Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
80A - TRANSIT ZONING CODE - FEIR - SUPPLEMENTAL - REPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF SANTA ANA TRANSIT ZONING CODE (SD 84A AND SD84B) EnvironmentaI Impact Report SCH No. 2006071100 Volume Ib: Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the Final EIR Prepared for City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, Ross Annex M-20 Santa Ana, California 92702 Prepared by PBS&J 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 June 2010 Contents Volume 1: Draft EIR Volume la: Final EIR Volume Ib: Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the Final EIR CHAI''TER 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the Final EIR 12-1 12.1 Organization of the Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the Final EIR 12-1 12.2 Responses to Comments on the EIR 12-1 12.2.1 Letter AQl~~: South Coast Air Qualit~r 1~Ianagement District (AQiVID) 12-3 12.2.2 Response to Letter OCP`~': Orange Count<r Public ~Xjorks (OCP~X~) ........................................................................................................12-11 12.2.3 Letter OCTA: Orange Count<~ Transportation Authorit<r (OCT~) ....12-15 12.2.4 Letter BHLG: Brandt-Hawley Law Group 12-19 12.2.5 Letter BLC: Briggs Law Corporation 12-27 CHAI''TER 13 TEXT CHANGES 13-1 Volume 11: Draft EIR Appendices Appendix A Notice of Preparation (1~rOP~, Initial Study ~S), and Comments on the ISI NOP Appendzx B AirQuality Data Appendax C Sensitive Species Potentially Occur rzng nrithin the Study Area Appendzx D Cultural Besou~ ces InfoT7nation Appendax E EDl~ I~epo~t Appendzx F Noise Data Appendzx G TTa~c Study Appendax H 1~ate7- Supply Assessment Appendzx I Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1~orksheets Volume la: Final EIR Appendices Appendzx G T~a~c Bepo~t /BevisedJ AppendzxJ AlteT~atives Testin~FinancialAnaZyses [Bevired7 Appendzx K Developer P~ oject Phase I Environmental Site Assessments Tables Table 12-1 Comment Letters Received after the Draft EIR Comment Period .............................................12-1 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR iii CHAPTER 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the Final EIR 12.1 ORGANIZATION OF THE RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED SINCE PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL EIR The letters in this document include public comments on the EIR for the proposed Transit Zoning Code that were received after the close of the public review period, after publication of the Final EIR and after the Maur 27, 2010, Planning Commission public hearing on the proposed Transit Zoning Code. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from Februar~~ 2, 2010, to April 12, 2010. Although the Cit~r of Santa Ana is not required to respond to these comments, it has chosen to do so (CEQA Guidelines Section 15207). Responses to these comments have been prepared to address the environmental concerns raised by the commenter and to indicate where and how the EIR addresses pertinent environmental issues. The comment letters have been numbered in an ordinal fashion. Each issue within a comment letter, if more than one, has a letter assigned to it. Responses to the comment letter immediately follow each letter. References to the responses to comments identif~r first the letter number, and second, the comment letter (6A, for example). Where comments have been duplicated within a single letter, the reader is referred to the appropriate responses number rather than having a comment repeated and providing a duplicate answer. The commenters, along with the page number on which their comment letters appear, are listed below. Letter Letter Page Code Commenter/Organizafion Date No. AQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District 6/01/10 12-3 OCPW Orange County Public Works 6/03/10 12-11 OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority 6/01 /10 12-15 BHLG Brandt-Hawley Law Group 6/04/10 12-19 BLC Briggs Law Corporation 6/05/10 12-27 12.2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EIR This section contains the original comment letters, which have been bracketed to isolate the individual comments, with each letter followed by a section with the responses to the comments within the letter. As noted above, and stated in Sections 15088(a) and 15088(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, comments that raise significant environmental issues are provided with responses. Comments that are outside of the scope of CEQA review will be forwarded for consideration to the decision-makers as part of the project City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 12-1 Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the Final EIR approval process. In some cases, a response may refer the reader to a previous response, if that previous response substantively addressed the same issues. 12-2 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR Letter AQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 ~ (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov E-mailed: June 1, 2010 June 1, 2010 Ms. Lucy Linnaus Senior Planner City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency Santa Ana, CA 92702 Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. Although the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) closed on March 19, 2010 AQMD staff was not notified about this project until April 20, 2010. While the comment period has closed, the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) has not yet been gQMD-1 published by the lead agency. The following comments are intended to provide guidance to the lead agency and should be incorporated into the Final EIR as appropriate. Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15086 AQMD staff requests that the lead agency please ensure that the AQMD is included in the distribution list for all future projects subject to CEQA. AQMD staff recognizes the regional air quality benefits of the proposed project (Transit Zoning Code) given that it will increase residential densities near future employment and transportation centers. However, AQMD staff is concerned that the project provides a mixed use overlay zone that could potentially encourage more people to live in close proximity to sources of air pollution such as industrial uses and Interstate 5. Therefore, gQMD-2 AQMD staff requests that the lead agency review and implement mitigation measures consistent with the advisory recommendations and respective source categories from the California Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Perspective (GARB Handbook). Further, AQMD staff recommends that the lead agency require additional construction mitigation measures to minimize the project's potential air quality impacts. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, please provide the AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final EIR. AQMD-3 Further, staff is available to work with the lead agency to address these issues and any Ms. Lucy Linnaus 2 June 1, 2010 Senior Planner other questions that may arise. Please contact Dan Garcia, Air Quality Specialist CEQA gQMD-3 Section, at (909) 396-3304, if you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments. contd. Sincerely, Ian MacMillan Program Supervisor, CEQA Inter-Governmental Review Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources Attachment IM:DG ORC 100420-04 Control Number Ms. Lucy Linnaus 3 June 1, 2010 Senior Planner Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation Measures: Siting Criteria and Future Proiect Planning 1. The AQMD staff recognizes the proposed project provides regional air quality benefits by increasing residential densities near future employment and transportation centers. However, the proposed project (Transit Zoning Code) provides a mixed use overlay zone for select areas that allows for mixed use development at the discretion of the property owner. As a result, the proposed project could place additional residential uses (e.g., single family homes, condos, and apartments) in close proximity to industrial uses (e.g., auto body paint shops) and a major fieeway (i.e., Interstate 5). AQMD-4 Given that the proposed project allows for the placement of residential uses inclose proximity to industrial uses and Interstate 5, the AQMD staff is concerned about the exposure of local residents to potentially significant sources of emissions. Therefore, AQMD staff recommends that the lead agency review the CARB Handbook, which offers guidance on the siting of incompatible land uses and "sensitive land uses" (e.g., residences, parks and medical facilities) near industrial sources, high traffic freeways and roads to design the proposed project. Further, AQMD staff requests that the lead agency implement mitigation measures consistent with the advisory recommendations and respective source categories in the CARB Handbook. Construction Mitigation Measures 2. The regional and localized construction emissions from implementing the proposed project could potentially exceed the AQMD's daily significance thresholds for NOX, VOC, CO, PM10 and PM2.5, therefore, AQMD staff is concerned about the overall implementation and effectiveness of the lead agency's construction related mitigation measures. Specifically, AQMD staff recommends that where the phrases: "to the AQMD-5 extent readily available," "to the extent cost effective" and "to the extent feasible" appear in mitigation measures (i.e., MM4.2-7, 4.2-9, 4.2-ll, 4.2-19, and 4.2-20) that the lead agency develop criteria to determine the "availability", "cost effectiveness" and "feasibility" of these measures. Additionally, AQMD staff requests that the lead agency consider adding the following mitigation measures to further reduce air quality impacts from the proposed project: Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas, AQMD-6 Consistent with measures that other lead agencies in the region (including Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach) have enacted, require all on-site construction equipment to meet EPA Tier 2 or higher emissions standards according to the following: ? April 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011: All offroad diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 2 offroad Ms. Lucy Linnaus 4 June 1, 2010 Senior Planner emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with the BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 2 or Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. ? Januarys 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014: All offroad diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 3 offroad emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control gQMD-6 strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. contd. ? Post-January 1, 2015: All offroad diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. ? A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or AQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. For additional measures to reduce off-road construction equipment, refer to the mitigation measure tables located at the following website: AQMD-7 www.admd. og v/cega/handbook/mitigation/MM intro.html. The lead agency should consider encouraging construction contractors to apply for AQMD "SOON" funds. As an example, incentives could be provided in the bidding process for those construction contractors who apply for AQMD "SOON" funds. The "SOON" program provides up to $60 million gQMD-8 dollars to accelerate clean up of off-road diesel vehicles, such as heavy duty construction equipment. More information on this program can be found at the following website: http://www.agmd. Gov/tao/Implementation/SOONPro ~r am.htm Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the t=tnal EIR ~I' Response to Letter AQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Response to Comment AQMD-1 This comment contains introductory language as well as a request to be included on future CEQA document distribution lists. Though the City's records indicate that a copy of the Draft EIR was mailed to the AQMD, the comment is noted and the City will ensure that all future CEQA projects include distribution to AQMD. Response to Comment AQMD-2 The commenter is concerned about future residential uses being sited in proximity- to industrial uses and Interstate 5, and the impacts to future sensitive receptors caused thereby. The commenter also suggests that the City examine the California ARB Handbook for guidance on the siting of potential sensitive receptors near sources of high pollutant emissions. According to the California 1~RB Handbook, sensitive receptors should be located at least 300 feet from Interstate 5 as well as dry cleaners using Perehloroethylene. The Handbook also states that residenrial uses should not occupy the same building as dry cleaners using said chemical. In addirion, other examples cited by the commenter such as auto- body paint shops and other manufacturing operations (as shown in Table 1-3 of the Handbook) are required to obtain a permit from the AQMD, which carries with it certain requirements relating to production methodologies. It should be noted that, with the exceprion of the Developer Project (described in Chapter 3 of the DEIR), the Transit Zoning Code EIR is a programmatic document, and future projects that could occur within the planning area are unknown and specularive at this time. Therefore, future projects would be subject to City plan review and, depending on their nature, subject to subsequent CEQA review. The City's Municipal Code sets forth specific land use compatibility requirements for industrial and sensitive receptors. In urbanized infill projects (especially those that utilize transit-oriented development), it is often infeasible to site projects more than 300 feet from high-traffic freeways and may (in some cases) minimize the project's benefit as a reducer of automobile trips. As a result, mitigation measures may be required for projects such as these that could require the use of American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 170-2008Ventilation of Health Care Faciliries (as a worst-case example of standards) for intake systems as well as compliance with the standards for "Protective Environment" under the aforementioned Standard, which requires adual- phase filtration intake systems with efficiency ratings classified by the iVIERV standards for filtration'. Finally, mitigation measure M'Vi I4.2-21 requires that subsequent projects within the Transit Zoning Code complete site-specific air quality analyses to determine their impacts and provide mitigarion (if necessary) that reduces impacts associated with said projects. i American Societ~r of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Standard 970-2008 Tlentilation of Health Care Facilitie3, 2008. City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 12-7 Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the t=tnal EIR Response to Comment AQMD-3 This comment requests that the Cit<- provide AQNID with written responses to the comments set forth in this letter prior to certification of the EIR for this project. The City will provide the AQMD with a written response to these comments before the public hearing on the project. Response to Comment AQMD-4 Refer to response r1MQD-2. Response to Comment AQMD-5 The commenter states that the City should consider developing criteria to determine the "availability", "cost effectiveness", and/or "feasibility" of the use of construction methods or equipment that would help to reduce construction-related pollutant emissions. Since this programmatic EIR is analyzing long- range future development, it is not feasible to determine the criteria that the commenter suggests. Technologies change as do costs. As indicated in the l~~ZRP prepared for the project, future entitlements by the City prior to the issuance of grading or building permits will be required. Therefore, the appropriateness of these measures can better be determined at such time. Thus, the Cite does not consider the development of these criteria to be feasible mitigation at the time of this writing. Response to Comment AQMD-6 The commenter suggests several additional mitigation measures. The first suggestion is to re-route construction equipment away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas. IV~74.2-15 sets forth mitigation to ensure smooth traffic flow. Also, in the FEIR, the following text change was added to the Transportation Section: In addition, any work that proposes to excavate, improve, or otherwise occur in a public street sidewalk. or amr odler public place will be reduired to obtain a permit from die Public Works Department. One of die reduirements to obtain a permit as outlined in Section 33-32(a (71 of die Municipal Code is die preparation of a construction work flan that is approved by die Cit<r Traffic Engineer. This includes identif<rin~ lane closures, their duration, die means for traffic safety control, die tees and number of traffic delineators, schedule, hours of operation, etc. Compliance with the City`s Noise Ordinance and the Municipal Code will prevent anv significant impacts to local roadwa~-s or on die nearbt- school. Attainment of the aforementioned permit will require a construction work plan as stated above. The provisions thereof will ensure that the City Traffic Engineer will grant a permit at which time traffic disruption is determined to be at the minimum possible levels. In regard to the other suggested mitigation measures, as is standard practice, the City included the mitigation measures that are listed in the URBEMIS model since they are calculated into the "mitigated" model output. However, the CitcT concurs and will add the following mitigation measures to reduce Impact 4.2-5, identified in Section 4.2 of the DEIR although the reductions (if any=) are not quantifiable. 12-8 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the t=tnal EIR 1~~1114.2-7(a~ LVith respect to the Transit Zoning Code area as a whole, the City shall, to the extent feasible, regui~e all on-site const~nction to meetLPA Tier 2, or higher; emissions standards according to the following: ¦ Ap~zl 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011: All off-~ oad diesel po~are~ ed const~zrction egu pynent g~ eater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 2 off-road emissions standa~ ds. In addition, all const~z~ction equipment shall be ou~tted with BACT devices ce~~ified by Cal foTnia AAB. Any e~nission.r cont~ of device used by the cont~ actor shall achieve emissions z eductiorzs that a~ e no less than what could be achieved by a Level 2 or Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a siynilarly sued engine as defined by Cal fo~~cia AAB ~ egulations. ¦ Janua y 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014: All off-road diesel po~are~ ed constzz~ction egu p~nent g~ eater than SO hp shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions standa7 ds. In addition, all const~z~ction egu pment shall be ou~tted with BACT devices ce~~ified by Cal foTnia A1~B. Any emissions cont~ of device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sued engine as defined by Cal foTnia AAB regulations. ¦ Post Janua y 1, 2015: All off-~ oad diesel powered construction egu pment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standardr, wher e available. In addition, all construction egu pment shall be ou~tted with BACT devices certified by Cal fo~nia AAB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similar y sued engine as defined by Cal foTnia AAB regulations. ¦ A copy of each unit's certified tier speczfication, BACT documentation, and Cal for nia A1~B or AQMD operating per~zit shall be provided at the tinge of mobilisation of each applicable unit of equipment. 11i1~114.2-7(b) 1~ith respect to the Developer Project analysed in the EIB for the Transit Zoning Code, the City shall require all on-site constrz~ction to meet EPA Tier 2, or higher, emissions standards according to the following: ¦ Aprzl 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011: All off-goad dieselpowe~ed const~z~ction equpment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 2 off-road emissions standards. In addition, all construction egu pment shall be ou~tted with BACT devices certified by Cal fo~~cia A1~B. Any emissions contr of device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 2 or Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similary sued engine as defined by Cal fog nia AAB regulations. ¦ Janua y 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014: All off-road diesel powered construction egu pment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions standards. In addition, all construction egu pment shall be ou~tted with BACT devices certified by Cal fog nia A1~B. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions contr of strategy for a similarly sued engine as defined by Cal fo~~cia AAB regulations. ¦ Post January 1, 2015: All off-road dieselpowered construction egupmentgreater than SO hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available. In addition, all constriction equ pment shall be ou~tted with BACT devices certified by Cal fo~nia AAB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sued engine as defined by Cal fo~~aia AAB regulations. City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 12-9 Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the Final EIR ¦ A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BAC, I' documentation, and Cal forma A1~B or AQMD operating pe~~nit shall he provided at the dyne of ynohili~ation of each applicable unit of eguip~nent. Response to Comment AQMD-7 The commenter refers the City to a website "for additional measures to reduce off-road construction equipment However, the tables listed on the website depict a breakdown of emission reductions per vehicles and power ratings complying with California ARB Tiers 1, 2, 3, and 4 and do not list specific feasible mitigation measures. Comment noted. Response to Comment AQMD-8 This comment asks the Cit<r to encourage construction contractors to apply for funding that would enable owners of eligible fleets to purchase low-emission heavy-duty engine technologies to achieve near- term reduction of NOX emissions from in-use, off-road diesel vehicles. These fleet upgrades are in furtherance of the State "Surplus Off-road Opt-in for NOk" (SOON) provision of a recently adopted California ARB regulation, which sets more-stringent NOX emission targets for in-use, off-road diesel vehicles. In 2008, the AQMD Board approved setting aside up to X120 million over a four year period for this purpose called the "SOON" Program.. The current funding period closed June 4, 2010. This EIR is both a programmatic level document for the Transit Zoning Code, as well as a project specific analysis for the Development Project for the Redevelopment Agency parcels. With both the current funding cycle for the SOON Program having closed and therefore not available for the near-term Development Project, and the unknown status of future funding for projects that have not yet been identified, it is not feasible to add specific mitigation measures relating to SOON Program funding. The City notes the comment and will forward this to the decision-makers. 12-10 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR Letter OCPW ^ r 3 ~ -r u, O R A N G E C O U N T Y ~ N., i _ M t ~ ' r i ~E ~(4 dur Cammunfty. Our Commitment. dd 1 r.. June 3, 2010 Ms. Lucy Linnaus, Senior Planner City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaaa, M20 Santa Ana, CA 92702 SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Report 2006-02, General Plan Amendment No. 2010-1 and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2006-09 for the Transit Zoning Code Dear Ms. Linnaus: The County of Orange has reviewed the documents referenced above that are related to the proposed Transit Zoning Code located in the City of Santa Ana. We applaud the City of Santa OCPw-~ Ana for this planning effort and the goal of facilitating new development activity in this area. We offer the following comments for your consideration: County Owned Properties Within the boundary of the Transit Village Zone are County-owned properties along Santa Ana Boulevard. These include the "Fruit Street" maintenance yard and a vacant parcel across the street on the northerly side of Santa Ana Boulevard. In the EIR prepared for this project, the land use for the Fruit Street property is described as "institutional" and the vacant property as "industrial." The zoning far these properties is "Open Space," which includes "government buildings" as a permitted use. Adoption of the proposed General Plan and Zoning Cade amendment would result in the rezoning of the County properties from "Open Space (OS)" to `Transit Village (TV)." This would OCPw-2 also result in a change of permitted uses and development standards to encourage the development of "compact transit-supportive mixed use/residential development." We understand that in general these types of land use changes enhance surrounding areas and would therefore have no negative impact on the value of the County owned properties affected. There is a discussion in the proposed Transit Zoning Code regarding existing, non-conforming uses. The document states that "lawfully established" uses may continue to operate but may be altered only in compliance with the Cade. As you know, the City and the County are exempt from each other's zoning and building regulations as long as the property in question is used far governmental purposes. It is the County's intention to continue to operate, maintain and possibly expand the Fruit St. facility consistent with its current use. Strictly speaking, therefore, the County property and its uses would not be considered non-conforming since it is public property. The County anticipates that this continuing use will not interfere with the goals and objectives of the proposed Transit Village Zoning. We suggest that this be noted in the record. Environmental Impact Report 2006-02, General Plan Amendment No. 2010-i and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2005-09 for the Transit Zoning Code June 3, 2010 Page 2 Since the exemption from City Zoning is a result of County ownership, the City zoning would OCPw-2 presumably apply if the ownership of the property changed. contd. Water Quality The recommended generic Mitigation Measure MM4.6-1 for potential surface water quality impacts of runoff from redevelopment pursuant to the Transit Zoning Overlay District (see Pages 4.6-16 and 17) correctly suggests requirements of the Municipal Stormwater NPDES Program are subject to periodic change. Specific reference should be made to the 4'" term Municipa[ NPDES Stormwater Permit for the Santa Ana Region of Orange County as adopted OCPW-3 on May 22, 2009. The 4t" term permit requires substantive changes to the Model WQMP for Orange County, changes that will likely be effective in early 2011. The revised Model WQMP for Orange County will require that each priority development or redevelopment project infiltrate, harvest and re-use, evapotranspire or capture runoff from the 85th percentile 24 hr. storm event ("design capture volume"). Any portion of this volume that is not infiltrated, harvested and re- used, evapotranspired or captured onsite by Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs shall be treated and discharged using LID or similarly effective treatment control BMPs or mitigated. Flood Control Any intensification of land use that might result from the update may increase the overall impervious area and impact local as well as regional drainage. Therefore, we recommend that OCPW-4 Item 5.5 in Table 2, Page 24 be modified to read: "Ensure that post-development hydrology and storm water runoff rates and velocities from a site have no significant adverse impact on downstream drainage facilities, flood protection levels, erosion or stream habitat." It appears that the 100-Year Flood Zone boundary depicted in Exhibit A-9, Page A-47 is inconsistent with FEMA's FIRM Maps, Panel 0144) and may need revision. City of Santa Ana, OCPW-5 as floodplain administrator for areas within its municipal boundaries should ensure that all FEMA regulations and floodplain requirements applicable to the Land Use Element are met. The first paragraph under Flood Hazards on Page A-41 of the document needs to be revised. The lower Santa Ana River from Weir Canyon Road to the Pacific Ocean has undergone major improvement as a part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Santa Ana Mainstem Project. The OCPW-6 reach through Santa Ana consists mostly of a trapezoidal, concrete lined channel with a bottom width of 180 feet. If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 667-3217 or Mike Balsamo at (714) 667- 8854. Sincerelyti_ ~ - - ~ ~ f. Jess A. -~r~ajal ~ Director, O`G Public Works, ~ h c'~- -_1~CbrLeFeuvre, Interim Director, OC Planning Mike Balsamo, Manager, OC Planning/General Land Use Planning Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the Final EIR fill Letter OCPW: Orange County Public Works (OCPW) Response to Comment OCPW-1 This comment contains introductory and general background information and is not a direct comment on environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No response is required. Response to Comment OCPW-2 The comment accurately reflects the proposed changes to existing zoning and application of the zoning contained within the Transit Zoning Code, as well as changes to land use contained in the amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element, on the properties currently owned by the Counter of Orange described as the "Fruit Street" maintenance yard and the vacant parcel across the street on the northerly side of Santa Ana Boulevard. The comment also accurately reflects the exempt status of the properties owned by the County of Orange from the provisions of the Transit Zoning Code and other provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter 41Zoning, including provisions related to legal non- conforming uses and sites. Due to the fact that the propert<r is not currently in private ownership, any improvements or uses that do not currently comply with the existing zoning, or proposed Transit Zoning Code standards, are not considered legal non-conforming and, as such, existing improvements and uses do not enjoy the protection of the provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter 41 as it relates to non-conforming uses and sites. As stated in Comment OCPW-2, should the propert<T currently owned by the Count~T of Orange change to private ownership, the full provisions of the Transit Zoning Code would apply and any future development would be required to comply with all of the standards contained within the Transit Zoning Code .This comment does not address environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No additional response is required. Response to Comment OCPW-3 The commenter requests that the mitigation measure MM4.6-1 be revised to adhere to the 4`~ term Municipal NPDES Stormwater Permit for the Santa. Ana Region of Orange Counter as adopted on May 11, 2009." As written, the mitigation measure states: In order to comply with the current version of the DAMP, future development projects in die Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) area shall prepare Storm Drain Plans, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plans (WQ~VIP) conforming to the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Agency for review and approval. The city understands that the commenter's intent is to ensure that the mitigation measure requires compliance with the latest set of regulations regarding the NPDES. However, since the majorit5r of the future development of the Transit Zoning Code may occur years in the future, requiring development projects to comply with "current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements" ensures compliance with the most up-to-date standards over a longer period of time, since the requirements that are in effect today may differ in the future. Writing the mitigation measure in this way places the responsibilitcr of complying with NPDES regulations on future project proponents, regardless of how the regulations change over time. Therefore, the City will adopt mitigation measure MM4.6-1 as set forth in the EIR. City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 12-13 Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the t=tnal EIR Response to Comment OCPW-4 Comment OCPW-4 addresses the proposed amendment to the Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element. The City- will modify Item 5.5 in Table 2, page 24 of the Land Use Element to read: "Ensure that post-development hydrology and storm water runoff rates and velocities from a site have no significant adverse impact on downstream drainage facilities, flood protection levels, erosion, or stream habitat." This comment does not address environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No additional response is required. Response to Comment OCPW-5 Comment OCPW-5 addresses the proposed amendment to the Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element. The City will review and update as necessary the map depicted in Exhibit A-9 Flood Hazards in order to accurately reflect current FEIVIA FIRM Maps, Panel 0144J. This comment does not address environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No additional response is required. Response to Comment OCPW-6 Comment OCPW-6 addresses the proposed amendment to the Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element. The City- will modify- the first paragraph under Flood Hazards on Page A-41 to read as follows: "The Santa Ana River is the major drainage channel flowing through the City and many of the major storm drains in the city are (directly or indirectly) connected to it. The lower Santa Ana River from Weir Canyon Road to the Pacific Ocean was improved as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Santa Ana Mainstem Project. The reach through Santa Ana consists mostly of a trapezoidal, concrete lined channel with a bottom width of 180 feet." This comment does not address environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No additional response is required. 12-14 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR Letter OCTA DCTA .1U~ J ~ 20 i~ SA~i~A ~~~~1. ~ ~~;t- B7AAD a~ t~+Rrcra~s June ~ , 2010 Jerry Arrarr!e Charrrv, ;r. ~;,rr,°«ea1E~4 Ms. Lucy Linnaus, Senior Planner "'°Q c.ti°""':'^ City of Santa Ana ~1sro<ti., 20 Civic Center Plaza, M2D ~''•°'°r"` Santa Ana, CA g27(t2 Peter 8li1fa D;rgClOr SUl]~eC#: Referral pf General flan Amer~dmen# hip. 201Q-'~ for the Trans# ~,~~c;w,>>,ra°a-.: ~~oninc~ Cede L7dfBC10r Caro7ynV.CavecNre Deaf Ms. t_InnaUS: ~rr~cto. vu,+,«,°,., p~r,ron The (7range County Transportation Authority ((~CTA) has reviewed the propr~sed Drrecrar General Plan Amendment N©. ~C31Q-1 anal the corresponding Draft Environmental Impact OCTA-1 r~rcrrznd Crx°;; Report ~DEIR}. The following comments are provided for your consideration: Uire~tar r?~urc~ c~l.1~h dCTA appreciates the City of Santa Ana (City acknowledging the need for [7rreclor improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities and that these improvements are OCTA-2 vorlNans~n being pursued. In this regard, the transit zoning code works toward the same °"a`'°` purpose as the 2at79 C]CTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan. Allan t:fafrsa°r °'°`'~!°r • The +Congestion Management Program (CGV1P} analysis indicates that the ~a~n~©a~1°~~~ overall project is adding a large amount of traffic to the transpt~rtation system; Drrect~r however. CMP intersections outside the project area are not analyzed. The J3°°r~+s°ye,, CMF' Traff%c Impact Analysis Guide{ines recommend that traffic impacts be °ireG10i anal zed alcan CMP hi hwa s stem facilities until the im acts are under 3 y g g y y p OCTA-3 cu,rPrir±qfc: percent of the level of service E capacity. As shown in the DEIR, the traffic L7irerrar counts for First Street east of Grand Avenue are significant. Due to these t~1r9Ue1?~+~~~ impacts, the CMP intersection at First Street and the Santa Ana Freeway D~reclcrr (interstate 5} should be included in the analysis. C~regary 7 4+1+rnle~balto~'d` [11f~f.`rC1f • As a matter of C~CTA's protocol, any mesdifications tc~ the Master Plan of Arterial au°^ Highways (MPAH~ facilities must ga through tree MPAH amendment prcacess d;ave!n°r'; ~,~.p1,,r.° ~,f~,,,aF,r and be approved by our Board. Qf Directors. This must be crsmpleted prior to an OCTA-4 amendment andlor approval of the City General Plan in order for the City to maintain eligibility for Measure M2 funding. L'H7EF~XLClITfUCQFFICP ° wrrrxcmt,lo.~ • When identifying potential transi#lbus stop locations within the proposed transit ~""'~~a=urrv°c~v,"°` zone, a thorough. evaluation should be conducted to ensure that each bus step is strategically placed. This will minimize the impact to adjacent businesses andlar residential units. The following should be included during the evaluation: OCTA-5 o Stops Should not be placed directly in front of entryways. o Stops should not block signage or display windows far businesses located in tine general area. Oraaga C;autaEy 'tiarrspartatian Authority 55Q South IYt~rrt SFrrn€~t:` f?t?. Sax 14 i&~ .Orange : G~Itforrai~ X2863-7587 (i74f 56Q-C1C"rA (6282f Ms. Lucy Linnaus June 1, 201 C1 Page 2 v Stops should not be placed in areas where there may be outside seating,. such as sidewalk cafes. a Stops should be placed at locations where engine noise andlor exhaust OCTA-5 fumes generated from buses will net directly affect the adjacent contd. properties. a Street furniture should be strategicakly ,placed to rninirnize the. impact to general pedestrian traffic or limit the visibility of businesses located behind the furniture. o Stops should be in compliance with the American Disability Act and CICTA requirements for wheelchair boarding, areas (see OCTA's Bus Stop Safety and Design Guidelines online at www.octa.net~lJploaded fikeslpubtication_bus_guidelines.pdf}. a A standard bus turnout or concrete bus pad should be placed at each potentiak stop location to minimize roadway damage. In addition, the QGTA stops and zones section should be notified to provide assistance with the placement of each bus stop fiacation within the proposed project area. The contact name and corresponding phone number to provide further assistance is Bill Batory, Stops and Zones Senior Analyst, at (714} 66C7-5912.. 1f you have any questions or comments, please contact Hal McCutchan, Environmentak Programs Manager, at (714} 569-5759 or by emaik at hrrtccutchan a~octa.net, Skncerely, f~ , , Charles Larwood' Manager, Transportation Planning C L: cm Attachment c: Greg Nord, C~CTA Joseph Alcc~ck, OCTA Bill Batory, OCTA Hal McCutchan, aCTA :DU4 CongesCivn ~.\7ana~;tn]enl ]'roKrt~m 1-7.~~\indix L- 1 guidelines in the ITE 1=rip Generation Manual. and appropriate professional judgment are: the predominant techniques employed. To supplerr]ent the guidance available through ITE documentation, local jurisdictions arc encouraged io undertake additional studies to document rates applicable within their jurisdiction. The detcrniination of applicable rates should be undertaken by experienced transportation engineering professionals with thorough documentation of the meth©dology, data, and assumptions used. It is rcco]:amended that those jurisdictions which da not currently allow these adjustments establish revised TiA procedures incorporating this element. As with trip generation data, a central library would be desirable For reporting of data and analyses performed locally related' to determination of appropriate factors. Trip Distribution and Assignment Several appropriate distribution and assignment. techniques arc ].rscd in C7ranl;e C'c~unty., depending on the size of the development and the duration of buildaut, Manual and computer modeling approaches arc. used as appropriate. Manual methods based on the best socio-economic information available to the agency and applicant should be acceptable except when a development's size makes a modeling approach more appropriate. Sources of this information include demographic sunrcys, market analyses, and previous studies. Radius of Development Influence There are numerous ways to identify the study area to be evaluated in a TIA. These include both qualitative and quantitative approaches. [}ne of the most effective ways is through the determination of the quantity of project traffic an CMp' roadway links compared to a selected level of impact. The goal of a quantitative approach is to be sure that all e]ements of the CMP network are addressed in a comparable manner from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This is important due to the potential for overlapping impacts among jurisdictions. It is also important to maintain flexibility within a quantitative process to allow transportation professionals at local jurisdictions to add areas to the study which are of specific concern. It is not intended that CMP practices should restrict this aspect of each agency's existing TIA process. It is recommended that the study area for CMF Highway System links be defined by a measure of signif"tcant impact. on the roadway links. As a starting point, ii is proposed that the measure he threw percent of existing roadway capacity. Thus, when a traffic impact analysis is tieing done it would require the inclusion of CMP roadway links that are impacted by 3 percent or more of their L+05 E capacity. if a TIA is required only far CM.P purposes, the study area would end when traffic falls below three percent of capacity on individual roadway links, If the TIA is also required for other purposes, additional analysis can be required by the local jurisdiction based on engineering judgment or local regulation as applicable. Background Traffic In order for a reasonable assessment of the level of service on the CMp network, it is necessary to not only identify the proposed development impact, but also the other traffic which can be expected to occur during the development of the project. There arc numerous methods of evaluating background traffic. The implications of these alternative methods era that certain methodologies may result in dcficicncics, while other methodologies may find an acceptable operating conditions. Final. - 80 - C3CTA l 2/1812Dt}9 Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the Final EIR ~I Response to Letter OCTA: Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Response to Comment OCTA-1 This comment contains introductory or general background information and is not a direct comment on environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No response is required. Response to Comment OCTA 2 It is noted that the Transit Zoning Code is consistent with OCTA's policies regarding bicycle commuting. This comment does not address environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. This comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers prior to final action. Response to Comment OCTA 3 Discussions between Charles Larwood, Manager of Transportation Planning at OCTA and George Alvarez, Santa Ana CitSr Engineer, on June 4, 2010, determined that the intersection mentioned in the comment letter was in fact outside of the study area. As a result, no further action required. Response to Comment OCTA-4 The Circulation Element of the Santa Ana General Plan is currently in compliance with the Counter of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The Transit Zoning Code and attendant amendments to the Land Use Element of the Santa Ana General Plan do not propose any modifications to the Circulation Element of the Santa Ana General Plan and, as such, would not result in a change to the MPAH. The Cit~T of Santa Ana will continue to remain in compliance with the provisions of the MPAH and to follow any amendment processes in order to maintain eligibilit~T for Measure M2 funding. This comment does not address environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No additional response is required. Response to Comment OCTA-5 The City of Santa Ana currently coordinates the placement of all transit/bus stop locations with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) using the strategic siting criteria contained in Comment OCTA-5. While the Transit Zoning Code is primarily intended to regulate development on private property, one of its chief objectives is to ensure proper integration of private development with public transit. To that end, the criteria for strategic siting of bus/transit stops suggested by OCTA in Comment OCTA-5 `will be incorporated into the Street Network Concepts Guidelines section of the Transit Zoning Code in order to facilitate the placement of future bus/transit stops. This comment does not address environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No addirional response is required. 12-18 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR Letter BHLG BRANDY-HAWLEY LAW GROUP Er~~%iror,r;~er~:~/Pr~:~~~~~~lic?r, Susan Brandt-Hawley Chduvet House PO Box 1659 Legal Assistant Jeanie Stapleton Glen Ellen, California 95442 June 4, 2010 Mayor Miguel A. Pulido and Members of the Santa Ana City Council council(~santa-ana.org Subject: Transit Zoning Code and Station District Development Dear Mayor Pulido and City Councilmembers: On behalf of the Friends of the Lacy Historic Neighborhood, I respectfully ask the Council to reject the needless demolitions proposed by the Station District Development. Understanding the importance of community revitalization, the BHLG-1 Friends urge the Council to consider whether laudatory project objectives can be feasibly achieved without demolition of unique historic properties. Yes, they can. Friends is a public interest group formed in November 2009 and devoted to the appreciation, preservation, and adaptive reuse of the aesthetic, historic, and cultural resources of Santa Ana's Lacy Neighborhood. The Friends retained this office because our statewide law practice focuses on citizen enforcement of the California Environmental Quality Act, particularly involving historic resources. The many CEQA cases we have handled over the last twenty-five years include published appellate and Supreme Court decisions in Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra BHLG-2 Madre, Lincoln Place Tenants Association v. City of Los Angeles, The Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento, Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose, Friends of the Santa Clara River v. Castaic Lake Water Agency, Architectural Heritage Association v. County of Monterey, League for Protection v. City of Oakland, Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus, and Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma. As you may recall, when the City approved demolition contracts in the Lacy Neighborhood last year, the Friends filed suit based on violations of CEQA. (Santa BHLG-3 Ana Superior Court Case 30-2009 00321561-CU-WM-CMX.) The Friends were appreciative that the City Council responded to the lawsuit by rescinding the 707.938.3900 ~ fax 707.938.3200 ~ sus~nbhC~preservationlawyers.com Letter re Transit Zoning Code and Development June 4, 2010 Page 2 demolition contracts and thus stopping the then-imminent demolitions. After the City also revised its EIR for the pending Transit Zoning Code to add non-demolition alternatives for the Lacy Neighborhood, the Friends agreed to dismiss the case, gHLG-3 expecting to work with the City on a feasible combination of new development and contd. adaptive reuse of many of the existing homes in order to retain the Lacy Neighborhood's unique historic character. Yet this has not yet happened. The project before you involves the same demolitions that were the subject of the Friends' initial lawsuit, and more. Serious legal problems remain. Although the Friends had been hopeful that the City staff would acknowledge the feasibility of adaptive reuse of many of the threatened Lacy Neighborhood homes while still accomplishing project objectives, the proposed approvals before you do not do so. We will be providing further information to you BHLG-4 on Monday regarding legal inadequacies of the proposed findings and approvals, primarily based on the fact that the demolitions and future plans do not include provision for adaptive reuse of any of the viable Lacy Neighborhood resources. There is no question that most of the plan objectives could be accomplished without demolition of all of the vintage buildings in the Lacy Neighborhood. The Friends of the Lacy Historic Neighborhood have offered, for many months, to work with the City on viable alternatives. We propose the following: 1. Of the 18 structures proposed for demolition (listed in the EIR BHLG-5 on 5-1 as 14 demolitions but several parcels have multiple structures), at least 10 should either be rehabilitated in place or, if that is not feasible, moved within the Lacy Neighborhood. 2. Regarding the purchase of an additional 20 properties (listed in the EIR on 3-6 as Potential Acquisitions): BHLG-6 a. There should be a moratorium on additional purchases for 3 months, as these properties have not been inspected. b. During the 3 month period, city staff should be directed to work with the Friends and other neighborhood groups to determine disposition. BHLG-7 c. At least 10 of the additional properties should be rehabilitated in place or, if that is not feasible, moved within the neighborhood. BHLG-8 d. The rehabilitated structures should be on 5th and 6th streets. gHLG-9 Letter re Transit Zoning Code and Development June 4, 2010 Page 3 e. A rehabilitation pool should be funded based on savings/cost avoidance from avoidance of moving or purchasing some of the properties. BHLG-10 The project before you is poised to ultimately result in the demolition of all BHLG-11 historic resources in the Lacy Neighborhood, leaving only the school and a large group of modern big-box apartments. With the prior demolition of 32 structures and the current proposed additional demolition of 28 more, a total of 60 resources would be lost forever. The Friends ask that the City consider the feasible BHLG-12 rehabilitation of only a third of these. This feasible alternative accomplishes most of the project objectives; therefore the project cannot be approved as proposed. Finally, I must relate to the Council my understanding that one of its members, Sal Tinejaro, has been publicly accusing the Friends group, whose members he does not even know, of racist motivations in its quest to include rehabilitation of some of the historic Lacy Neighborhood properties within the redevelopment of the area. Councilman Tinejaro's insulting, completely fabricated statements appear to be designed solely to cause division within the community. Fortunately, the members of Friends are known to be advocates who love the BHLG-13 community; their goal is not to "gentrify" the neighborhood but to encourage rehabilitation that does not destroy its unique architectural and cultural character. Thank you for your consideration. I hope that the City will work with the members of Friends to cooperatively move forward to preserve the Lacy Neighborhood resources to the extent feasible. Sincerely yours, Susan Brandt-Hawley cc: Jose Sandoval Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the t=tnal EIR ~I Response to Letter BHLG: Brandt-Hawley Law Group Response to Comment BHLG-1 This comment contains introductory or general background information and expresses the commenter's request that the CitSr Council reject demolition of historic properties in the Station District. The comment is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration prior to approval or denial of the proposed project. No further response is required. Response to Comment BHLG 2 This comment contains introductoryT or general background information and is not a direct comment on environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is required. Response to Comment BHLG 3 This comment contains introductor~T or general background information and is not a direct comment on environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is required. Response to Comment BHLG-4 Comment BLHG-4 references the "feasibility of adaptive reuse of many of the threatened Lacy Neighborhood homes." This comment appears to relate to the Alternatives contained in the Environmental Impact Report that analyzed specific alternatives to the demolition of existing structures that would occur under the proposed Developer Project. Refer to Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 in EIR Chapter 5 (Alternatives). The commenter states that the CitSr did not adequately acknowledge the feasibilit<- of such adaptive reuse. The concept of "adaptive reuse" generally refers to the process of converting a structure traditionally occupied by one use, such as a house used for residential purposes, to another use, such as house converted to an office. Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 each analyzed scenarios under which the Cit<- would retain existing structures in place and provided for their rehabilitation such that they could be used for residential purposes and not for "adaptive reuse." The properties in question were all purchased using 20% Set-Aside Redevelopment Agency funding. This funding source is restricted in its use and may only be used to support projects which result in the production of affordable housing as defined by State law (Health and Safety Code Section 33334.2). Were the Agency to use these funds for an~T purposes not relating to increasing, improving, and preserving the community's supply- of low- and moderate-income housing available at affordable housing cost, the Redevelopment Agency would be required to make a finding that there is no longer a need in the community- to provide such housing. The Agency has not made such a finding. On the contrary, the City's recently adopted and certified Housing Element details the need for affordable housing the community at all levels of affordability. The scenarios analyzed in Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 all were based on the restriction of this funding source to provide for affordable housing and, as such, provided for continued use of the identified structures for residential purposes, specifically for affordable housing. Adaptive reuse alternatives are found to be legally infeasible due to this funding restriction Adaptive reuse would result in nonresidential development which is also contrary to both the City and Agency's policy interest in promoting affordable housing in the Project Area.(Cal fo~nia NatiUe Plant Soczety v. City of Santa Ca~~ [2009] 177 Cal.App.4Th 957; 12-22 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the t=tnal EIR City of Del Ma~• v. City of San Diego [1982] 133 Cal.App.3d 401) Refer to the City/Agency's Findings on iVlitigation Measures Proposed to Reduce Impacts to Cultural Resources in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for a further discussion. Response to Comment BHLG-5 This comment appears to reference Figure 5-1 (Demolitions) contained on p. 5-6 of the Recirculated Chapter 5 (Alternatives) of the EIR. The comment states that "at least 10" of the structures identified in Figure 5-1 should be rehabilitated in place, if feasible, or moved within the Lacy Neighborhood. The comment does not specify which structures should be rehabilitated or moved. Note that there are a very limited number of designated historic resources in the Lacy Neighborhood (see Draft EIR Figure 4.4-1 [Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties within the Transit Zoning Code Area]), and the neighborhood itself has not been designated as historic. Additionally, mitigation measure MM4.4-3 would reduce impacts to historic resources throughout the Transit Zoning Code Area to the extent feasible. Preservation of ten of the existing structures proposed for demolition in the Lacy Neighborhood is not feasible because it will inhibit the City`s ability to meet its affordable housing goals. Construction of affordable housing units is critical to meeting the City`s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for 2006-2014, and the Cit~r has an adopted policy to "maximize affordable housing on Agency-owned properties that is of high quality, sustainable, and available to various income levels." (Refer to Santa Ana Housing Element [2006-2014], Policy HE-2.8.) Additionally, preservation of certain properties within the Lacy Neighborhood may inhibit the City`s ability to "encourage the construction of rental housing for Santa Ana`s residents and workforce, including a commitment to very low, low and moderate income residents and moderate income Santa Ana workers" (Policy HE-2.3) and to fulfill its policy to "facilitate and encourage a diversity and range in types, prices, and sizes of housing, including single-family homes, apartments, town homes, mixed/multiuse housing, transit-oriented developments, and live/work housing" (Policy HE-2.4). (Refer to Santa Ana Housing Element [2006-2014].) Further, preservation of all of ten of the existing structures proposed for demolition in the Lacy Neighborhood would be inconsistent with the primary objectives of the proposed Developer Project to "redevelop all of the Agency-owned properties" and "provide new affordable housing for families in furtherance of the Cit<-'s affordable housing goals established in the Housing Element, the Implementation Plan for the Santa Ana Merged Redevelopment Project Area, and the City of Santa Ana Consolidated Plan." The infeasibilit<~ of Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 is discussed in the City/Agency's Findings Regarding Project Alternatives in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Response to Comment BHLG-6 It is unclear from this comment what is meant by the properties not having been "inspected." All of the properties currently owned by the Redevelopment Agency have been inspected numerous times to determine their safety and suitability, as well as to allow for the salvage of architectural details by volunteer groups. Most recently the properties were inspected for purposes of determining estimated rehabilitation costs that were used in Appendix J, the Keyser Marston Analysis, which analyzed the economic feasibilit<- of Alternatives 4, 5, and 6. Further, the properties identified for demolition on parcels currently owned by the Agency have been the subject of "windshield" surveys to determine their potential eligibilit~r for listing as a historic resource. (Refer to Draft EIR Section 4.4 and Appendix D.) Specifically, in 2006, HRG conducted areconnaissance-st5rle survey and historic research project in City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 12-23 Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the t=tnal EIR support of the Santa Ana Renaissance Specific Plan prepared by Moule & Polyzoides (HRG 2006). This project aimed to provide recommendations for historic preservation planning on about 400 acres, including many of the properties found within the Transit Zoning Code project area. Subsequent property--specific studies were conducted by Jones and Stokes (2006 and 2007), which resulted in the full recordation and evaluation of many of the properties within the Transit Zoning Code project area. These evaluations included determinations of eligibilityT for the National Register of Historic Properties (NRHP), the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), and the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties (SARHP). An additional historic resources memorandum for the record was then prepared for several properties in Santa Ana by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. This memorandum provided recommendations about the eligibility of 30 properties for inclusion in the SARHP. All of these surveys are included in Appendix D of the EIR. Additionally, mitigation measure MM4.4-3 would require a qualified professional to conduct site-specific historical resource investigarions for future developments within the project area that would demolish or otherwise physically affect buildings or structures 50 years old or older or affect their historic setting. The moratorium on additional purchases would significantly constrain the ability of the Development Project to be accomplished. This would result in fewer units of affordable housing as stated in the previous paragraph. This comment is not a direct comment on environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration prior to approval or denial of the proposed project. No further response is required. Response to Comment BHLG-7 This comment is not a direct comment on environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration prior to approval or denial of the proposed project. No further response is required. Response to Comment BHLG-8 Refer to Response to Comments BHLG-4 and BHLG-5. Further, rehabilitating ten of the twenty properties under considerarion for potential acquisition would substantially limit the opportunity- to provide new affordable housing for families in furtherance of the City's affordable housing goals established in the Housing Element, the Implementation Plan for the Santa Ana Merged Redevelopment Project Area, and the CityT of Santa Ana Consolidated Plan. Further it would not enhance the streetscape and urban form of the area, particularly along Santa Ana Boulevard, with the construction of new buildings that meet the standards contained in the Transit Zoning Code and that support future transit planning. Nor would it secure provision of public open space or facilitation of a joint use arrangement with SAUSD for a new community center. Finally, it would not provide an economically viable redevelopment scenario for the Agency-owned properties. Additionally, it would result in the elimination of an opportunity to provide new quality housing. As a result, if demolition of the properties that may be acquired byT the Agency were precluded, the Redevelopment Agency would not pursue their acquisition, and the benefits of the Developer Project, including the 12-24 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the t=tnal EIR creation of new public open space, the elimination of blight, and an enhancement of the streetscape, would not be realized. Response to Comment BHLG-9 The comment appears to infer that relocating rehabilitated structures to 5Th and 6Th Streets within the Lacy Neighborhood would serve to mitigate impacts to historic resources. Whereas there are a number of designated Historic Districts within the City, 5Th and 6Th Streets within the Lacy neighborhood have not been designated as historic, and there is no evidence that the creation of a historic district within the Lacy Neighborhood would reduce the significant impacts of the proposed project. Further, the creation of a historic district within the City is a separate process requiring adoption of a local preservation ordinance and cannot be accomplished through the CEQA process for the proposed project. (Refer to Santa Ana Municipal Code, Part II, Chapter 30.) Therefore, it is not feasible to adopt and implement this measure as part of the project. Refer to Response to Letter JD: Jeff Dickman, Response to Comment JD-1 for further explanation, and to Findings on iVlitigation Measures Proposed to Reduce Impacts to Cultural Resources, p. 3-16 in Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Response to Comment BHLG-10 This comment is not a direct comment on environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration prior to approval or denial of the proposed project. No further response is required. Response to Comment BHLG-11 Within the Lacy neighborhood, there are a limited number of designated historical resources, only one of which would be demolished under the proposed Developer Project (501 E. Fifth Street) (refer to Recirculated EIR, Figure 5-1). An additional property eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) (615 E. Fifth Street) would also be demolished under the proposed project. Refer to Response to Letter JD: Jeff Dickman, Response to Comment JD-1 for further explanation. Response to Comment BHLG-12 The comment states that implementation of the proposed project would result in the loss of "resources," which appears to be a reference to historic resources. As stated in Response to Comment BHLG-11, there are a limited number of designated historical resources existing within the project area. The comment requests that the City "consider the feasible rehabilitation of only a third" of the properties identified in the comment as subject to demolition by the proposed project, which is identified as 60. Although it is unclear what this number refers to and specific properties are not identified, this comment appears to suggest an alternative that conforms to the parameters described in Alternatives 4 and 5. The comment states that such an alternative would be "feasible" as it accomplishes "most of the project objectives." A full analysis of the feasibility of each of the Alternatives to the Developer Project has been provided in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, as well as in Appendix J - Keyser Marston Analysis. Each of the Alternatives analyzed was found to be infeasible for specific economic, legal, social, or other considerations, including their inability to meet the project objectives, as well as their inability to significantly reduce environmental impacts. Refer to the Findings of Fact and City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 12-25 Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the Final EIR Statement of Overriding Considerations for a full discussion of the feasibility of the Project Alternatives. In addition, the EIR acknowledged that, even with mitigation, the impacts to historic resources would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the project. Response to Comment BHLG-13 This comment is not a direct comment on environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration prior to approval or denial of the proposed project. No further response is required. 12-26 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION Sarr Diego Offtce: Lrland E7ltpire OJfree: 5663 Balboa Aveune, No. 376 , - - 99 East "C" St1•eel, Strite 111 San Diego, CA 92111-2705 Upland, CA 91786 1'elel~hone: 858-495-9082 ~ rt 1'edepltone: 909-949-7.115 Frresin~ide: 858-495-9138 Facsimile: 909-949-7121 Please 1•esporlyd to: Inland Erllpiye Offtce BLC Fide(s): 1479.04 5 June 2010 Clty Callllell c/o City Clerk 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92702 Re: Item SOA oat City Council Agenda far Jtule 7, 2010 (Transit Zonin Code Dear Santa Ana City Council: On behalf of Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development, I am writing to tu•ge you to deny the proj ect that is the subject of the above-referenced matter. In general, approval of the project would violate the California Etlvirontnetltal Quality Act, the Planning alld Zoning Law, alld otller laevs. The specific reasons for denying the project are set forth on Attachment 1 to this letter and supported by evidence in the administrative record for the project and by other evidence provided on the accompanying CD/DVD. If you do not make a decision on the tonight, please provide me with written notice of the next public hearing or otller tneetittg at which you will consider this project. Additionally, please provide me with written notice of ~,vllatcver action you do take tonight. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION ~ Melcaela M. Gladden 3-• Atta~lunent &DVD 6 AttacLutent 1: Reasons for Deu3~iug Transit Zoning Corte Briggs Law Corporation-June 5, 2010 Page2of5 I. Necessary Findings and Sufficiency of the Evidence 1.01. The draft EIR states on page 5-61 that the No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. However, you have not made the fi~zdings z•egz~ired under Public Resources Code Section 21081{a) and {b) to approve the project generakly and as they relate to tkae environmentally superior alternative. 1.02. To the extent that you have attempted to make all findings z•equired under Public Resources Code Section 21081{a) and {b), such findings have not been supported by substantial evidence in the record. 1.03. You have not made all of the necessary findings to support the General Plan Antendntent, Speer fir Plan Amendment, Site Plan Permit, Architectural Permit, Minor Exception Permit, Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Sign Permit or Sign Exceptio~i Fermit. Alternatively, such findings are not supported by substantial evidence. II. Aiz• Quality 2.01 CARB guidelines state that siting sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway should 6e avoided when possible. See Ex. 2X. The proposed project identifies residential uses, a sensitive laid use, next to Interstate 5. 2.02 Mitigation measure MM4.2-7 is not sufficient. The mitigation measure is too vague to be enforceable because the requirement that diesel-powered equipment be retrofitted with after-treatment products only applies "to the extent that they are readily available in the South Coast Air Basin." Mitigation measures MM4.2-8 and -9 suffer the same defect in that they only apply when "readily available" and are "cost effective." 2.03 Mazy of the mitigation measures are designed so that they will not be subject to public scrutiny. For example, mitigation measures MM4.2-7 through -17 all require that the specifications be provided prior to the issuance of the grading permit or building permit, but do not require that the specifications be identified prior to approval of future projects. 2.04 Mitigation measures MM4.2-2 through-6 az•e u~ienforceable because they only say what the contractor "should" do. III. Air Quality-Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.01 Because the project's cumulative greenhouse gas emission impact is significant, all feasible mitigation measures must be adopted. Many of the mitigation measures proposed are unenforceable. For example, MM4.13-21 calks for "consideration" of installation of solar roofs and MM4.13-22 and MM4.13-24 call for measures to be iznpleznented "where feasible," but do not define "feasible." Attaclmtent 1: Reasons for Denying Transit Zmiing Code Briggs La?ti• Cori~aration-June 5, 2U11} Page 3 of 5 3.02 Tltere are feasible mitigation measures that can implement to zeduce greenhouse gas emissions.' • Street. lights must be replaced with more efficient lighting. See Exs. 3c-3d. • Traffic signal lights must be replaced with LED lights. See Exs. 3e-3f. • Install energy efficient exit signs and other lighted signs in public buildings. • Install Energy Star rated vending machines. See Ex. 3g. • Directional and shielded LED lights for exterior lighting and install exterior and security lights with motion detectors (www.night~vise.org) • Install filters on public drinking fountains to cut do«rn on the use of plastic water containers • Prefer°ential parking for hybrid vehicles • Solar panels could be installed on public buildings. See Ex. 3h. 3A3 There are a number of feasible mitigation measures that the City of Santa Ana could incorporate regarding other development. • You should include a mitigation measure saying that only no- or low-VOC paint be used, • You should prohibit against continuous all-night outdoor lighting in sports stadiums, construction sites, and other similar uses unless required for security reasons. As an alternative to continuous all-night outdoor lights, motion detectors should be used for outdoor lighting where necessary. • You should require cttergy audits for residential and comrnercial buildings prior to the completion of sale, and that audit results and information about opportunities for energy efficiency improvements be presented to the buyer. • All new or substantially rehabilitated buildings could be constructed to allow for easy, cast-effective installation of solar systems in the future using "solar- ready" features such as limiting obstructions on the south sloped roof. ' Even (hough you chose to make the changes through a zoning code instead of the general plan process,the CAPCOA "Model Policies for GHGs in General Plans" is a great resource for developing more specific and enforceable tneastu•es. Ex. 3b. Atfaclime~it 1: Reasons for Denying Transit Zoning Code Briggs La~s• Corporation-June 5, 2010 Page 4 of 5 • All new commercial or industrial development or major rehabilitation can incorporate renewable enez•gy generation on-site to the maximum extent feasible from an engineering standpoint. • All new or substantially rehabilitated residential project over a 100 units must generate electricity an site to the maximum extent feasible fz•onz an engineering standpoint. See Exs. 3k-3n. • Any nett' or replaced parking lots should be required to use "cool pavement." See Ex. 3a. • There are a number of opportunities relating to providing solar panels and solar water Beaters for residential use, including opportunities targeted to affordable housing. See Exs. 3p-3x. 3.07 The EIR does zzot include any alternatives that significantly reduce the impacts associated tivitlz greenhouse-gas emissions. 3.08 Additional evidence supporting the conclusion that the project may have a significant environmental impact due to greenhouse gas emissions can be found in the GHG folder. IV. Water Supply 4.01 The WSA for the proposed project acknowledges that tBe final WSA mst be adopted by the City Council, and its conclusion adopted into other environmental documenfis as necessary. The WSA is dated Januazy 2010, but there is no evidence that the WSA was adapted by the City Council as regtured under Water Code Section 10910(g). See Minutes and Agenda Folder. X4.02 TBe EIR azzd WSA fail to account far the uncertainty and impediments to watez• supply as a result of climate change. See Exs. ~4a-~f. 4.03 Even if fiittu'e water supplies are available for the project, the EIR fails to provide enough information about the environmental consequences of supplying that water. The informational purposes of an EIR are not satisfied unless decision-makers and the public are provided with enough informations to evaluate the pros and cons of supplying the amotmt of water that the project will need. The critical issue to be considered, especially with respect to groundwater, is not simply whether an adequate supply is available, but whether there is an adequate discussion of the project's foreseeable impacts. While the EIR includes a discussion about water supply, it does not provide information about the impacts of supplying water such as the effect that the project's tivater t~se will have on water izifrastructure or the availabitity of water for other purposes. 4 Attactnnenf I: Reasons for Denying Transit Zoning Code Briggs t,aw Corporation--J'une 5, 201 Page 5 of 5 V. Alternatives 5.01 CI;QA Guidelines Section 15162(dj(2) states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the na project alternative, the EIR must ide~~tify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other altei•~iatives. Another environmentally superior alternative was not identified in the EIR. VI. Notice of Public Hearing 8.01. To the extent notice was given under Government Code section 65090, it did not satisfy the procedural and substantive requirements of Section 65090. For example, the notice failed to include the planning commission's recommendation and a complete project description. VII. Response to Comments 7.01. The City of Santa Ana did not respond to commenters as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b). VIII. Neecl to Recirculate 8.01 Under Public Resources Code Section 21092,1, the EIR should have been recirculated because significant new information was added. For example, around fifty pages of the EIR were revised in some respect and three appendices. Alternatives were added, and ~vl~ile public review vas extended to April 12, 2010, the report analyzing the additional alternatives was not recirculated and was not done until May 22, 2010. 8.02 The EIR should have been recirculated because new significant impacts were identibed. For example, the final EIR acknowledges that the project will also have a significant air quality impact because of PM-2.5. The public lost the opportunity to identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce this new significant impact during the public review period. IX. Description of Project 9.01 An accurate project description is essential to an adequate analysis of the project's environmental impacts. You have failed to include a complete and consistent project description. 5 ATTACHMENT 1: INDEX OF EXHIBITS All' QUallty 2a "Highway Pollution and Its Devastating Impacts on Local Corruaiunities," November 12, 2009 2b UCLA Report, "Air pollution fi'on~ freeway extends fin'ther than previously thought," June 10, 2009 2e S`cieftce Dail}~, "Living Near a Highway Affects Lung Development in Children, Shzdy Shows," January 26, 2007 2d University of Southern California Urban Initiative, "Road to an Unhealtlry Future for Southern California's Children," 2004 2e "Proximity of Licensed Child Care Facilities to Near-Roadway Vehicle Pollution," September 2006 2f "Childhood Asthma Linked to Freeway Pollution," September 21, 2005 2g "People Near Freeways Are Exposed to 30 Times the Concentration of Dangerous Particles," October 21, 2002 2h California EPA and GARB, "Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective," Apri12005 Greeaal~ouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change 3a Attorney General letter to Tulare County Resource Management Agency dated May 27, 2010 3b CAPCOA, "Model Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans," June 2009 3c "Energy Efficient Streetlights," March 18, 2008 3d Go~~Pt•o Media, "California tm~nicipality shifting to energy-saving LED streetlights," May 18, 2009 3e City of Portland, Energy Efficiency Success Story, LED Traffic Signals=Energy Savings 3f US Department of Energy, California Says "Go" to Energy Saving Traffic Lights 3g Energy Star Vending Machines 31i SunEdison Government Solutions 3i Downtoevn San Diego, Complete Conununiry/Mobility, September 2008 3j Creative Housing Associates, Neighboz•hood and Transit-Orieztted Builders 3k "Bringing Hoz2te the Benefzts of Energy Efficiez2cy to Low-Income Households" 31 Affordable Housing's Green Future 3121 Greener Policies, Smarter Plans 3n Green Comz22unities Compliance Manual 2008 3o Pavement Albedo 3p "The Economics of Solar Homes in California," December 200 3q Del Sur Green Hotnes 3r SttnPawer Case Study 3s Executive Order 5-3-05 3t AB 32: California Global Warming Solutions Act 3u Multifamily Affordable Solar Housing Fact Sl2eet 3v Multifamily Affordable Solar Housing Fact 3iv CAL SETA: Solar Water Heating 3x A Cansumer's Guide: Heat Your Water with the Sun GHG Folder Office of Planzting and Research, "CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Ez2viz'onmental Quality Aet (CEQA) Review," June 19, 2008 • CAPCOA, "CEQA & Clin2ate Change," January 2008 • "The California Environmental Quality Act: On the Front Lines of California's Fight Against Global Warming," Center for Biological Diversity Report • California Attorney General's Offce, "Tlte California Environmental Quality Act; Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Lacal Level" • California Attorney General's Office, "Sustainahiliry and General Plans: Examples of Policies to Address Climate Change" Water Supply 4a Executive Sumz22azy S-OG-08 4b Managing an Uncez•tain Future, Update 2009 4c IPCC Technical Paper IV, "Climate Change and Water," June 2008 4d The State of Climate Change Science for Water Resources Operations, Planning, and Management 4e Managing an Uncertain Future, October 2008 4f "Using Future Water Climate Projections to Support Water Resources Decision Making in California," August 2009 Minutes and January 4, 2010 City Council Minutes Agenda January 19, 2010 City Council Minutes February 1, 2010 City Council Minutes February lb, 2010 City Council Minutes March 1, 2010 City Council Minutes March 15, 2010 City Council Minutes April 5, 2010 City Council Minutes April 19, 2010 City Council Minutes April 26, 2010 Special City Council Minutes May 3, 2010 City Council Minutes May 17, 2010 City Council Minutes June 7, 2010 City Council Agenda V J ~ N ~ I ~ ~ "6 C ~ ~ ~ 0 _ ~ Q .r. _ TI O_~ C~-'~O A ~('7~ ~cA w RQ O ~ N O n m~~`n ~ A P --1 n p ~-w-- m ~ ~ ~ e o~ ~ czn~ oo ~ oRn _ ~ ~ a-~~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~~a ~ W ~k a `-°O3c a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N o ~l.~ n Q) R M M~ N H H Q i-C v ~ O ~ ~ ro ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ y o ~-n Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the t=tnal EIR ~ Response to Letter BLC: Briggs Law Corporation The City received a comment letter from Briggs Law Corporation on behalf of Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development ("CREED") dated June 5, 2010 and received June 7th, 2010, the day of the CitSr Council and Agency hearing on the Transit Code and Development Project. The comment period on the Recirculated Draft EIR closed on April 12, 2010. The CitSr is therefore under no obligation to respond to late comments. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a)). Nevertheless, the following responses to comments are provided. Response to Comment ~1.01~ CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 states that "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding." (Refer also to Public Resources Code Section 21081.) The comment suggests that these findings should have been included in the Draft EIR on page 5-61. As noted in the Public Resource Code cited in the comment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, these findings only need to be made prior "approv[ing]" the project. While this information was not included in the Draft EIR, the required findings have been prepared and were included in the Planning Commission's Staff Report released several days prior to their May, 27, 2010 meeting. The findings have also been included in the City Council's Staff Report at the following URL (included in Exhibit 6 to Exhibit Q): http://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us/coc/documents/Items/80A TOINT PH TransitCode.pdf Response to Comment ~1.02~ Comment states "to the extent that you have attempted to make all findings required by Public Resource Code Section 21081 (a) and (b), such findings have not been supported by substantial evidence in the record. As noted in Response to Comment "1.01," the findings have been prepared and are included in the Staff Report The findings have been prepared in compliance with CEQA and are based upon substantial evidence. Also note that at the time the comment letter was written on June 5, 2010, the Administrative Record/Record of Proceeding was not yet finalized. Furthermore, not all substantial evidence needs to be included in the EIR, as suggested in the comment letter. (Refer to Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e); see also San Franciscans Upholding the Dozvnto~rn Plan v. City County of San F~anczsco (2002) 102 Ca.App.4`h 656, 690-691.) The commenter does not provide any details on why they believe these Findings to be inadequate. Therefore no further response is required (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(x) and 15204(x)). Response to Comment ~1.03~ Refer to Response to Comment "1.02." Refer to the City Council's Staff Report for the findings. 12-36 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the Final EIR X11. Air Quality Response to Comment ~2.01~ Commenter states that siting sensitive uses within 500 feet of a freeway should be avoided. Refer to Response AQMD-2. Response to Comment ~2.02~ Commenter states the MM4.2-7 through MM4.2-7 are not "sufficient." Refer to Response AQMD-5. Response to Comment ~2:03~ Commenter states that MM4.2-7 through MM4.2-17wi11 not be subject to public scrutiny. MM4.2-7 through MM4.2-17 fully meet CEQA requirements for enforceable mitigations measures. The mitigation measures require that the air emission requirements "shah' be specified in the construction contracts. These contracts will be reviewed by the City staff prior to the issuance of grading permits. The construction contracts will also be approved by the City of Santa Ana. Refer to Chapter 11 (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program). Response to Comment ~2:04~ The commenter states that "MM2.2-2 through -6 are unenforceable because they only say what the contractor "should" do. The commenter is incorrect. MM2.2-2 through MM2.2-6 all state what the contractor "shall" do. X111. Air Quality-Greenhouse Gas Emissions Response to Comment ~3.01~ The commenter states that the EIR does not define "feasible." The EIR uses the term "feasible" pursuant to CEQA: Pub. Res. Code ~ 21061.1 and CEQA Guidelines ~ 15354 state that "feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." Also refer to Response to Comment AQMD-5. Response to Comment ~3.02~ Commenter proposes additional mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ¦ Streetlights replaced with more efficient lighting. > Response: The Transit Zoning Code area contains streetlights that have a mix of ownership between the City and Southern California Edison. The City continuously works with Southern California Edison to ensure that all streetlights are equipped with the most energy efficient and cost effective technology. Most recently the City and Southern California Edison have been exploring the possibility of replacing streetlights with LED technology. In order to determine if this technology can be successfully deployed citywide Southern California Edison has conducted tests on the LED technology. These tests have found that energy savings and equipment longevity are not predictable. The City is also independently testing limited areas City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 12-37 Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the t=tnal EIR with City-owned street lighting using the LED technology, which is also generating results supporting Southern California Edison's findings. The test results indicate that it is too soon to effectively employ this technology for streetlights. > Response: The City currently uses LED lights for all of its traffic lights. ¦ Install energy efficient exist signs and other lighted signs in public buildings. > Response: Energy efficient signs are included in MM4.13-8. ¦ Install Energy Star rated vending machines. > Response: Vending machines are not part of the proposed project. ¦ Directional and shielded LED lights for exterior lighting and install exterior and security lights with motion detectors. > Response: Energy efficient light fixtures are included in MM4.13-8. ¦ Install filter on public drinking fountains to cut down on the use of plaster water containers. > Response: Public drinking fountains are not part of the proposed project and measure does not address impacts of project. ¦ Preferential parking for hybrid vehicles. > Response: MM4.13-18 includes a provision for preferential parking for ultra-low emission vehicles and alternative fueled vehicles. ¦ Solar panels could be installed on public buildings. > Response: MM 4.2-22 and MM4.13-8 identify the incorporation of solar panels into the project's construction. Response to Comment ~3.03~ Commenter provides mitigation measures that the City of Santa Ana could incorporate into other developments. These measures do not relate to the proposed project. Response to Comment ~3.07~ Commenter states that the EIR does not include alternatives that reduce the impacts related to greenhouse. The EIR provides that greenhouse gas impacts would be reduced as compared to the proposed project in Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Refer to Response LULAC-11. Response to Comment ~3.08~ As "supporting evidence," commenter provides a large number of documents relating to Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change. These documents include specific and general information on these topics. They do not include specific references to the EIR or its adequacy. Response to Comment ~4.01~ The City is in compliance with all applicable provisions of the Water Code. 12-38 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the t=tnal EIR Response to Comment ~4.02~ The effects of global climate change on water supply were discussed in the Draft EIR in Section 4.13, more specifically starting on page 4.3-7. Response to Comment ~4.03~ Water resource impacts were addressed in EIR Section 4.6, including cumulative projects. Water Supply infrastructure is also addressed in EIR Section 4.12. The comment does not provide any details on what impacts they believe have not been adequately analyzed. (Refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a).) Response to Comment ~5.01~ The comment states that if the "no project" alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. This requirement is found in CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 (e)(2), rather than section 15162(d)(2), as cited in the comment. The Final EIR identifies the environmentally superior alternative other than the "no project" alternative. Chapter 9 of the Final EIR states: Alternatives 4. 5. and 6 would reduce impacts to cultural resources. but not to less-than-significant levels, and all oilier impact levels would remain die same. Alternative 1 would, therefore, be environmentally superior to the proposed project because the significant environmental impacts to aesthetics, air qualityr, land use, noise, public services, and utilities and service systems would be lessened to die greatest extent, since this alternative proposes die least amount of future residential and overall development, however, Alternative 1 does not fully meet die project objectives, as noted above. As noted above, if die environmentally superior alternative is die No Proms Alternative. CEOA requires drat an EIR also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among die other alternatives. Among Alternatives 2. 3, 4, 5 and 6. Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative because die impacts to air dualit<r. global climate change. and transportation would be lessened to the greatest extent. and die significant and unavoidable impact to aesdhetics would be reduced to aless-dean-si,~nificant level. (Final EIR, p. 9-62; double-underline indicates text additions from Draft EIR.) Response to Comment ~6.01~ The Cit<r and the Agency complied with all substantive and procedural noticing requirements for public hearings on the proposed project. Notice of the June 7, 2010 CitSr of Santa Ana City Council Meeting was published in accordance with the procedural requirements of Government Code section 65090 and contained the substantive information required by Government Code section 65094, including: the date, time, and place of the hearing; the identity of the hearing body; a general explanation of the matter to be considered; and a general description of the location of the real propert~~ being considered. Government Code section 65090 does not require the planning commission's recommendations or a complete project description to be included in the public hearing notice. Planning commission recommendations are included in the Agenda for the June 7, 2010 City Council Meeting posted on the City of Santa Ana's web site. (Note that there appears to be a typographical error in CREED's comment letter, which identifies the comment under heading VI. Notice of a Public Hearing as 8.01 rather than 6.01.) City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 12-39 Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the t=tnal EIR Response to Comment ~7.01~ The comment states that the City did not respond to comments as required by CEQA Guidelines section 15088(b). Section 15088(b) states that the "lead agency shall provide a written proposed response to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report." Written responses were mailed to each commenter, including public agencies, on May 25th, 2010, more than ten days prior to the June 7, 2010 Joint Session of the Santa Ana City Council and Communityr Redevelopment Agency. A complete set of comments and responses to the comments are also provided in the Final EIR. The City has also complied with all other CEQA requirements for the evaluation and response to comments on the EIR. Chapter 10 of the Final EIR contains written responses on all environmental issues raised in comments received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR during the noticed comment period from February 2, 2010 to April 12, 2010, and one late comment received on April 13, 2010. Response to Comment ~8.01~ The comment states that the EIR should have been recirculated because significant new information was added and that the report analyzing the additional alternatives was not recirculated until May 22, 2010. Draft EIR Chapter 5 (Alternatives), which analyzed an additional three project alternatives and clarified the project objectives, was recirculated on February 24, 2010. Appendix J, Alternatives Testing: Financial Analyses, was attached to Draft EIR Chapter 5, and recirculated at the same time. All other changes and modifications made to the EIR in response to comments are merely clarifications to the EIR and do not trigger the need for additional public review (Pub. Res. Code ~ 21092.1; CEQA Guidelines X15088.5). Response to Comment ~8.02~ The comment states that the EIR should have been recirculated because the Final EIR identified a significant air quality impact from PMZ, emissions. Significant air qualityT impacts requlrng from PM2~ emissions is not significant new informarion requiring recirculation under CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 because these impacts were identified in the Draft EIR. (Draft EIR Section 4.2.) Impact 4.2-5 identifies PiVZ, 5 as one of the criteria pollutants that would have a significant impact during construction of the project (Draft EIR, Section 4.2.3, pages 4.2-28 through 4.2-33.) PiVI,; was inadvertently left off the list of criteria pollutants included in the Draft EIR discussion of this impact on page 4.2-30, but was clearly analyzed and included in the impact conclusion as evidenced in Table 4.2-7, which includes data, for PM, ~ along with CO, NOX, ROG, SOX, and PM10. The Final EIR was revised to clarify- the text as follows: To the extent drat construction of these individual projects overlaps, then the combined emissions from these small, individual projects could exceed the recommended SCAQ~VID tllresholds, parricularly for CO, NOx, x~PMi~ and PMT.,, for which tl~e Basin is currently in nonattainment. (Final EIR, p. 9-16; double-underline indicates text additions from Draft EIR, strikeout indicates deletions from Draft EIR.) 12-40 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the t=tnal EIR Impact 4.2-6 states that operation of the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable air qualit~r impact because it would result in emissions of criteria pollutants in excess of the South Coast rlir Quality- Management District Thresholds for those pollutants. 1-~lthough the discussion of Impact 4.2-6 on Draft EIR pages 4.2-33 and 4.2-37 inadvertently omits PM, ~ from the list of criteria pollutants, Table 4.2-8 on page 4.2-34 clearly identifies PMz ~ as one of the criteria pollutants that would result in a significant air quality impact Table 4.2-8 identifies the amount of the proposed project's daily operational emissions of PMz ~ and the applicable SCAQi~~ Threshold, clearly showing that the daily operational emissions of PM,; will exceed the SCAQMD Threshold. The Final EIR was also revised to clarify this error: Primarily due to the increase in residential uses under the Transit Zoning Code, mobile source (vehicular) emissions associated with the additional development would exceed SCAQ~VID thresholds of significance for €e~r~five criteria pollutants I'Mz.S~VOC, NOx, CO, and P1Vho) for which the air basin is in non-attainment. (Final EIR, p. 9-3; double-underline indicates text additions from Draft EIR, strikeout indicates deletions from Draft EIR.) Finally, the Final EIR was revised to include PM, ~ in the list of criteria pollutants that would contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the region is in non- attainment. (Final EIR, p. 9-3.) Again, PM, ~ was included in the data and analysis of construction, operation, and cumulative project impacts as evidenced in the data tables, but was inadvertently omitted from the list of criteria pollutants in the textual discussion. (Draft EIR, section 4.2.3.) Response to Comment ~9.01~ The EIR satisfies all CEQA requirements regarding the description of the proposed project. A master response clarifying the scope and description of the proposed project is included in Final EIR Chapter 10, Section 10.2. City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 12-41 CHAPTER 13 TEXT CHANGES Findings on Mitigation Measures and Alternatives Proposed in Comments Received Since the Planning Commission Hearing on May 27, 2010 ¦ Proposed Mitigation Measure. Adaptive reuse of any of the viable Lacy Neighborhood resources. (Letter from Susan Brandt-Hawley, dated June 4, 2010.) Finding. The Cite finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this mitigation measure infeasible. Rationale. The concept of "adaptive reuse" generally refers to the process of converting a structure traditionally occupied by one use, such as a house used for residential purposes, to another use, such as house converted to an office. All Agency-owned parcels within the Lacy Neighborhood were purchased using 20% Set-Aside Redevelopment Agency funding. This funding source is restricted in its use and may only be used to support projects which result in the production of affordable housing as defined by State law. (Health and SafetSr Code ~ 33334.2.) Were the Agency to use these funds for any purposes not relating to increasing, improving, and preserving the communityT's supply of low- and moderate-income housing available at affordable housing cost, the Redevelopment Agency would be required to make a finding that there is no longer a need in the community- to provide such housing. The Agency has not made and cannot make such a finding in light of the demonstrated need for such housing. On the contrary; the City's recently adopted and certified Housing Element details the need for affordable housing the community at all levels of affordabilit~r. The scenarios analyzed in Alternafives 4, 5 and 6 all were based on the restriction of this funding source to provide for affordable housing and, as such, provided for continued use of the identified structures for residential purposes, specifically for affordable housing. Adaptive reuse alternatives are found to be legally infeasible due to this funding restriction. Adapfive reuse would result in nonresidenrial development, which is also contrary to both the City and Agency's policy interest in promoting affordable housing in this merged Project Area. (Cal fo~nia Native Plant Society v. City of Santa C~zr~ (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957; City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401.) Also refer to the Findings on iVlirigation Measures Proposed to Reduce Impacts to Cultural Resources in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for a further discussion. ¦ Proposed Alternative. Of the 18 structures proposed for demolition (listed in the EIR on 5-1 as 14 demolitions but several parcels have multiple structures), at least 10 should either be rehabilitated in place or, if that is not feasible, moved within the Lacy Neighborhood. Regarding the purchase of an additional 20 properries (listed in the EIR on 3-6 as Potential Acquisitions): there should be a moratorium on additional purchases for 3 months, as these properties have not been inspected; during the 3 month period, cit~T staff should be directed to work with the "Friends of the Lacy Neighborhood" and other neighborhood groups to determine disposifion; at least 10 of the additional properties should be rehabilitated place or, if that is not feasible, moved within the neighborhood; and the rehabilitated structures should be on 5th and 6th street. Addirionally, a rehabilitation pool should be funded based on savings/cost avoidance from avoidance of moving or purchasing some of the properties. (Letter from Susan Brandt-Hawley, dated June 4, 2010.) Finding. The Cite finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 13-1 Chapter 13 TEXT CHANGES Rationale. Preservation of ten of the existing structures proposed for demolition in the Lacy Neighborhood is not feasible because it would inhibit the City's ability to meet its affordable housing goals. Construction of affordable housing units is critical to meeting the City`s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for 2006-2014, and the City has an adopted policy to "maximize affordable housing on Agency-owned properties that is of high quality, sustainable, and available to various income levels." (Refer to Santa Ana Housing Element [2006-2014], Policy HE- 2.8.) Additionally, preservation of properties within the Lacy Neighborhood may inhibit the City's ability to "encourage the construction of rental housing for Santa Ana`s residents and workforce, including a commitment to very- low, low and moderate income residents and moderate income Santa Ana workers" (Policy HE-2.3) and to fulfill its policy to "facilitate and encourage a diversity and range in types, prices, and sizes of housing, including single-family homes, apartments, town homes, mixed/multiuse housing, transit-oriented developments, and live/work housing" (Policy HE-2.4). (Refer to Santa Ana Housing Element [2006-2014].) Further, preservation of ten of the existing structures proposed for demolition in the Lacy Neighborhood would be inconsistent with the primary objectives of the proposed Developer Project to "redevelop all of the Agency-owned properties" and "provide new affordable housing for families in furtherance of the City's affordable housing goals established in the Housing Element, the Implementation Plan for the Santa Ana Merged Redevelopment Project Area, and the City of Santa Ana Consolidated Plan." Regarding the suggested three-month moratorium on additional purchases, the moratorium on additional purchases would significantly constrain the ability of the Developer Project to be accomplished. This would result in fewer units of affordable housing as stated in the previous paragraph. Further, rehabilitating ten of the twentyT properties under consideration for potential acquisition would substantially limit the opportunity to provide new affordable housing for families in furtherance of the City's affordable housing goals established in the Housing Element, the Implementation Plan for the Santa Ana Merged Redevelopment Project Area, and the CityT of Santa Ana Consolidated Plan. Further it would not enhance the streetscape and urban form of the area, particularly along Santa Ana Boulevard, with the construction of new buildings that meet the standards contained in the Transit Zoning Code and that support future transit planning. Nor would it secure provision of public open space or facilitation of a joint use arrangement with SAUSD for a new community center. Finally, it would not provide an economically viable redevelopment scenario for the Agency-owned properties. Additionally, it would result in the elimination of an opportunity- to provide new qualityT housing. As a result, if demolition of the properties that may be acquired by the Agency were precluded, the Redevelopment Agency would not pursue their acquisition, and the benefits of the Developer Project, including the creation of new public open space, the elimination of blight, and an enhancement of the streetscape, would not be realized. As explained above, it is not feasible to preserve ten of the existing structures proposed for demolition in the Lacy Neighborhood or to rehabilitate ten of the twenty properties under consideration for potential acquisition. Therefore, it would not be possible to create a rehabilitation pool to be funded based on savings/cost avoidance from avoidance of moving or purchasing some of the properties. However, the Redevelopment Agency has directed its Executive Director to establish a targeted residential loan program for the Lacy Neighborhood and to authorize the expenditure of up to 5100,000, cumulatively from various funding sources. The Agency has also authorized the expenditure of up to 560,000 for cultural/historical markers to be installed in the public right of way within the Station District. 13-2 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR Chapter 13 TEXT CHANGES ¦ Proposed Mitigation Measure. Revise mitigation measure i~PiVI4.6-1 to require future development projects to adhere to the 4~ term Municipal NPDES Stormwater Permit for the Santa Ana Region of Orange County as adopted on May 11, 2009." (Letter from Orange County Public Works, dated June 3, 2010, comment OCPW-3.) Finding. The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this mitigation measure infeasible. Rationale. Because the majorit<- of the future development of the Transit Zoning Code mad- occur years in the future, requiring development projects to comply with "current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements" ensures compliance with the most up-to- date standards over a long period of time, since the requirements that are in effect today may differ in the future. Writing the mitigation measure in this way places the responsibility of complying with NPDES regulations on future project proponents, regardless of how the regulations change over time. Therefore, the CitSr will adopt mitigation measure MNI4.6-1 as set forth in the EIR. Finding Related to Clarifications and Updates to the EIR in Response to Comments Received Since the Planning Commission Hearing on May 27, 2010 Finding. Responses to all written and oral comments on the EIR received since the Planning Commission Hearing on May 27, 2010, merely clarify and amplify the analysis presented in the EIR and do not trigger the need to recirculate per CEQA Guidelines ~15088.5(b). Revised Finding on Alternative 5: No Demolition of Agency Properties/Relocate to Agency-Owned Infill Sites/Rehabilitate in Place Description This alternative would eliminate the demolition on the fourteen parcels within the Station District currently owned by the City of Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency that were slated for demolition under the proposed Developer Project (refer to Figure 5-1 [Demolitions]). Instead, those properties would be rehabilitated in place or moved to vacant lots and rehabilitated, with the exception of the property located at 611 N. Minter Street, which would be demolished. Of the properties identified for demolition on parcels currently owned by the Agency, and those that may potentially be acquired in the future, only one is currently listed on the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties-the Whitson-Powelson House located at 501 E. Fifth Street. The remaining houses have primarily been the subject of "windshield" surveys to determine their potential eligibilit<- for listing as a historic resource. (Refer to EIR Section 4.4 and Appendix D.) Following a comprehensive historic survey of the properties, the City's Historic Resources Commission would evaluate all of the structures to determine their eligibility for listing on the City's Register of Historical Properties and would make recommendations regarding the selection of houses to be moved and onto which sites they should be moved. Once moved and/or rehabilitated the houses would then be offered as for-sale affordable housing. The proposed Transit Zoning Code would remain the same under this Alternative. In total, this Alternative would provide approximately 145 units (approximately 124 rental units and approximately 21 for sale units) on the Agency-owned parcels within the Station District. Of these, approximately 121 units would be rented to low, very-low and extremely-low income households. (Refer to EIR Appendix J [Alternatives Testing: Financial Analysis], Table 1, Alternatives Analysis.) This is the City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 13-3 Chapter 13 TEXT CHANGES same number of units that would be rented to low, very-low and extremely-low income households in the proposed Developer Project (Id.) Alternative 5 would also offer for sale 16 low income units, one moderate income unit and four market rate units. Findings The Agency hereby finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the adoption of this alternative infeasible. Specifically, Alternative 5 would reduce the number of residential units by 11 and would increase costs to the Agency by approximately X6.62 million, according to the financial analysis prepared by Keyser Marston Associates (I~~VIA) for the City of Santa Ana (as updated on iVlay 22, 2010) and included in Appendix J of the EIR. Additionally, this alternative would cost the Agency approximately X56,800 more per unit than the proposed Developer Project, due primarily to the substantial rehabilitation and relocation costs that would be involved in this alternative. (Refer to Appendix J (updated).) This represents a 39% increase in per unit costs. This is a significantly less efficient and effective way to spend the funds available for redevelopment of the Agency-owned parcels than the proposed Developer Project. The significant additional cost to the Agency of this Alternative renders it economically infeasible. Additionally Alternative 5 does not to meet the City's policy of "maximizing] affordable housing on Agency-owned properties that is of high quality sustainable, and available to various income levels." (Refer to Santa Ana Housing Element X2006-20141_ Pnlicv HE-2.8.1 Nnr does it g(7 far enough to meet the City's nolicv to "encourage the construction of rental housing for Santa Ana's residents and workf~rce_ including a commitment t~ very- low. hw and moderate income residents and moderate income Santa Ana workers" (I'olicv HE-231 or its nolicv to "facilitate and encourage a diversity and range in t~pes_ prices. and sizes of housing including single-family homes. apartments. town homes. mixed/multiuse housing. transit-oriented developments. and live/work housing" E olicv HE-2.41~Refer to Santa Ana Housing Element X2006-20141.1 Moreover. the California Legislature has enacted Government Code Section 65589.5_ the "Housing Accountability Act" which restricts the City's ability to disapnrove_ or require density reductions. in certain types of residential nroiects. Snecificall~, the Cit<r may not disapnrove a housing development nmiect fir very hw_ low-_ ~r moderate-income h~usehnlds unless it makes certain findings set firth in Government Cede section 65589.5; suhsecti~n (dl. The City is unable t~ make any of these findings a this time. Therefore. disapproval of the proposed Developer Project is legally infeasible. Further, under Alternative 5, the proposed park identified in the Developer Project would no longer be included as a project component. The park was one element of several in the overall vision for development of the Agency-owned properties. The selection of Alternative 5 effectively eliminates the abilitjT to construct a park on the block on which it is currently envisioned given that the three structures currently located on the Agency-owned properties within that block would remain under Alternative 5. Finally, Alternative 5 would not meet the objective of the Developer Proposal to redevelop all of the Agency-owned properties. Nor would it meet the objective of providing an economically viable redevelopment scenario for Agency-owned properties, as explained above or the objective of providing new affordable housing for families in furtherance of the City's affordable housing foals to the same extent as the nm used nmiect. 13-4 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR Chapter 13 TEXT CHANGES In light of these considerations, the Agenc~T rejects this alternative as infeasible. Changes to the Draft EIR Page 4.2-31, Impact 4.2-5, second paragraph M11i14.2-7 ) 1Vith re.~ect to the Transit Zoning Code area as a whole; the City shall,. to the extent easible. require all on-site constriction to meet EPA Tier 2, or higher: emissions standards according to the ollorz~in ¦ A~rzl 1. 2010. to December 31. 2011: All off--road diesel-~onrered construction eaui~iment greater than 50 h~ shall meet Tier 2 off--road emissions standards. In addition. all construction e uitrmernt shall be outfitted ~~itb BACT devices ceati aed by California A1~B. Anv emissions contra of device used by the contra actor shall achieve emissions ~ eductions that an e no less than rarhat could be achieved by a Levd 2 or Level 3 diesel emissions control strateg~dfor a similarly sued engine as de aped by California AAB regulations. ¦ lanuarv 1. 2012. to December 31. 2014: All o~-road diesel~ozvened constriction eaui~naent greater than 50 h~ shall meet Tier 3 o~f-n oad emissions standan ds. In addition, all constriction e ui~ment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by California AAB. Anv emissions contra of device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could he achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions coma rnl strategy for a similarlv~ed ens ,fined by California A1~B n e~ulations. ¦ Postdlanuanv 1. 2015: All off-a oad diesel~o~~ered construction eaz2i~naent ga eater than 50 h~ gall meet the Tier 4 emission standards. gybe, e available. In addition. all constriction eaui~iment shall be ou~tted with BACT devices certified by California A1~B. Anv emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions ~r eductions that an e no less than ~~hat could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strate~i for a similanlv~ed engine as de aped by California AAB regulations. ¦ A co~v of each unit's certi aed tier s~ecz acation. BACT documentation. and California AKB or AOMD o~erating~er~nit shall be~rovided at the tinge o mobili~~ation of ead~ a~~licable unit of e ui ment.. M11~14.2-7 b) 1Vith respect to the Developer Proiect analy__~ed in the EIB for the Transit Zoning Code. the City gall reauir e all on-site constriction to meet EPA Tier 2. or~hiQher. emissions standardr accor dingy to the ollozvinQ: ¦ A~rzl 1. 2010, to December° 31. 2011: All o_~f-road diesel-~onarered constn~rction eaui~naent greater than 50 h~ shall meet Tier2 off-n~ad emisrion.r .randards. In addition. all construction e~ui~ment shall be ou~tted raritb BACT devices certified by Califoruia AAB. Anv emissions contra of device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than rarhat could be achieved by a Level 2 or Level 3 diesel emissions control strategw forfor a~ si fed engine as defined by California AAB r e~ulations. ¦ ,Tanuarv 1. 2012, to December 31. 2014: All off=road diesel~onarened constrz~ction eaui~ment ,greater than 50 h~ shall meet Tier3 o~f=road emissions standards. In addition. all corastrzrction eaui~ment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by California AAB. Anv emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level3 diesel emissions control strate~~for a similarlv~ed ens ,fined by California AAB r eQUlations. City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 13-5 Chapter 13 TEXT CHANGES ¦ Post-lanuarv 2015: All off=~oacl cliesel~o~are~ecl con.rtr~ction e~uihynentgreate~• than 50 b~ shall meet the Tier4 emission standa~cls. avhere available. In advlition. all const~~ction eaui~ment shall be outFtted ~arith BACT devices ce~~i aecl by California AAB. Anv emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that a~ e no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control st~ate~ for a similarly sued engine as de zned by Califon nia AA B regulations. ¦ A co~v of each unit's certa zed tier she a zcation. BACT documentation. and Califo~~cia A1~B or AOl~ 2D ri~e~atin~ t~e~rnit shall be t~~rwided at the time o ~nobili• t~f each a~~ilicable uyait of d 13-6 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR W ~ ~ Z o _ !s o V `m U ~ U C M ~ ~ ti Q N O O U V ~ ~ o Q = ~ U = ~ Q ~ ~ o ~ m ~ ~ o ~ m ~ H y ' o ca ~ a~ ' O ca ~ a~ ~a ~ UQ c~aQ ~ UQ c~aQ • ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ c c • ~ 0 0 0 0 • ~ N O U O~ i O U ~ i ~ y C C O U C C U ~ O O ~ -p ~ . L N in O ~ -p ~ ~ N in ~a d.N ~Q D Q° d.N ~ 0~~ o • ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ • ~ U U ~ ~ U O U N ~ m O ~ m O ~ c N O Q c N ~ c N O c N ~ • a- Q _ o o _ 0 0 ~ o ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ is ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ N v ~ v in ~ in ~ N v ~ U in ~ in • ~ 'p c N ~ N c U O c ~ 'O c N ~ N c U O c Q ~ O Q Q O O O U O O O O U Q c..~ m~ m U -o ~ U ca ~ U m~ m U -o ~ U ca • ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ • 'o N m N m g~ ~ o c oo m g o' o' er m o m m o ~ U m_ E Q~ c ai 'o o ai m U s (6 N ~-.~-a N.- ~ p y. N TQa ~ a~ ~ o ~~~ia O c.~.N~~ia • N ~ m ~ N c ~ m N ~ .U ~ U .N N ~ • 'O U ~ ~ O ~(6 c N i~ E S N v O U _o U ~ in c6 ~ N m ca ~.c o'~~o-' o N c~a~.~-o-°~ o~~°-~ ~-o~ W N U N N ~O ~ N N M (a6 -o m ~ M (a6 N c N s N ~ ~ > > c ~ c U ~ > ~ ~ ~ 'O O N U L ~ m (6 (6 N ~ m U (6 y (6 ~ v~ O N ,U ~ N U N N N p~~ ~ ' U 7 Q L W ~ ~ (6 ~ N 'O ~ U 'O ~ 'a N (6 s ~ N ~ O~ N N N ~ O U~~~ W O- O~ (6 N N~ m ~ O J c 'O ` Q O~~ Q ~ H v~ U a~ E =o N U v ca d o o m U U a~ ~ • a~i ~ ~ c o o ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ M ~ o ~ ~ Op s c m~ N m • ~ o ~ o ~ ~ U c ° ~ o ~ ca o ~ ~ ~ ca ~ 3 c ~cn ~ ~.s ~ ~ ~ > a~ ~ a~ fq o U E ~ o°~ a~ a~ .S Q -a ~ S p o Q O ~ Q~ a c v a°~i ~ N o~ N i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c c ~ N in O ~ ~ ~ N o ~ O ~ ~ N O ~y t ~ o c o ~N a~~ N- o a~~~ U ~ ~ ~ (6 (6 N ~ N ~ 'O ~ m M m ~ c ' fn C ~ ~ ~ ~ (6 c (6 N N ~ M N (6 OU ~ ~ N O c~a o ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ N ~ U o o - a~ E N a~i is ~°n ~ N LL ~ ~ ~ =o a"i " ~ a~ E ca c ~ a"i c~a E ~ O aJ o ~Q~ QN o~ _ o~ o o~ p r o ~.1 0 ~ ~ (6 O L N ~ ~ ~ N m ~ N ~ f0 ~ 'O 'O A N N O ~ E L N C to ~ O~ U Q N~ N L N~ N ~ O y~ p N i ~ C'1 ~ . Q c ~ ~6 ~ c ~ Q OU Qom-" OU ~ N (6 Q ~ OU O U ~ Q ~ N N~ Cn ~ N m ¦ ¦ V ~ ~ w o m m !t o ~ `m U p > fA U ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ Q ~ U ~ p 'c ~ m a ~ U y - ~a ,p O c c 1010 ya Q ca c • a ¦ ¦ ~ o 0 a` U • ~ N O ~ L • oa ~.N ~~0 0~~° (n ~ N o ¦ ¦ U • • U ~ ~ U N ~U C O C C a o O o N o a' O N (6 O U~ U m N • ~ N ~ ~U ~U fn 7 'O N • ~ U O C N ~ N C U 0 C Q ~ OU m d' m OU 'O ~ OU (6 • ~ ~ ~ • N N ~ N ~ N C m C C .0 ~ m C .0 N C m C W' O (6 O N E W' O c N 'O ' ~ ~ N W' O (LS (6 ~ O c U N~ - (6 ~ .O c 'o c y .0 c Q U ~ c U • N 'o (6 ' m N ~ ~ - -o to O (6 O c N .0 ~ ~ ~ ~ O (6 ~ ~ N c N c ~ (6 L N .N (6 O ~ ~ .N (6 ~ - ~ N c N • N~~ N O N (6 O ~ N c~~ m N~' ~ N U m~~ N~ O N O N (6 O O O O -o .o o O N o O O O -o .o N 'o N ~ ~ ~ (6 ~ i ~ N . N m c 'o N . ~ m N =p N ~ ~ (6 (~6 ~ (6 -o E.N c- o in ~'o ~ Q U :~.~M Q (6 -o E c- c ~ ~ o N o - o M ca ~ m ~ ~ ca c .o ~ ~ o o - a~ ai " O~ V~ N Q N~ U~ J O N N~ J~ O~ V~ N Q O O o ca ~ ca ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ca a~ ca `o U ~ ~ U ~ a~ ca ~ ca ~ E L> - M c UO W O N .U - (V N N O O~ ,U - M C U ~ ~ N ~ N ~ 'o N N N ~ m N ~ N ~ N ~ ~ U 'O ~ m ~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ C N -6 fn > _ ~ N N N C 'p fn > 'O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -O C N 'p N > _ ~ .~.J OU ~ ~ O J U U (6 ~ N ~ O J c -o ~ Q c ~ OU ~ ~ O J ~ U i y -o ~ U v ca Q -o c o -o N U U~' ca ~ o0 0 -o ~ U i~ ca U Q~ p a~ Q ca ~ m a~ ca -o ' ~ Q ca ~ o o ~ o ~ ~ a~ Q ca ~ m 0 • y ~ m m b ~ 'O c 'o c ~ ~ 00 ~ M ~ m m ~ 'O C -o ~ -o s O~~ O> O O s c m ~ m -o s c N O> O ~ c N O N v ~ O D N N ,c Q ~ ~ c ~ c N O N U of ami m ~ ~ cNa ~ a"i ~ o o Q ~ ~ c"a a~i ~ o ~ ~ U a~i aNi m ~ " cNa ~ ~ ~ c~~ ~ ~N~~ o E o is c~~ ca ~ O ~ -o N N m ~ O ~ -O N 'O N - ~ N s 'O ~ O ~ -o N N to ~ 'O .N O N ~ ~ m N ~ O N ~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ N ~ .N O N ~ ~ m (6 m ~ m -p , N > ' fn (V N m -p ch s - > (6 m m -p N O ~ ~ c N ~ ~ ~ ~ m m ~ ~ c m O ~ ~ c ' p ~ (6 . c? ~ 'o ~ N c ~ ~ p M N (6 . ~ ~ ~ s ~ O ~ p ~ (6 . ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ m N (6 . N (6 - N ~ m N (6 . - ~ m . - - m N (6 . N C7 Q , a~ -o ~ m a~ ~ ° ~ - -o ~ E o a~ ~ a~ E Q a~ -o ~ m a~ ~ c U .c - O N (6 c U c O- c U .c z ~ ~ - N E ~ .N N (6 ~ U .N ~ ~ - ~ri a~ o - ' ~ ~ a~ o O iii a~ o - ' ~ Q N c ~ v~~ ~ m c (6 D om.- m e (6 N c (6 = o ~ ~ o ~ o a~ o a~ o a~ ~ o ~ o o ~ ~ o ~ o o ~ ~ o ~ ~ o V U E~ O o ~ L 0~ U c~ o ca U E~ o 0 N~ m m N ~ 0 ~ (6 c O~~ m~ N c m~ N N .N gy p. c ~ c o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O c c o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c o ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ OQ U cv~~ m c ~ c m ~ Q~ t1') (6 m L N ~ U (6 L~ in N N c 0 in (~6 ~ L~ O rl ~ ~ `o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ca E c Q o ? E `o ca N (6 ~ N N N (6 U N (6 ~ L in s c (6 O m- ti s 'o c c c~~ ~ m~ c in s c (6 O m- ice' d ~ OU Qom-" in Q Q (6 ~ ~ ~ Q ~ OU Qom-" OU ~ N (6 Q ~ OU d ~ OU Qom-" in Q Q (6 V ¦ ¦ ~U in ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ M