant levels."
Should read as follows:
However, as provided in the XI "A" the construction activities will be limited to the allowed hours
and with incorporation of Mitigation Measure N- 1, noise related impacts will be reduced to less than
significant levels.
Page 4-42, third paragraph (XV.G), third sentence:
The nearest bus stops are located at the Harbor Boulevard and First Street intersection to the west of
the bridge and the First Street/Raitt Street intersection to the east of the bridge.
Should read as follows:
The nearest bus stops are located at +"° Harbor Beulev -d , id First S- -te+ :.,+o -seetion +„ the west E)
the > fridge and the First c+fe-t-A R-AW c+..oo+ inter-seetion +,. +>7? east of the bridge, serving both the
westbound and eastbound directions of First Street.
08/10/10 (PAD W070 RNINMRevised ERRATA. doc)
20A-112