The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About75B - PH - AMEND DEVELOPMENT AGMT 2005-02REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: APRIL 4, 2011 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2005-02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-05, VARIANCE NO. 2011-04 AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2011-01 FOR A NEW MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 100- 140 EAST MACARTHUR BOULEVARD - LYON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, APPLICANT CITY MANAGER CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ? As Recommended ? As Amended ? Ordinance on 15' Reading ? Ordinance on 2"d Reading ? Implementing Resolution ? Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Adopt a resolution approving the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02 and approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2. Adopt an ordinance approving the fourth amendment to Development Agreement No. 2005- 02. 3. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05 as conditioned. 4. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2011-04 as conditioned to allow tandem parking. 5. Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2011-01 as conditioned. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On March 14, 2011, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02 and approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; adopt an ordinance approving the fourth amendment to Development Agreement No. 2005-02; adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05 as conditioned; adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2011-04 as conditioned to allow tandem parking; and adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2011- 01 as conditioned by a vote of 7:0 to allow the construction of a new multiple family residential development at 100-140 East MacArthur Boulevard located in the Specific Development No. 76 (SD-76) zoning district (Exhibit A). The Planning Commission modified Planning Division Condition Nos. 5, 6, 13, and 25 and Police Department Condition Nos. 2 and 4 as well as deleted Police Department Condition Nos. 1, 3 and 6 of Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05. The changes were made to clarify the conditions of approval and to provide the applicant with the ability to submit alternate building materials and security measures for review. 75B-1 Amend DA No. 2005-02, CUP No. 2011-05 VA No. 2011-04, SPR No. 2011-01 April 4, 2011 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Jay Trevino Executive Director Planning & Building Agency VF:rb vflreports\Lyon Integral.cc Exhibit: A. Planning Commission Staff Report 75B-2 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: MARCH 14, 2011 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2005-02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-05, VARIANCE NO. 2011-04 AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2011-01 FOR A NEW MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 100-140 EAST MACARTHUR BOULEVARD Prepared by Vince Fregoso Executive Director RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend that the City Council: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED ? As Recommended ? As Amended ? Set Public Hearing For DENIED ? Applicant's Request ? Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO Planning Mangy r Adopt a resolution approving the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02 and approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2. Adopt an ordinance approving the fourth amendment to Development Agreement No. 2005- 02. 3. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05 as conditioned. 4. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2011-04 as conditioned to allow tandem parking. 5. Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2011-01 as conditioned. DISCUSSION Request of the Applicant Lyon Community Development is requesting approval to amend provisions of the MacArthur Place South development agreement, a conditional use permit, a variance, site plan review approval and an addendum to the certified Environmental Impact Report in order to allow the construction of a new 300-unit mid-rise condominium project to be located at 100-140 East MacArthur Boulevard. Proiect Location and Site Description The subject property is located at 100-140 East MacArthur Boulevard, between Main Street and Sandpointe Avenue. The site is approximately 4.05 acres in size, rectangular in shape and is currently vacant. Further, the site is located within the MacArthur Place South master planned 2 75B-3 Amend DA No. 2005-02, CUP No. 2011-05 VA No. 2011-04, SPR No. 2011-01 March 14, 2011 Page 2 development, a 43-acre mixed-use site located on the south side of MacArthur Boulevard between Main Street and the Newport-Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeway. Currently located in MacArthur Place South is 1,450,000 square feet of office area consisting of two 14-story office buildings, two 10- story office buildings and two 8-story office buildings. Additionally, a 13,470 square foot food/retail building, a 174-room, 84,210 square foot DoubleTree Club hotel, four 6-story parking structures and a Courtyard by Marriott Hotel (under construction) are within MacArthur Place South. The site is surrounded by a combination of commercial and multi-family residential uses to the north; office and industrial uses, multi-family residential, office and hotel uses to the east; and commercial, single and multi-family residential uses to the west (Exhibits 1 and 2). Project Description The proposed project is a 300-unit development that will have units within three separate buildings. Initially, the project will operate as an apartment complex, with units available for rent. However, a final map has been recorded for the project, allowing the eventual sale of the units as condominiums. The units will wrap around a parking structure that will contain one subterranean level of parking and five above grade levels with 660 parking stalls. Parking has been provided at a rate of two parking stalls per unit (600 spaces), with an additional 10 percent (60 stalls) provided for guest parking. This complies with the parking requirement for multi-family uses in the SD-76 zoning district. Access to the project will be provided from Main Street and from an interior driveway at the east side of the project. The architectural style proposed for this mid-rise project is contemporary. Building materials will include plaster and cement board finishes with brick accents at the ground level. Additionally, staggered rooflines in the form of mezzanines for upper floor units have been included to provide visual relief from Main Street and MacArthur Boulevard. The project will contain one, two and three bedroom units. The units will range in size from 614 square feet for the smallest one bedroom unit to 1,403 square feet for a three bedroom unit. Table 1 below provides a breakdown of the units within the condominium building. Table 1 Lyon Condominium Project Summary Unit Type Units Proposed Percent of building Square Footagee 1 bed 143 48% 614-780 1 bed w/mezz. 12 4% 784-832 2 bed 117 39% 1,039-1,084 2 bed w/mezz. 14 4% 1,126-1,221 3 bed 11 4% 1,230-1,308 3 bed w/mezz 3 1% 1,387-1,403 Total 300 100% n/a 75B-4 Amend DA No. 2005-02, CUP No. 2011-05 VA No. 2011-04, SPR No. 2011-01 March 14, 2011 Page 3 An extensive menu of project amenities is planned for this development. Exterior amenities include a water feature, landscaping and public art within the public plaza located at the northwest corner of the project. The project will also include two open courtyards with decorative landscaping, hardscaping, seating areas and a water element on the ground level. A recreation deck will be located on top of the parking structure and will contain a pool, seating areas, a barbeque, garden rooms, a tennis court and a recreation room. Within the recreation room will be a fitness room, yoga room, screening room, a clubroom, game tables and a conference room (Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6). Proiect Backaround The Lyon parcel is part of the larger MacArthur Place South development, a 9.8-acre, three parcel development that was entitled in 2005. The entitlements allowed three 25-story high-rise towers, a six-story mid-rise residential/office building, and 14,000 square feet of retail and restaurant uses. Two high-rise towers, the 349-unit Skyline Towers development at 9 and 15 MacArthur Place, were completed in October 2008. Also part of the entitlements was the Montage, a 276-unit, four to six- story mid-rise condominium development by Integral Corporation. Although the project was submitted into building plan check in 2008, permits were never obtained for its construction. In early 2010, Lyon Community Development entered into a partnership with Integral in order to construct the project. Although modified and improved in design, the proposed project is similar to that which was previously entitled. General Plan and Zoning Analysis The General Plan land use designation for the site is District Center (DC), which allows for major development sites such as the multi-family residential development. District Centers are designed to serve as anchors to the City's commercial corridors, and to accommodate major development activity. The project site is consistent with this General Plan land use designation. The site is surrounded by residential and retail uses to the north; office development to the south; office and retail uses to the east; and residential uses to the west. The zoning for the site is SD-76 - Hutton Centre Mixed Use Specific Development District No. 76. The SD-76 is a mixed use zone that allows office, restaurant, retail, hotel and residential land uses. Therefore, the proposed use is also consistent with the zoning designation. Proiect Analvsis Amendment to the Development Agreement In 2005, the City approved several entitlements, including a development agreement, for The Grand Plan I and II, LLC, subsidiaries of the Nexus Development Corporation, and Integral Communities for the MacArthur Place South development. The development agreement established development intensity, permitted uses and development standards for the term of the 75B-5 Amend DA No. 2005-02, CUP No. 2011-05 VA No. 2011-04, SPR No. 2011-01 March 14, 2011 Page 4 agreement. Further, the approved development agreement required certain improvements and public benefits such as in-lieu fees for parkland dedication, payment of an inclusionary housing fee, and the execution of an off-site improvement agreement with the Sandpointe Neighborhood Association. In 2008, the development agreement was amended to allow the phasing of public art. In 2009, the development agreement was again amended to give the developers the right to rent some or all of the units within the Skyline Towers and Integral projects. Over the last few years, a significant shift in the local and national economy has occurred. This shift has severely impacted the real estate and development market. As evidence of the severe nature of the economic downturn in real estate development, of the 14 large projects that have been submitted to the City for review in the past five years (Brookhollow Office project, City Place retail/residential project, Sky Loft Tower, Cordoba courtyard housing, First and Cabrillo condominiums, Montage condominiums, Nexus Skyline Towers, Nexus Phase II, One Broadway Plaza office tower, Promenade Pointe condominiums, Sixth and Parkcenter development, Town and Country Manor, Village Green and the West End Lofts), only the City Place and Skyline Towers projects have begun or completed construction. These same trends are evident in communities throughout the country. Due to the shift in the economy, Integral has not been able to proceed with its mid-rise residential development. In response, they have partnered with Lyon Community Development to modify the project in an effort to commence construction. The amendments to Development Agreement No. 2005-02 are minor changes that recognize Lyon as the primary developer for the project. Further, the amendments reflect the new scope of the project, such as a modest increase in the number of units and the new parking configuration. All other elements of the development agreement will remain, with Lyon committed to developing the project as proposed, with all finishes and amenities for the project to be of the highest quality. Lyon is also committed to the eventual sale of units within the project and will also be involved in the sale, rental and managing of the units (Exhibit 7). Their intention is to rent the units in the near-term but consider selling them as condominiums when economic conditions allow. The documents allowing the sale of units, including the subdivision map and covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), have been recorded for the Lyon project, which allows Lyon the ability to sell units when the housing and financial markets shift. Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permits are governed by Section 41-638 of the SAMC. Conditional use permits may be granted when it can be shown that the following can be established: That the proposed use will provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or community. 75B-6 Amend DA No. 2005-02, CUP No. 2011-05 VA No. 2011-04, SPR No. 2011-01 March 14, 2011 Page 5 • That the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. • That the proposed use will not adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of properties surrounding the area. • That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 41 for such use. • That the proposed use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the city or any specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use. If these findings can be made, then it is appropriate to grant the conditional use permit. Conversely, the inability to make these findings would result in a denial. Using this information staff has prepared the following analysis, which, in turn forms the basis for the recommendation contained in this report. The Specific Development No. 76 (SD-76) zoning district, specifically Sections 5 and 7 (Conditional Permitted Uses in Zones 1 and 2), identify uses conditionally permitted within the MacArthur Place South zoning district. Included as conditionally permitted uses are multi-family residential uses, outdoor farmers markets, full-service cafes and restaurants, and retail and service uses. In analyzing the conditional use permit request, staff believes that the following findings of fact warrant approval of the conditional use permit. The project will provide a service or facility which will contribute to the community. The project is located within a master planned development that is suitable for the proposed use. The proposed project is a continuation of the "urban village" concept underway at MacArthur Place South and will provide a service to the community by providing high-quality residential project that will enhance the property values of the surrounding neighborhoods. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure the quality and the attractiveness of the overall design which will contribute to the general well being of the community. • The proposed multi-family residential use will not be detrimental to persons residing and working in the area as the short-term and long-term unavoidable adverse impacts identified in the certified environmental impact report (EIR) will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Any other negative or adverse impacts will be mitigated through mitigation measures identified in Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02 as well as the addendum to the EIR. • The proposed use will not adversely affect the economic stability of the MacArthur Place South development area but will enhance the future economics of the area. The multi-family residential component will provide a customer base to the retail and restaurant uses of the surrounding community, which will reinforce the economic viability of the project. 75B-7 Amend DA No. 2005-02, CUP No. 2011-05 VA No. 2011-04, SPR No. 2011-01 March 14, 2011 Page 6 • The use will comply with all applicable provisions of Chapters 34 and 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code as well as the provisions of the SD-76 zoning district except for the tandem parking requirement. A variance, with appropriate justification, has been submitted in this regard. The proposed use will not adversely affect the General Plan as multi-family residential development is conditionally permitted within the Specific Development No. 76 (SD-76) zoning district. Further, the project is in compliance with Policy 1.3 of the General Plan Land Use Element, which encourages high-density residential development within the City's District Centers and Policy 1.4, which promotes the maintenance and fostering of a variety of residential land uses in the City. Variance Variance requests are governed by Section 41-638 of the SAMC. Variance requests may be granted when it can be shown that the following can be established: • That there exists a special circumstance related to the property, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. • That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. • That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding property • That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan If these findings can be made, then it is appropriate to grant the variance. Conversely, the inability to make these findings would result in a denial. Using this information, staff has prepared the following analysis, which forms the basis for the recommendation contained in this report. In analyzing the variance request staff believes that the following findings of fact warrant approval of the variance. • The project site has a special circumstance related to its size, shape and location. The project is on a contained site surrounded by existing commercial and residential developments. Tandem parking will only be used as assigned parking for the residents. The variance will allow the applicant the ability to use the property in a manner that is consistent with similar surrounding commercial, residential and professional uses. 75B-8 Amend DA No. 2005-02, CUP No. 2011-05 VA No. 2011-04, SPR No. 2011-01 March 14, 2011 Page 7 The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights as the granting of the variance to allow tandem parking will preserve the property owner's ability to develop the property with a well-designed residential project that is consistent with the Specific Development No. 76 (SD-76) zoning district. The wrap-style design of the parking garage is superior in that it allows shorter walking distances for residents; it allows for more mature and substantial landscaping that is planted in native soil as opposed to landscaping planted in raised planters; and, it allows for a better urban streetscape. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding properties as the project will be in compliance with all provisions of the SD-76 zoning district. Further, the project will comply with all mitigation measures identified in the certified environmental impact report for the project as well as all mitigation measures identified in the addendum to the EIR. The project will not adversely affect the general plan as the proposed multi-family residential use was designed in conformance with City Zoning Codes, development standards and General Plan goals and policies. Regarding this project, Section 41-638.1(d) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) states that tandem parking is permitted only within an office development, while the applicant is requesting approval to allow 262 of the 660 total spaces (40 percent) be tandem parking. Tandem parking allows the ability to provide additional parking spaces within fixed areas such as a parking structure or subterranean parking lot. Since tandem parking is a common practice in larger, urban office and residential projects, including several surrounding cities, staff is recommending approval of the request for tandem parking at this development. In order to ensure that the tandem parking will be used to efficiently park all cars in the project, staff has included a condition of approval that requires a Parking Management Plan to define how the tandem spaces will function. Site Plan Review Section 41-593.5(c) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires a review by the Planning Commission of all plans within a specific development plan area to ensure the project is in conformity with the Specific Development Standards. The review also ensures that the buildings, structures and grounds are in keeping with the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the development of the Specific Development area. After analyzing the project, staff has found that the project is in compliance with all applicable development standards, including the Hutton Centre Mixed-Use Specific Development District (SD-76). Public Notification The project site is not located within a neighborhood association, but is adjacent to the Sandpointe Neighborhood Association. Given Sandpointe's involvement in the entitlements for MacArthur Place South, City staff and the applicant met with the Association Board in December 2010 to 75B-9 Amend DA No. 2005-02, CUP No. 2011-05 VA No. 2011-04, SPR No. 2011-01 March 14, 2011 Page 8 discuss and review the revised project. Further, staff contacted the Association in early March to provide an update and obtain feedback on the proposed project. Finally, the contacts for this Neighborhood Association were notified by mail 10 days prior to this public hearing. The project site itself was posted with two notices advertising this public hearing, a notice was published in the Orange County Reporter and mailed notices were sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site, as well as concerned citizens listed on the Permanent Notification List. At the time of this printing, no correspondence, either written or electronic, had been received from any members of the public. CEQA Analysis In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the recommended actions have been reviewed through an Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report 2004-02. CEQA guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000, et seq.) authorizes the use of an addendum for the purpose of making minor or technical changes, as long as these changes do not rise to the level of requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15162. The originally certified Environmental Impact Report was analyzed in light of the revised site plan and it was determined that there are no new significant impacts resulting from the changed plan. Several mitigation measures that required modification and/or further clarification have been added to the conditions of approval for this project. Additionally, a new traffic study was performed to analyze the potential changes in traffic circulation as a result in the increase in units. The result of the traffic analysis concluded that the residential use at this site will result in 11 more trips in the morning peak hour, 12 more trips in the afternoon peak hour and 139 more trips on a daily basis. However, according to the revised traffic study, the proposed project will not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Therefore, no additional review or mitigation measures are needed (Exhibit 8). The determination that there are no new significant impacts or any increases in the severity of the impacts previously identified in the original Environmental Impact Report mean that in accordance with CEQA 15164, the Addendum to the previously certified MacArthur Place South EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is the appropriate document for the actions proposed (Exhibit 9). 75B-10 Amend DA No. 2005-02, CUP No. 2011-05 VA No. 2011-04, SPR No. 2011-01 March 14, 2011 Page 9 Conclusion Based on the analysis provided within this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the fourth amendment to Development Agreement No. 2005-02, Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05 as conditioned, Variance No. 2011-04 as conditioned and Site Plan Review No. 2011-01 as conditioned. Vince Fregoso, A Principal Planner VF.jm AreportMLyon Integral.031411.pc Attachments: Exhibit 1 - General Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 - Land Use Map Exhibit 3 - Site Plan Exhibit 4 - Floor Plan Exhibit 5 -Building Elevations Exhibit 6 - Landscape Plan Exhibit 7 - Amendment to the Development Agreement Exhibit 8 - Addendum to the EIR Exhibit 9 - Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 75B-11 75B-12 it 11 II IR1 ?''? t._ IICR Ml MI M2 If --tl LI U 11 II ?I --- --- if ?s 1 `?r ? I at-w "v. Rlr" aw P a O ?1 CR Mt M1 M1 Rl R1 R1 MR r .. - - E SD-43 RI Y RI r,aa SD-43 SD-43 $ R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 F C4 _ z SD-43 \ RR t ua Rcan w". R1 Al R1 / CS P Kl S{? MACARTHUfl BLVD. -- - -- -- RI-PRD RI-PRD RI PRO j C5 I C2 R1- R1- R1-PRD P O RD C4" At. "RI- R1 I C2 PAD PAD . AI- PAD o4iF g PAID P1-PRO RIS PIID \ `R1s "R1 R1 O RI R1 c i t y o f T u s t i n RI R1 R1 PIKE. RI At M1 R1 AT I- C59 UN l TR AV. -- ? C2 by C i t y o f C o s t a M e s a 1 Al GENERA L AGRICU LTURA Lt CR COMMERCIA L RESIDENTIA L RI SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIA L -8 PARKINGMODIFIC ATION GC GOVERNMEN TCENTE R R2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENC E C-SM COMMERCIA L SOUTH MAI N MI UGH T INDUSTRIA L R3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENC E Cl COMMUNIT Y COMMERCIA L M2 HEAVYINDUSTRIA L R4 SUBURBANA PARTMENTS C1-MD COMM. COMMERCIAL/MUSEUM DISTRICT MO MILITARY OPER ATION S RE RESIDENTIA L ES TATE C2 GENERA L COMMERCIA L 0 OPEN S PAC E SD SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT C3 CENTEA LBUSINES S P PROFESSIONA L SP SPECIFIC PLA N C3-A CENTEA LBUSINESS-A RTISTVILLAG E PCD PLANNEDCOMMUNIT YDEVELOPMEN T C4 PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER PRO PLANNED RESIDENTIA LDEVELOPMEN T C5 ARTERIA LCOMMERCIA L AMENDMENTTO DA 05-2/CUP11-5 A a SPR11-1 NA 11-4 LYON INTEGRAL MACARTHUR PLACE, LLC - - =500 FEET 1"=1000 FEET 100-140 E. MACARTHUR BOULEVARD P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L D I N G A G E N C Y VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT 1 75B-13 75B-14 SERVICE MULTI- FAMILY / STATION RESIDENTIAL 1 H O T E L I I V A C A N T -.? MACARTHUR \ BOULEVARD J Il ---` J SE RVIC E FOOD STATION L~u H O T E L PLAZA w w c F? g ?< a ? w \e\ uz r o z ? ,,, ?' lA1(E TOWER ? ? NORTH ? w y ? INEMA SIN E AM. - OC P DENTI L ? L A K E ? u MURPHY AV. SANpp -r IAK TOOWER 201 SANDPOINTE AVE. V O J W PARKING w a v) < L? O? O F F I C E Z HOTEL Z z a ? O F F I C E O F F I C E w OFFICE by J w Q w AMENDMENTTO DA 05-2/CUP 11-5 SPR 11-1 NA 11-4 LYON INTEGRAL MACARTHUR PLACE, LLC 100-140 E. MACARTHUR BOULEVARD P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L D I N G A G E N C Y LAND USE MAP EXHIBIT 2 75B-15 75B-16 W g V N 77?t - i?[E ki? Vg C7 as W W s 3 iit, I,;p !t z ,. 13 e Q ss? a y?y ciij 'i ?i a R's a?,rv y _ am V S"' A ?;1liiis;li & vasaas I Icy II!Ii' w e??49'?I?„ ? I I I? a all F yC .e a z -_ I n k f V= * ya?j` i} o ,3,Yf: C v ; oil sI. L ?I it l $All roilNVOWN Li I 1= I+ 9 ? a a. U a I4 L ? I? r x i? gtN?e??? ? ' `'Or0 ` _ If?S {bl' ? k ?I? !I u'nVle''P1 S = l; IT 7cts-I 3 .F.XFVIF 75B-18 tr ! t ? ? j I ?? N I ?r t? t ! I a U sca g3 0??? ale. [i 5 i}{71 g?lu ?'?.?G I ?V ? i U i€f I f i 6 A' s o.a g? ? ? 5 w?wuslw nw ION b b b ti '7 3 \ .. LL n - S F N U w J ??m?r L k ? 1 X rc ? LL Z 4 ? r q ` ` yy m0 e LS J_J L.. ? IL e C; Y g ? I/ r t ?? p p Q ' o N m ? i Q m u BIT 4 7 5sil- P9 ?i; :o ? W ii f, tit MIS ? g ,3? ammo ?5k P't!1i1:,; eP ? ??= ? p ?m °v E g g p 1 2. g sa ¢ oa 1, t lif _ z y t O R V a p f ` t 11 if {S3 i t r?R?.m a sas?C s J_ W7 ?? v ? F 9 .? f?? fi1i i.i F P S o'S 8 3 a aI3 g wu?uusw? ne ?w ll _ Z _ _ 5 4 3 x Q --, _ LL K oe N ? LL t w ? w N 41 K FfY W m C7 Q zr To ?fN1?1 f!r LL? 3 ,-- III - fn m of ? C- Y __ N N Q O m Z? m0 2M?m0 75ff- i fr qjJ `:i -d- Al l ° Jim Q ?j o ys? a<?a s ? i[t?? I;• ? r! Q??I?I?? i i I ? jO ? m o II a•t> °' Q ? v 'd 1 o w p z s„ p In:unusxw ao? r.al 4- I ? ' I E? ?1 coal fC ?__'? 'i--- s ------- N Q?J y ?j y ? JJ -- ? ?: -. N N m ? ?N N m m I ? O Q W 4 M A P n L I -=- -LJl- FF7? 1 Z H? v - Z A N Z ? NItN? V ? \ = I / '??' T \ l% ?e,, 0 2? Z W Q W f N N ?? /I ?o?- LL ? 3 h eel dl-.K ? W II Z? ?? LL f 2 ° N N -' I Q S CI Z y LL v Hill o.a 1 r L4 ? `I J - arc o? r _ ?'? i - in 1 2 N ? / `?? Q ?In?N , N N AD ?N N Z y L I y 4- I _- ? ? m N 1- ? t•I f it cr- U :liE ?;v? ® ti. ELI I I Y ?. Jill Q A?? . 2 O e ° E i s? z c c[ p .? p 0 ° ? 5 ll tl vtilE ? EjE ? e ? 1; "" 3 ? 3 w ? x f a 3 ?- 1 l!( tv s as e - - Y& i00]IIYILItl bOf lON ? I b n O m z _ _ ? 'G SYY?000??? D LL U O _ - Q N V W N in v / __ _ 4 LL Z - W F, 3 X < foa ? Z W O C' LL ' M0?01 M3tl0 4 ? W ? N / W '?` m mm \ 2 Q W to L z p smu w yr ? 20 z? p w Z 5:- z iql i w 'r f LLU 3F Z LL ? Z Ill v N m Y Z; W W'??J O ?-1?JYrF Zrv4N IIr? ll 9 t z FNUWa ;'mms 10 2 eB of 92 ? gO _ ? N w Rd? iR'y$! I??I :,. IZ 6 ? ?.# d i ?a a 4? z ?Sa ??R?I OIEI o peg a LO U F" Q 81 ?' ??pp z7 od?? VSa amp 5 co° 'g f! ? k7 f fig !R!3 =1'r'i i@ i Li ¢ R w? Q W w? J e Z?; O l49' I;1tiE p ? l aq"?LL Z oy 0 sg x p F?? tF c 5? wuawisrm eof :ax x m 1a Q Z N yy O ? a JI N J RE O \ a w e ? •. N U w y m LL: m W m 2 ?\ Z it li N ?j Z W Q ?_ LL ? \ y? 1 AI W ' N I\ m W w m w w y ¢ O LL f7 f Z ?c LL ~Z L mPC? mr ozr o 11 t ,Ii{1 I L - ? W ?Z Z W.D 1 I 1 ?'-? Il l ;-f zv. m I - I s?.xc 10 70513 cx- $ S [p F , c e A V? O r ? F i $ [ lq j?'{?! i:a{I1 ;Zi{ 7 ? i ig ? ? ? R S s e s j s' _ g i W j p v ' e[ ?[ [ l Cr 4 o s.a E s 3de :M S ' I riouawvm ao! la o I N ? gz ? p F N j z z w n S se[ I W 2 TJ? \ r ? ? / I Jw O(7 W ? 1 x LL ? C ''1/VVV??I ? ? LL?J 3m y ------ t s U W 33 d 8 m p V ? m m ? F 1 A 7, K H H y t C s ~q N J H Za?mO st [?-sx Q Z N 5 LL s m LL U U m ? z a ? z r u IL 8 rv N X" Z U LL w? m m w y r z ? m0 79b -f1'4 Q f z ll" ¢ a ;a s ai.,R g ° v ? 06 r W z °h g p° Z?i O 5 5i ??t( I P i - SC w A a aal 1 { F{iii t a C Y ? + fal f 9 `0 8 8'E 8 3i o,. , S 3? % ItlY]PWSMW b0f lql gx ? b b ?4 Z N o N a J ? O U m e NN v wos LL N y P fn Z N I? ? -? m. Q Z II II x U / N Q IryI m c N \ W W U 1?1 OV!'M?OLOM Q / \ \ PLOF F Z ' z Y z S 20 I J 'Yy7 f tz 5? L I I r W i - X `T Z = q 4 Z F7 Z 2 2 F Q V O r ,j nl I' `??Y4 I.? y ?C JS j' Y LL F z S ?[[ ? S Vi r_? 41 N m` H f 1r- Page 7 of 10 75B-25 i? ? . - Q 1 x 3 =W Sm a7 5 iR? !'!i 7 i ? 0 a C co _ Q d :1 a cLi ¢@ «s? W? 2f [3 x! 5 5 S zz Q A U O ?' S ! ! tll: ?'i1t;F E? ^kiSS ? I .a u?. W? fS' 4 v s s; a:a a I I pp ?la?° sl?? ?? O ? LL II g xN N Q ? U O J Q ? U LL u LL z n? y $ m? z x Om m m` g W N CN (D N F 2 Z 1 W J J ? z W LL Z FZ Zp xou7rlumm ms w e q b f U) L- - All a 11 1 / dd t__?\ L K O 3 y O ?1? L4 _ I L I I l 1 ? ? NN4`O?V 3 ._ - I k C N i 5 ?s Page 8 of 10 75B-26 U ? -, 3 `? ? ? a i s I• In ? I ?.? ? i z O Q gg g otf W H r z" a a° 3 ,3L'1 I' t !1 a ., ?'c 1 ! d !U ? 1i!siiln?• 8 gsa I aat3 I ?,?x"a? ? 2 LL O m H `? II U ? J ? a ?' I i l l U z h? ? ? I ui ° Xm \ Z_ K a 6 o / ' Qz N Im w ? w LLNl m _o IZQZ_J Q I / \ N Y C7 f Z ' mO YZ xouxwsrm a? pox / b b a r 8 8 ? F ? e z f - , s2 _ n Oz w -L? I, LL j 3 Y R U ? Q 7?mrvH I D ___ , ) Page 9 of 10 75B-27 Qo ? `?? u ® ?tll? ? I & NN, ca rn w ` 171 ll 4 ? o h Z ? s? x o ? ? ft ?? g S C f ? J ? ? • ?ii ? ? ) f IG: Y) ? . 6 9 e s sa B ? ? ? .. ? ? ?I 1,o uaislm w .on xg n b 2 N ,•f N U W A GZ 4 N r N LL Z II IJ ? N < ? W W ^ 11 N ? '. Z W O? Q ? i r W Y J n W Q Z > NY 7 20 / S it O 2 Z t I-: < - L: I --+ I 1) QQ , $$ / /II ? H S 2n?m0 Page 10 of 10 75B-28 Jill ? m m ? - tt ( t 1[23 Qm??OJO++ `? Ifl?1 1i?4'` QF HIM Off} W ^ G Z f?.? m? b /;i 'i7t? C g oo ?IrB 111 ee __ Z ? Q ?$ = J ?n f ,la rl 8 vE' c ? 7 E o l! ? ifs ? - e ?? ? Ld ?? F Fl tlll? rat ? a zss G 4 1. .; 5 f Iola 14 ?a a €a €a td t? Ga !J ?3 ? €? €a Ir t? c; itl .? a €a €? Ir ? -?f YfOw ?- •JQi Wn 1 3 Y4,f ?' i 3. 'i f 9R1B.Yw d21 i Dtli i PAl j D9? ? itr i AKI i dat ? DI i ?tid9i AZT ? ADS ?D? ??id?ai (j d0? ?A? IIL?7Itn?L--m -till I I?qI " "j91 ?_jIM11d Ili i G? aliT?lll?:?` El Z ? p O w fit, xt o? ELI I i. ' rl l Z IL LJ O a v i a! V 4V ?R CV V V (? °ct €a € le 1' ra I - raxiii? Ire ? ? ? rvonf e,se- nom -_ ., 3 L AI I tr ? IA ?QaQ ?i 14 d \' F a a ? I u? Cl) n ? Z pp Yi mp1Q f IIOLLMtl1axOD Ipf 1 1 ?? c3 e a 1 ° r €r t? la A?' a-A? ?Aa I to ?? _ c l I I b Z Q Q - o ? ? 9 - r -- t .r ?? da €i 1? Aa @r Z O 3A YOL W- OaB 1 a dm l o-nl l trD l 1 I W KnE ?4 I ?? ??. ?? ? ?? •p ?? Q ??F ? ? ?? ??? ??? r r J 1. __' ? R ? ,???.? i ? a ts??# fi ? c 1 F 8 <? r „9 _- r ?v ,+? } z E .. ? ` t .' I. i PC $m - C-3 p t} ? ???? 1 13H p C 3 f r q fny Y f ?4. a LL y? cr- xa aIR o D ' # j? p Q o? W ?o?• ' a - d ? 1 `?'fr z g ®' n mom 4 zz tl? I e m s i F? N Y V e W C. r ? LL, a t^ C I gyn.a,W -to w Li-J r, W C m q C ll 7, I.... (I jll I r i al? T 7 I 0 ?i z W s v i N 9 .? N O Page 4 of 6 s ?a fi 42 ss ??? s g '1 <T ¢ $ a g? R i a r p# ; F I3 I 1 t • el 1 E Y i 1 Pap 5 Of 6 F- Z w CL O I w w M d t= Z LJ /0 V , w Cr: 1= ZD Z cr Q U d z d Q m cn Cl w N c N 1 } _w pa= > p % wLL Z d J w f-- Pape 6 0f6 75B-34 uu ?, h {4, ., f r Of s o F 1} x § fi gg Y €y g in ? =1 ( 2 {¢ ? 4lr C ill fr.: ?n. 75E"S3 k.a t }} Ct h vQFy - - y { ? ?: P iM1 j OW C } i 1 r. I .r P f 4.I 1 1 77) I? cY 1 ? C 7 ? s• s. 7 5?Td a •' „dpX ?`e ?f S Y: T' ! fit I 7 ? I ?3 ;'E. a pits j 6 ! : j[? j$ I?.< <, r (f = i1@ g t E@fi gg fr e $gZE° r i:.. _ . F ? p4 n I ? 1'??i 4 fY` L ??? ? l r _ r. .` ? I UPI ?, __ t6b-37 75B-38 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza M-30 P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, California 92702 FREE RECORDING GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT by and between THE CITY OF SANTA ANA and THE GRAND PLAN 2, LLC and LYON INTEGRAL MACARTHUR PLACE, LLC Dated: , 2011 Ordinance No. NS-xxxx EXHIBIT 7 75B-39 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, and THE GRAND PLAN 2, LLC, and LYON INTEGRAL MACARTHUR PLACE, LLC This FOURTH AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Fourth Amendment") is entered into between THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, a charter city and municipal corporation duly authorized under the Constitution and laws of the State of California ("City"), THE GRAND PLAN 2, LLC, a California limited liability company ("GP2"), and LYON INTEGRAL MACARTHUR PLACE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Lyon/Integral"). 1. Reference to Facts. This Fourth Amendment is entered into with reference to the following facts: 1.1 Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Development Agreement. 1.2 The Grand Plan 1, LLC, a California limited liability company ("GPI") and The Grand Plan 2, LLC, a California limited liability company ("GP2"), on the one hand, and City, on the other hand, entered into that certain Development Agreement dated August 4, 2005 and recorded in the Orange County Official Records on July 21, 2005 as Instrument No. 2005000565108 (as amended, the "Development Agreement") pursuant to which, among other things, Owner (as defined in the Development Agreement) was granted the vested right to develop a mixed use Project with residential condominiums and office/commercial/retail uses, as more particularly described therein. GP2's current rights and obligations under the Development Agreement include the Residential Condominium Units Element of the Project, which is the subject of this Fourth Amendment. The Residential Condominium Units Element of the Project was initially referenced as the "Integral Project" in the original Development Agreement, but shall be amended by this agreement to be referenced as the "Lyon/Integral Project." 1.3 A First Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between the City, GP2, NDC Skyline Associates, LLC and Integral Communities I, Inc. (the latter two being assignees of GP 1 and GP2 as applicable) was executed on or about July 7, 2005 and recorded in the Orange County Official Records on July 22, 2005 as Instrument No. 2008000349227. A Second Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between the City, NDC Skyline Associates, LLC, and Integral Communities I, Inc. was adopted by Ordinance Nos. NS-2782 and NS-2783 on or about May 18, 2009, and recorded in the Orange County Official Records as Instrument No. 2009000447820. A Third Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between the City and The Grand Plan 2, LLC was adopted by Ordinance No. NS-2786 on or about June 1, 2009, and recorded in the Orange County Official Records as Instrument No. 2009000447821. 1.4 Lyon/Integral is an assignee of Integral Communities I, Inc. under the Development Agreement. 1.5 The original Development Agreement and Entitlements (i) described the Residential Condominium Units ("Lyon/Integral Project") Element of the Project as consisting of a 4th amendment to development agreement 002 (2)2 2 319/2011 1:40 PM 75B-40 five (5) or six (6) story building containing two-hundred seventy-six (276) for-sale residential condominium units. 1.6 GP2 seeks approval of an amendment to the Residential Condominium Units ("Lyon/Integral Project") Element of the Project. For purposes of this Fourth Amendment, the "Lyon/Integral Project" shall be amended to consist of three-hundred (300) for-sale residential condominium units. 1.7 In connection with the foregoing, GP2, Lyon/Integral and the City now desire to amend the Development Agreement to provide GP2 with approval of the "Lyon/Integral Project" subject to the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement, as amended. 2. Lyon/Integrral Proiect. GP2 and the City hereby acknowledge and agree that GP2 has the right under this Fourth Amendment to construct and operate the "Lyon/Integral Project", as hereinafter defined. 3. Modification of Certain Provisions. The Development Agreement is hereby amended and supplemented in the following particulars: 3.1 Section 2.21. This section is hereby supplemented by adding the following after the third sentence appearing therein, as added by the Third Amendment to Development Agreement: "The new entitlements for the Lyon/Integral Project shall include Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05, Variance No. 2011-04, and Site Plan Review No. 2011-01, as approved by the City. 3.2 Section 2.24. The term "Integral" shall be replaced with the term "Lyon/Integral." follows: 3.3 Section 2.43(3). The entire section shall be amended to read as "(3) A five (5) or six (6) story building containing three-hundred (300) for- sale residential condominium units or for-rent residential units along with a 2,100 square foot commercial space (the "Lyon/Integral Project"); and" 3.4 Section 2.43. In the final sentence of this section, as added by the Third Amendment to Development Agreement, the term "Integral Project" shall be replaced with the term "Lyon/Integral Project." 3.5 Section 2.50. As added to this section by the Second Amendment to Development Agreement, the term "Integral Project" shall be replaced with the term "Lyon/Integral Project." 3.6 Section 4.1. As added to this section by the Second Amendment to Development Agreement, the term "Integral Project" shall be replaced with the term "Lyon/Integral Project." 4th amendment to development agreement 002 (2)2 3/9/201 I 1:40 PM 3 75B-41 3.7 Section 4.2. The term "Integral Project" shall be replaced with the term "Lyon/Integral Project." In addition, "Lyon" shall also be included in any reference to "Integral." 3.8 Section 4.2.1. As added to this contract by the Second Amendment to Development Agreement, the term "Integral Project" shall be replaced with the term "Lyon/Integral Project." In addition, "Lyon" shall also be included in any reference to "Integral." 3.9 Section 4.3(d). The term "Integral Project" shall be replaced with the term "Lyon/Integral Project." In addition, "Lyon" shall also be included in any reference to "Integral." 3.10 Section 4.3(fl. As added to this section by the Second Amendment to Development Agreement, the term "Integral Project" shall be replaced with the term "Lyon/Integral Project." 3.11 Section 5.1.3. The term "Integral Project" shall be replaced with the term "Lyon/Integral Project." 3.12 Exhibit B, Section 2. As added to this section by the First Amendment to Development Agreement, the term "Integral Project" shall be replaced with the term "Lyon/Integral Project." Full Force and Effect: Counterparts. Except as amended herein, the Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. This Fourth Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Fourth Amendment has been executed by the City of Santa Ana and The Grand Plan 2, LLC. Dated this day of )2011. "CITY" THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, a charter city and municipal corporation duly authorized under the Constitution and laws of the State of California By 4th amendment to development agreement 002 (2)2 DAVID N. REAM City Manager 4 3/9/2011 1:40 PM 75B-42 ATTEST: MARIA D. HUIZAR Clerk of the Council Approved as to Form: JOSEPH STRAKA Interim City Attorney By. "GP2" THE GRAND PLAN 2, LLC, a California limited liability company By Name Its "Lyon/Integral" LYON INTEGRAL MACARTHUR PLACE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By_ Name Its 3/9/2011 1:40 PM 4th amendment to development agreement 002 (2)2 Ryan O. Hodge Assistant City Attorney 75B-43 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ss. On before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal SIGNATURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF ) On before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal SIGNATURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 4th amendment to development agreement 002 (2)2 6 3/9/2011 1:40 PM 75B-44 State Clearer No. 2004061140 Draft EIR (Diztrrobutod): March 4, 2005 Final EIR (Certified On): Jane 20, 2005 Addwxh rn: Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02 MacArthur Place South A-4-t City of Santa Ana March 2011 Pmpavd for. ?d= An 20 Clvlc Center Plaza Santa Arai, Cali is 62-M Cvrtact Person: Yince F Pri d p1 ? •2?t? Pmpmd by: CAA Pbn*Q 65 Erie, Suite 130 . cw"" 92656 C?rtact Samna L. Sc hi fit Chief Executive Officer (%D) 581-2 EXHIBIT 8 75B-45 Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 A. Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1 B. Statutory Requirements ................................................................................................................................ 1 C. Project Description ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Location ............................................................................................................................................. 4 2. Background ........................................................................................................................................7 3. Description of Proposed Project ........................................................................................................ 7 D. Approvals Contemplated ............................................................................................................................ 17 Environmental Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 19 Environmental Checklist ................................................................................................................................................ 50 Responses to Environmental Checklist ........................................................................................................................... 51 Exhibits Exhibit 1 - Regional Map ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Exhibit 2 - Project Vicinity Map .................................................................................................. ................... 6 Exhibit 3 - 2005 Site Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Exhibit 4 - 2009 Site Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Exhibit 5 - Proposed Development ...................................................................................................................... 11 Exhibit 6 - 2011 Site Plan .................................................................................................................................... 12 Exhibit 7 - Building Elevations ........................................................................................................................... 13 Exhibit 8 - Recreation Deck ................................................................................................................................. 14 Exhibit 9 - Ground Floor 1-lardscape Plan ............................................................................................................ 15 Exhibit 10 -Podium Hardscape Plan ................................................................................................................... 16 Appendices A Air Quality Assessment, KPC Environmental, Inc. dated January 27, 2011 B Updated Main & MacArthur Traffic Impact Study, KOA Corporation dated February 2011 MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 75B-46 Introduction A. Executive Summary The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the MacArthur Place South project was certified on June 20, 2005. The project analyzed in the EIR was a mixed use development consisting of three 25-story residential towers, three low rise condominium buildings, a six-story residential/office building with 10,000 square feet of office and 14 residential loft units, and a single-story 13,871-square-foot retail building consisting of 8,580 square feet of restaurant and 5,290 square feet of retail. The project site is located at the southeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Main Street in southeast Santa Ana. East of the site is the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55), south and east of the site is the City of Irvine, and the City of Costa Mesa is located to the southwest. John Wayne Airport is approximately 1.1 miles south of the project site. An Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No. (FEIR) 2004-02 was approved by the City in 2009 (2009 Addendum). The 2009 Addendum reviewed the environmental impacts identified in the EIR in relation to changes to the project after the EIR was certified. These included the elimination of the Cinema Lofts (comprised of 14 residential units and 10,000 square feet of office use), removal of 13,871 square feet of retail/restaurant uses, addition of a 185-room hotel, moving the Cinema Tower south of its approved location, and the construction of a parking structure for joint use by the hotel and the Cinema Tower. While a 185-room hotel was analyzed in the Addendum, the final approval was for 155 rooms. An Initial Study Checklist, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was prepared. The Initial Study and the Addendum fully complied with all relevant CEQA standards to determine if the EIR remained adequate to address the impacts resulting from the project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15164. The conclusion of the 2009 Addendum was that the modified project would not result in any new or more significant environmental impacts. This document constitutes a second Addendum to the FEIR for the MacArthur Place South project. This Addendum reviews the environmental impacts identified in the FEIR in relation to changes to the project after the FEIR was certified. The proposed changes include a modification to the low-rise condominium component of the originally approved project. As approved in 2005, the condominiums would include three buildings ranging in height from 50 to 60 feet (5 and 6 stories) with 276 residential units. A total of 689 parking stalls would be provided in a two-level parking area consisting of one ground parking level and one subterranean parking level. Recreation areas would be included in a ground-level interior courtyard and consist of a water feature, a tot lot, a swimming pool, a game table, a barbeque area, and a seating area. The modified project proposal increases the number of residences by 24, for a total of 300 residential units in 3 buildings with a maximum height of 65 feet. A parking structure will contain 29 fewer parking stalls for a total of 660 parking stalls in 1 subterranean and 5 above-ground levels. A recreation deck on the parking structure roof will contain amenities such as a swimming pool, cabanas, a tennis court, seating areas, barbeque facilities, and a recreation building containing conference, fitness, game, exercise, and screen rooms, in addition to a cafe/kitchenette, a business office, a billiard table, and storage. B. Statutory Requirements Pursuant to § 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency for this project. As defined, the lead agency has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. This Addendum updates the progress made in the project, as certified, and serves to update the information in the EIR as contemplated in CEQA Guidelines §15164. This document will also be used to acknowledge the addition of mitigation measures and further project modifications to the site. The CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.) authorize the use of an Addendum for the purpose of making minor or technical changes, as long as these changes do not rise to the level of MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 75B-47 requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162. CEQA Guidelines § 15164 states: a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq.) sets the standard to determine whether another EIR should be prepared when an original EIR has been prepared. Section 21166 states: When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs: (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report. (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report. (c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. Section 21166 is further explained in the CEQA Guidelines at § 15162 as follows: (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous FIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 75B-48 (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subsection (a). Otherwise, the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation. (c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subsection (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. (d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed. The key to §21166 and §15162 is to determine if any circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the environmental documentation process. If conditions do not justify a new or supplemental EIR, but minor additional or technical changes (such as traffic updates, additional mitigation measures, or project improvements) are appropriate to keep the document current and useful, an agency may prepare an Addendum (CEQA Guidelines § 15164). This Addendum will document the character of any changes or additions to support the determination to prepare an Addendum. It will also provide an opportunity to evaluate all components of §15162 to determine if the FEIR still reflects the full scope of the environmental impact. Where appropriate, citations to the FEIR will be made, and assumptions made in the FEIR will be evaluated for continuing validity. The §21166 test is the prevailing authority under state law on the question of whether a new environmental document is necessary. This test is a substantive one to determine the document's continuing accuracy and utility. As described in this Addendum, there are no new significant impacts or any increase in the severity of the impacts previously identified in the FEIR. There are no substantial changes proposed in the project that require major revisions of the certified FEIR. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA § 15164, this Addendum to the previously certified MacArthur Place South FEIR is the appropriate environmental document for the action proposed herein. No substantial changes are proposed in the project, no substantial changes in the circumstances for implementation of the project and no new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified has become available. Therefore, the FEIR, as certified, remains adequate and complete. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 3 75B-49 MacArthur Place South Project Approvals The MacArthur Place South project required the following review and discretionary approvals as described in the EIR: • Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report • Zone change to Specific Development (SD) zone • Site plan review • Lot line adjustment • Tentative/Final Tract Maps • Conditional Use Permit • Parking variance • Airport Land Use Commission consistency finding • Development Agreement • Federal Aviation Administration determination for the high-rise towers and construction cranes • Regional Water Quality Control Board approval for dewatering activities No change in the required approvals is proposed. The 2009 Addendum identified the requirement for the future submittal to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an updated Determination of No Hazard for the Cinema Tower construction. However, no construction schedule for the Cinema Tower has been established as of the date of this Addendum. C. Project Description The following project description is based on the MacArthur Place South FEIR and the Addendum to the MacArthur Place South FEIR. Modifications to the project are included in this Addendum to update the project as proposed. 1. Location MacArthur Place South is a partially developed residential and office park located in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, California, immediately west of the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55) and less than one mile north of the San Diego Freeway (I-405). The City of Irvine is located south and east of the site. The City of Costa Mesa is located to the southwest. The John Wayne Airport is located approximately 1.1 miles south. A Regional Map and a Project Vicinity Map are included herein as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, respectively. The project boundaries are MacArthur Boulevard, Main Street, Sandpointe Avenue, and the Costa Mesa Freeway. MacArthur Place and Hutton Centre Drive bisect the site. MacArthur Place runs south from MacArthur Boulevard to Sandpointe Avenue, and Hutton Centre runs from Sandpointe Avenue around to MacArthur Place. The entire street is identified as Hutton Centre Drive on some maps. The project site is approximately ten acres and is surrounded by high-rise office buildings, a hotel, and parking structures. To the west, between Sunflower Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, is the Sandpointe single-family residential neighborhood, the Main Attraction condominiums and an existing Mobil service station. North of MacArthur Boulevard along Main Street is an existing Arco service station and the California Apartments. Immediately north of the MacArthur Place South project is the MacArthur Place mixed-use development. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 75B-50 MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 5 75B-51 Exhibit 1 - Regional Map tA°" 2 w 5 t- 8 0 1 w3 EF} 8 3 w GARaI r Z5 B J w co w H N wr f K ' i LI r Yr N - -- Q - _ ----- AV MO N 1 AY 'n W Y ; 300 > 600 0 i LItLIE cARa KING a ?? '""' J Z ? N ~ G o a Q ?ti AV Av INT PAW Sl ? ,? p AV AP ipP? S SOLD NE AV u W CURIE AV NAMTHLO t c G BELL AY H AM RICAN WY Ld Y E 0 E A THE uttvtt AT 350 AV M AV o pill ION _ W v E ? \ ti ? ? ti ;2 AV ~t;AV q AY ? AV AURORA KEAT LLER AY y uqr p W IN 0 MWAWS a i C? i G LU Af7T£L ? e Q •-? u .?b STEVENS AV STEMS t- C U F W AV 17700 500 SEE C D5 Z~ r 1'? 21 0 1 SOfNLEY BAY FS 2 KtflEMWE BAY 16 3 LAWS BAY ; 11 17900 ? . 4 WESLEYM BAY A F1 MIRA RAY f o pWK ` CI R y C S Kr PARK i I ?'s s 17700 Ur K ?Iit - -- ------ - ?t '?14p pa's Q°?' ' ,II?IN WAY E AIRPORT I 200 ?/ ? ?? r Rtur OCARE AWMIC MUM 02004 Thomas Bros . Maps Exhibit 2 - Project Vicinity Map MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 75B-52 2. Background The MacArthur Place South FEIR, certified in 2005, identified the project area as an existing office park formerly known as Hutton Centre. Since 1982, approximately 1,551,096 square feet of office, restaurant, theater, retail, and hotel land uses were developed in Hutton Centre. Existing structures ranged from single- story buildings to office towers ranging in height from 8 to 14 stories. The MacArthur Place South FEIR included analysis of the following project components: • Three 25-story residential towers, with a total of 501 residential units • One low-rise loft building with 14 residential units and 10,000 square feet of office space • A condominium complex including three low-rise buildings, with a total of 276 residential units • A restaurant and retail building totaling 13,871 square feet Based on the analysis provided in the 2005 EIR, the City of Santa Ana approved a project configuration that included the above components. Two of the residential high-rise towers, known as Skyline at MacArthur Place, have been constructed with a total of 349 units. The MacArthur Place South project site plan approved in 2005 is included herein for comparison purpose as Exhibit 3 - 2005 Site Plan. In 2009, an Addendum to the MacArthur Place South FEIR (2009 Addendum) was approved by the City. The Addendum proposed removal of the Cinema Lofts (14 units and 10,000 square feet of office use) and the retail (5,291 square feet)/restaurant (8,580 square feet) components, to be replaced by a 185-room hotel with surface parking. The Cinema Tower, with 154 residential units, was proposed to be relocated approximately 174 feet south from the original location analyzed in the FEIR. The hotel proposed in the 2009 Addendum was 4 stories in height, 185 rooms, with a pool and spa and support facilities. The City's final approval was for a 155-room hotel. A total of 615 parking spaces were identified in the 2009 Addendum, which included a combination of spaces in the existing parking structure and a surface parking lot and would be used on an interim basis. Future construction of the Cinema Tower will include a new parking structure that will then meet the needs of the hotel guests and the Cinema Tower residents. A Site Plan showing the hotel component is included herein as Exhibit 4- 2009 Site Plan. 3. Description of Proposed Project The project applicant is proposing a modification to the low-rise condominium component of the project. The condominiums, as approved in the FEIR, would include three buildings ranging in height from 50 to 60 feet (5 and 6 stories) containing 276 residential units. The unit types ranged from one to three bedrooms and baths. Residential styles included typical single-story condominiums, townhouses, and live/work units. An interior courtyard would contain a water feature and a recreation area including a tot lot, a swimming pool, a game table, a BBQ area, and a seating area. A total of 689 parking stalls would be provided on two levels of parking - one subterranean level and one above-ground level. The architectural design featured a staggered roofline, providing visual relief from that of a solid structure with a single roofline. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 75B-53 iOD C N V N Ln O N Mf a t x W E v c v 0 N W 0 O N U (0 a L f0 cc 2 75B-54 m ?t ? tip®? • • ? ' ?i =a it e f e ? e ,i • 1 1 1 9 •y 1 c ? ' ? r a t i ? ? tt qtr l' n: ` ' t ? it i Aae F?f a l l 5 t i - I C:t t; C do a IL N IT 0 N r W W h?-t) PF i 75B-55 The proposed modifications to the condominium component are described below, including a change from condominium to condominium/apartment residential units: • Residential Units -- 300 residential units will range in size from one bedroom/one bathroom to three bedrooms/two bathrooms in single-story or single-story with loft configurations and include balconies. Unit sizes will range from approximately 614 square feet to 1,403 square feet. Building A, with a maximum height of 65 feet, will be located along Sandpointe Drive. Building B, with a maximum height of 60 feet will surround the parking structure on three sides and be composed of Section B 1 on the south, Section B2 along Main Street, and Section B3 to the north of the structure. Building C, with a maximum height of 65 feet, will be located along MacArthur Boulevard. Buildings A and C will be five stories in height and Building B will be four stories. The buildings are approximately the same in size and general configuration as previously analyzed. A rendering of the proposed development is included as Exhibit 5. The project layout is depicted on Exhibit 6 - 2011 Site Plan. Exhibit 7 depicts the east, west, north, and south elevations of the buildings. While the original project approval included 276 low-rise residential units and the proposed modification includes 300 units, the 2009 Addendum eliminated 14 lofts that were originally approved in the FEIR, for a net gain of 10 residential units in the proposed 2011 Addendum. • Parking Structure - The 6-level parking garage - 1 subterranean and 5 above ground - will contain 660 stalls (13 handicapped, 262 tandem and 385 full size). Access will be available via one entry on Main Street (right-in, right-out) and an entry on the proposed interior road between Sandpointe and MacArthur. A designated loading/unloading area will be located between the two interior road entries. The roof of the parking structure will be developed for recreational uses. • Recreation Deck - The garage structure roof will be used for recreational amenities including pool/cabanas, a tennis court, seating areas with tables and chairs, barbeque facilities, and a recreation building between the pool and tennis court areas. The rooftop recreation building will contain a conference room, a screen room, a game room, a fitness room, an exercise classroom, a billiard table, a cafe, a kitchenette, a business center (office), and storage. A total of 35,509 square feet of active recreation space will be available to residents and guests, including the rooftop amenities, courtyards, and public plazas. The recreation deck amenities are shown on Exhibit 8 - Recreation Deck. The Landscape Plan is shown on Exhibit 9 - Ground Floor Hardscape Plan and Exhibit 10 - Podium Hardscape Plan. • Courtyards - Two open courtyards between buildings A and B and buildings B and C will provide passive open space for pedestrian use. Courtyard 1 will contain 17,371 square feet, and Courtyard 2 will contain 13,219 square feet of paved and landscaped area. The courtyards will be accessed via four pedestrian entries - two each on Main Street and the proposed interior road. An additional pedestrian entry point will be available through the main lobby of Building B on Main Street. The exterior entries will be landscaped and paved and include ornamental fencing. • Retail Space/Retail Plaza - 2,100 square feet of retail space is proposed for the southeast corner of the site in Building A. A plaza fronting the retail space will be paved and landscaped and contain tables and chairs. The retail uses are intended to be resident-serving rather than for use by the general public. • Public Plazas - Two public plazas will be located at the corner of Main/MacArthur (27' x 27') and at Sandpointe Avenue and the interior road (45' x 26'). The plazas will be paved and landscaped and provide a water feature and seating. The locations of the each of the components described above are shown on previously referenced Exhibit 6 - 2011 Site Plan. The changes between the 2005 project and the proposed project are shown in the table below: Component 2005 Project Proposed Project Residential Units 276 300 Parking 689 660 Recreation interior courtyard 35,509 square feet (rooftop) Retail -0- 2,100 square feet MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 10 75B-56 h 75B-57 IN o e oI z 'r hill @A1• vnmN mMOY• F[, I IN Hlf U s ? o Sa?rr s r_ b a °' 0 N 10 AMP X W 75B-58 i^ N C i.r ro d W 011 C m L X W 75B-59 C O i-. A d L N E a K LL! ?o N a 3 75B-60 IV Z3181313M1 j 6 I , ® InQC 0000'?>Om oono 1000000 oloo O ® .00 s d L6 .i V P a 75B-61 - 31ON313IN r 00 00000015GO®0®®®® W W g. w€ _ Y 000000 000 0 0 C9f9 f IWO 11] a 2 02 fill I !Q 1: UA ''Oo 1? t E ro a a a u u ou 0 Q 0 L x w iv D. Approvals Contemplated The Addendum will require approval by the City of Santa Ana Planning Commission and the City Council. In taking action on the Addendum the City, as Lead Agency, must consider the whole of the data presented in the 2005 MacArthur Place South Final EIR, the 2009 Addendum and this Addendum to the EIR. The proposed modifications to the previously approved condominium component will undergo site plan review. - Conditional Use Permit for Residential Uses In SD Zone - Amendment to Development Agreement - Variance for Tandem Parking - Site Plan Review Approval by Planning Commission since the project is located in an SD Zone MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 17 75B-63 Environmental Analysis For Projects with Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents Final Environmental Impact Report MacArthur Place South SCN 2004061140 The following analysis takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the project and describes the modifications to the proposed project from what was analyzed in the FEIR. This analysis evaluates the adequacy of the earlier documents pursuant to § 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The Environmental Checklist is included following this analysis. Analysis of the facts related to the project will form the basis for the City of Santa Ana to determine whether any changes in the project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information since the MacArthur Place FEIR and 2009 Addendum were certified require additional environmental review or preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. 1. Aesthetics The FEIR determined that implementation of the project would introduce additional light and glare impacts to the project area. Mitigation measures were incorporated to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) An evaluation of the aesthetic impacts of the entire MacArthur Place South project was presented in the FEIR. Neither the project site nor the surrounding area is considered a scenic vista and the FEIR remains adequate and complete. b) Would the project damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state highway? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) An evaluation of the aesthetics effects of the project was considered in the FEIR. There are no scenic resources on or in the vicinity of the project site, and the FEIR remains adequate and complete. c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) As depicted in the FEIR, the project will contain landscaping treatments in addition to walkways and seating areas for residents and the public. The buildings will remain at the 5-6 story heights analyzed in the FEIR and include a staggered roofline to provide articulation. Trees and shrubbery will soften visual impacts at street level. The proposed use is consistent with surrounding land uses, and no additional visual impacts will occur. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The addition of light sources from interior residential lighting, commercial lighting, and vehicle headlights was analyzed in the FEIR. Mitigation measures were incorporated to reduce impacts from light and glare. The proposed modifications to the condominium component of the project will not introduce additional light or glare to the site beyond that originally analyzed, and the FEIR remains complete and adequate. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 19 75B-64 II. Agricultural Resources a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Would the project conflict with existing zoningfor agricultural use, or a Williamson Contract? c) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? The FEIR Initial Study determined that, because the project site did not include agricultural resources or conflict with zoning for agricultural uses, no impact would occur and no further analysis was required. The project is located in a substantially built-out area of Santa Ana. No new or more severe impacts will occur, and the FEIR remains adequate and complete. III. Air Quality The Air Quality analysis in the FEIR was based on CEQA Guidelines thresholds. An updated Air Quality Assessment (Air Quality Assessment) dated January 27, 2011 was prepared by KPC Environmental, Inc. The analysis focused on the addition of the parking garage structure, which was not part of the original project design, and an increase in residential units from 276 to 300. The Air Quality Assessment in its entirety is included herein as Appendix A. Since the certification of the FEIR, additional legislation requires the analysis of potential greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts due to development. Greenhouse Gas Emissions are discussed in Section VII below. The Air Quality Assessment was based on the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Preliminary Draft Report on Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for GHG under CEQA, the Bay Area AQMD GHG Plan Level Quantification Guidance, and accepted environmental practices. Modeling programs included Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS 2007, 9.2.4); emissions inventory program, EMFAC; and dispersion model CALINE 4. The emissions estimates reported represented a "worst-case" scenario because they incorporate the assumption that construction activities occur at the peak daily levels throughout the entire construction period. The project is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is a non-attainment area for ozone, PMio, and PM2.5 particulates. The 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), developed by the SCAQMD and SCAB, provides an outline to achieve reductions in emissions while increasing air quality within the SCAB. The following table depicts the current criteria pollutant attainment status in the SCAB. Regional Criteria Pollutant Attainment Status SCAB Pollutant State Federal Ozone Extreme Non-attainment Non attainment PM10 Serious Non-attainment Non-attainment PMz.s Non-attainment Non-attainment sox Attainment Attainment CO Attainment Attainment NOx Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment Other (e.g., vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide) Unclassified or Attainment Unclassified or Attainment MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 20 75B-65 To identify projects that will adversely affect the regional air quality through direct and indirect sources, the SCAQMD has established significance thresholds to determine air quality impacts from a project. The Air Quality Assessment evaluated and compared the project emissions to the significance criteria in the following table. Mass Daily Thresholds Pollutant Construction Operation NOx 100 Ibslday 55 Ibs/da ROGNOC 75 lbs/day 55 Ibs/day PM10 150 Ibs/day 150 Ibs/da sox 150 Ibslday 150 Ibs/day CO 550 Ibs/day 550 Ibslday PM2.5 55 Ibs/day 55 Ibs/day The SCAQMD has requested that all projects less than five acres in size complete a Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Analysis to review potential impacts on sensitive receptors. The following table depicts the projected project impacts compared to the significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD. As shown, the project is not anticipated to exceed established thresholds. LST Results Construction Phase CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 No Demolition 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No Site Preparation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grading 16.9 37.1 2.2 1.8 Building 12.5 31.0 1.7 1.5 Localized Significance Threshold 753.0 83.0 12.0 4 Exceed Significance? NO NO NO NO The emissions estimates for the project present the "worst-case" scenario with limited mitigation included in the modeling and PM1o (fugitive dust) from grading activities calculated at the worst-case level of 20 lbs/day rather than the average 10 lbs/day in order to determine the highest potential levels of emissions. The construction schedule is based on 260 working days for all construction related activities (excavation/grading, trenching, construction and architectural coating). The calculations assume that the majority of equipment is operating 5 days per week for 6 to 8 hours per day. It is unlikely that the majority of the equipment on-site will be operated at this schedule and producing the emissions calculated. Modeling is based on the square footage calculations included on the site plan. Construction Emissions On-site construction emissions generally consist of exhaust emissions (CO, ROGNOC, NOx, SOx, PM10, CO2 and PM2.5) from construction equipment, grading, excavation, asphalt paving and painting. Off-site emissions typically consist of exhaust emissions from truck traffic and worker commute trips, road dust and fugitive dust from trucks hauling materials from the site. Each phase of construction is modeled individually and the results are presented below. Mass Grading/Parking Structure Excavation Emissions The default scenario used to model this phase included use of 5 pieces of heavy equipment including 2 excavators, 1 grader, 1 rubber-tired dozer, 1 tractor/loader/backhoe and 1 other piece of equipment over a period of approximately 40 active work days. Emissions include the export of approximately 200,000 cy of MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 21 75B-66 soil using 20 cy dump trucks traveling 1,000 miles per day. The following table depicts the results for this construction phase. No thresholds were exceeded for the mass grading/excavation phase. Mass Grading/Excavation Pollutant Unmitigated (Ibslday Mitigated (Ibslda) SCAQMD Threshold ROG 8.36 8.36 75 NOx 78.53 78.53 100 CO 40.07 40.07 550 PM10 23.89 15.20 150 S02 0.04 0.04 150 PM2.5 7.66 5.85 55 C02 9.797.61 9.797.61 N/A Bald-underline indicates exceedance of SCAQMD Threshold. Site Trenching/Foundation Emissions This phase includes work on the site to prepare for utilities and foundation/footing work to support the structures. The estimates are based on use of 4 pieces of heaving equipment including 2 excavators, 1 other general industrial equipment and 1 tractor/loader/backhoe over a period of approximately 10 active work days. No mitigation measures were included in the model. No thresholds were exceeded for the site trenching/foundation phase of construction. Trenching I Foundation - Phase 1 Pollutant Unmitigated (Ibslday) SCAQMD Threshold ROG 1.98 75 NOx 16.48 100 CO 9.05 550 PM 10 0.83 150 S02 0.00 150 PM 2.5 0.76 55 C02 1,839.01 N/A Bold-underline indicates exceedance of SCAQMD Threshold. Building Construction Emissions The construction phase includes the construction of the 6-level parking structure with one subterranean level and five above-ground levels (approximately 140,000 square feet). Model defaults included potential emissions that would be associated with the construction activities and the movement of materials and work crews to/from the site. The estimates were based on using 6 pieces of equipment including 2 forklifts, 1 tractor/loader/backhoe, 2 aerial lifts, and 1 crane over a period of approximately 210 active work days. Equipment operating hours were estimated at 8 hours per day for all equipment with the exception of the forklifts (6 hours per day) and the crane (4 hours per day). As depicted in the table below, no thresholds were exceeded for this phase. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 22 75B-67 Building Construction Pollutant Unmitigated (Ibs/day) SCAQMD Threshold ROG 1.69 75 NOx 11.73 100 CO 12.77 550 PM10 0.76 150 S02 0.01 150 PM2.e 0.69 55 C02 2,217.67 N/A Bold-underline indicates exceedance of SCAQMD Threshold. Architectural Coatings The architectural coatings phase was based on work taking place over the last 45 days of construction. Additional decreases in ROG (VOC) can be obtained by using High Velocity Low Pressure Applicators and NO VOC coatings. As shown in the table below, no thresholds were exceed for this phase of construction. Architectural Coatings Pollutant Unmitigated (Ibs/day) SCAQMD Threshold ROG 66,67 75 NOx 0.04 100 CO 0.71 550 PM10 0.01 150 S02 0.00 150 PM2s 0.00 55 C02 96.71 N/A Bold-underline indicates exceedance of SCAQMD Threshold. Construction Emissions Conclusion The Air Quality Assessment concludes that with no exceedances of the significance thresholds, predicted emissions would be considered to have a less than significant impact during the construction phase of the project. The FEIR concluded that construction activity impacts will exceed the significance thresholds for ROG (architectural coatings) and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. This portion of the project will not exceed emissions and no significant impact will occur. Area Emissions The Area Emissions include emissions from the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the facilities, consumer products usage, natural gas use and landscaping equipment use. URBEMIS default values were used with no mitigation measures used in the model. Traffic data was obtained from the KOA Corporation Traffic Impact Study dated December 2010. As shown in the table below, there will be no significant increase in criteria pollutants due to the project. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 23 75B-68 Area Emissions Pollutant Unmitigated (lbs/day) SCAQMD Threshold ROG 28.39 55 NOx 15.82 55 CO 122.31 550 PM10 22.96 150 S02 0.14 150 PM2.s 4.49 55 C02 17,511.24 N/A Bold-underline indicates exceedance of SCAQMD Threshold. The majority of emissions associated with Area and Operational Emissions are generally due to vehicle exhaust emissions. All such emissions would be below the SCAQMD's significance thresholds. Therefore, combined emissions for the project would be considered to have a less than significant impact on regional air quality. a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality attainment plan or congestion management plan? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The City requires projects to conform to population and traffic forecasts contained in the General Plan. The SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) provides a basis for assessing air quality with the SCAB and provides for pollutant control strategies. The AQMP is used in establishing the State Implementation Plan (SIP) consistent with the requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). The SIP defines how the SCAB will achieve the federal ambient air quality standards. Because the project is not projected to increase the population or traffic conditions beyond what is forecast in the General Plan, regional emissions associated with the project are accounted for within the AQMP and are, therefore, consistent with the AQMP. The project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the air quality attainment plan or congestion management plan and no impact will occur. b) Would the project violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or proposed air quality violation? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) As indicated above, the Air Quality Assessment concluded that the proposed modification to the project as originally approved will not exceed air quality thresholds. However, the air quality analysis in the EIR noted that construction activity impacts for the originally approved project will exceed significance thresholds for ROG due to the application of architectural coatings. This was considered an unmitigable impact and a statement of overriding considerations was adopted in 2005. The proposed modification to the original project will not violate any stationary source air quality standards or contribute to an existing or proposed air quality violation. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete. c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emission which exceeds quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) As identified in the FEIR, construction related emissions would exceed the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds. The air quality impacts from the project as originally proposed, plus air quality impacts from related cumulative projects and buildout of the City's General Plan, would contribute additional emissions, resulting in an impact that is significant and cannot be MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 24 75B-69 mitigated to levels of insignificance. Mitigation measures contained in the FEIR were designed to minimize short-term construction air quality impacts. The additional incremental increase resulting from the proposed modification to the project must also be considered significant and adverse when added to the existing non-attainment levels of the South Coast Air Basin. However, the incremental change between the 2005 project and the proposed project is de minimis. The City has adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to air quality impacts based on the original analysis in the FEIR and the FEIR remains adequate and complete. d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The FEIR identified air quality impacts related to sensitive receptors with project implementation. No changes have occurred in this area from the previous analysis; therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete. e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The FEIR identified air quality impacts related to the release of objectionable odors due to project implementation. The modifications to the condominium component will not result in any new or objectionable odors beyond those previously analyzed. No changes have occurred related to the creation of objectionable odors; therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. IV. Biological Resources a) Would the project have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services? b) Would the project have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Would the project adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Would the project interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The FEIR Initial Study determined that, because the project site did not include biological resources, no impact would occur and no further analysis was required. The project is located in a substantially built-out area of Santa Ana, and the site was previously disturbed with grading and construction. There have been no changes related to biological resources. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts will occur and the FEIR remains adequate and complete. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 25 75B-70 V. Cultural Resources a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Would the project directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside offormal cemeteries? The FEIR Initial Study determined that, because the project site did not include cultural resources, no impact would occur and no further analysis was required. The project is located in a substantially built- out area of Santa Ana and the site was previously disturbed with grading and construction. No cultural resources were identified and no changes have occurred. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete with respect to cultural resources. VI. Geology and Soils a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?(No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) iv) Landslides? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The FEIR included mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts from rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, liquefaction and/or landslides. No changes have occurred related to these topics. Therefore, no additional analysis is required, and the FEIR remains adequate and complete. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The FEIR included mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts related to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Modifications to the condominium component of the project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the FEIR. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete. c) Be on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-.site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The FEIR included mitigation measures designed to minimize impacts related to unstable soils. No changes have occurred in this area form the analysis in the FEIR. No new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the FEIR have occurred and, therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 26 75B-71 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994) creating substantial risks to life or property? As analyzed in the FEIR, the project is located on a graded and urbanized site where no unique geologic features are present. No changes have occurred in this area and, therefore, the FOR remains adequate and complete. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) As analyzed in the FEIR, the project will not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No changes have occurred in this area from the previous analysis and therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete. VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Amendments that were adopted on March 18, 2010, the CEQA Guidelines Initial Study Checklist now includes impact determination criteria for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. However, there are currently no adopted GHG thresholds. The Amendments require quantification and mitigation of GHG, where possible. Qualitative factors used in determining significance include, but are not limited to, the following: the extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting, 2. whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines is applicable to the project, and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. To comply with the current Guidelines, the updated Air Quality Assessment included an analysis of GHG emissions. The analysis presents a quantitative GHG emissions assessment using South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) localized significance thresholds (LSTs), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Preliminary Draft Report on Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for GHG under CEQA and modeling programs including the Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS 2007), which is one of the most consistently used models for emissions estimates, CALINE 4 and the emissions inventory program Emfac. The URBEMIS model was developed and approved by the CARB to assess CO2 (GHG) emissions statewide to assure consistency for various project types. The following information is based on the updated Air Quality Assessment which is included herein as Appendix B. a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The proposed project includes the construction of a six level parking structure during which heavy equipment will be used. Short term impacts in the area of greenhouse gases will be due to the use of such equipment. The FEIR considered emissions for excavation, finish work and hauling and provided mitigation measures to reduce impacts. The addition of 24 residential units will not result in additional significant impacts since the residential buildings are approximately the same size and configuration as was previously analyzed. Since greenhouse gas emissions were not required to be addressed in the CEQA Guidelines at that time, specific analysis was not included in the FEIR. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 27 75B-72 The current state annual GHG emissions are approximately 541,000,000 tons per year. The GHG emissions related to the project are shown as CO2 emissions. The URBEMIS defaults used for the project presented the worst-case scenario including natural gas use and basic landscaping upkeep which would generate 3,117 tons of GHG per year due to the proposed project operations. This represents 0.00000576 percent of the state GHG burden and would not contribute significantly to the global or state GHG emissions. Worst-case assumes that the majority of the equipment is operating 6-8 hours each day. Regarding construction emissions of GHG, the following table depicts the projected amount of GHG for each phase of construction of the parking structure. The Area Emissions totals included information from the traffic impact study to determine vehicle emissions. GHG Construction Emissions Construction Phase C02 (Ibslday) Mass grading 9,797.61 Trenching 1,839.01 Building construction 2,217.67 Architectural coatings 96.71 Area emissions 17,511.24 Due to the lack of significance thresholds for GHG emissions, the Air Quality Assessment included a number of best management practices (BMPs) which could be incorporated into the project construction and operation to minimize GHG impacts. The list of BMPs has been formulated by the State Attorney General's office with the recommendation that they be implemented where feasible and practical. The following BMPs are recommended for incorporation in the proposed project: • Install energy efficient lighting, appliances, heating, and cooling systems. • Install efficient lighting for street and other outdoor lighting. • Reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting. • Provide education on energy efficiency to residents and/or tenants. • Install water-efficient irrigations systems and devices. • Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances. • Provide education about water conservation. • Provide easy and convenient recycling opportunities for residents and tenants. • Provide education on recycling waste. The Air Quality Analysis concludes that because the proposed project does not include construction of facilities that would significantly add to the emissions for criteria pollutants, the project would be considered as less than significant for operation and is not considered a regionally significant project. Therefore, the impacts of the project on climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions are considered less than cumulatively significant. While GHG emissions were not analyzed in the FEIR, the proposed project's emissions are de minimis compared to the 2005 project. The FEIR remains adequate and complete. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions ofgreenhouse gases? The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Because the project is not predicted to increase the population or traffic conditions beyond what is forecast in the City's General Plan, regional emissions associated with the project are accounted for within the AQMP and are, therefore, consistent with the AQMP. In the absence of thresholds for GHG emissions, it can be assumed that any contribution to GHG is significant. Mitigation Measures have been provided in the EIR and BMPs MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 28 75B-73 have been included herein to further reduce impacts from GHG emissions. The incremental change quantified in this analysis demonstrates that the proposed project will not result in a considerable increase in GHG emissions from the 2005 project. The FEIR remains adequate and complete. VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? (1Vo Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) A Phase I Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment and a Phase II Screening Subsurface Assess- ment were performed and discussed in the FEIR. Mitigation measures were included in the FEIR to reduce potential impacts identified in the Assessments to a less than significant level. No changes have occurred from that analysis. Therefore, the FEIR as certified will remain adequate and complete for this topic. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Neither the construction nor the operation of the proposed project will involve hazardous materials that might unwittingly be released into the environment. Therefore, there will be no impact due to the accidental release of such materials. The FEIR as certified will remain adequate and complete for this topic. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The project involves modifications to the previously approved condominium component and no hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste will be emitted due to the normal operation of the project. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the FEIR. The development of the project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the FEIR. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The proposed site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the FEIR. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The nearest public use airport, John Wayne Airport, is approximately 1.1 miles from the site. No new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the FEIR will occur. Therefore, the FEIR remains complete and adequate as it relates to airport hazards. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 29 75B-74 J) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and, therefore, would not expose people residing or working in the project area to a safety hazard. Therefore, the FEIR remains complete and adequate. g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The modifications to the condominium component will not produce any physical constraints or impair an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. Standard conditions have been imposed regarding provision of fire access roads and fire lane markings as well as project review by the Fire Authority. As analyzed in the FEIR, there will be no impact related to impairment of emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) No wildlands exist within the project site or within the vicinity of the project. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the FEIR. Therefore, the FOR remains adequate and complete for this topic. IX. Hydrology and Water Quality Hydrology and water quality impacts due to short-term construction activities and long-term operation were identified in the FEIR. Mitigation measures were included in the FEIR to reduce potential impacts and are incorporated herein by reference. These mitigation measures will be implemented as part of the project and will reduce short-term construction and long-term operational impacts to a less than significant level. a) Would the project violate any Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) A Preliminary Hydrology Study of Existing and Proposed Conditions and a Water Quality Manage- ment Plan were prepared for the MacArthur Place South project. The FEIR identified impacts to hydrology and water quality that would result from project implementation. Recommendations from the technical studies for hydrology and water quality will continue to be observed. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the FEIR. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the FEIR. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 30 75B-75 c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The FEIR identified impacts to the existing and proposed drainage for the proposed project and included mitigation measures to reduce impacts to hydrology and water quality. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the FEIR. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-.site? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The FEIR identified impacts to hydrology and water quality that would result from project implementation. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the FEIR. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The FEIR identified impacts due to runoff that would result from project implementation including the determination of adequate capacity within storm water drainage systems. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the FEIR. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. J) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The FEIR addressed potential impacts to water quality and included mitigation measures HW-1 through HW-11 which will be implemented to reduce potential impacts. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the FEIR. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. g) Would the project place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The FOR identified impacts to hydrology and water quality that would result from project implementation. As stated in the FEIR, the project is not located in a 100-year flood hazard area. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the FEIR. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. h) Would the project place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The FEIR identified impacts related to flood hazards that would result from project implementation. As noted in g) above, the project is not located in a 100-year flood hazard area. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the FEIR. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 31 75B-76 i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) As analyzed in the FEIR, the project is not located in the vicinity of a levee or a dam. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the FEIR. Therefore, the FOR remains adequate and complete for this topic. j) Would the project cause inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The FEIR identified impacts related to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow that would result from project implementation. No changes have occurred in this area from the analysis provided in the FEIR. Therefore, the FOR remains adequate and complete for this topic. X. Land Use and Planning a) Would the project physically divide an established community? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The project analyzed in the FOR is currently developed with office and commercial uses, and no established community exists. No changes have occurred from the previous analysis and, therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The project site is designated District Center (DC) in the City's General Plan, which designation specifically allows mixed-use development. The site underwent a zone change from General Commercial (C2) to the Specific Development (SD) zone during the original project approval process. The modifications to the condominium component of the project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those analyzed in the FEIR. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete. c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The project site is not within a habitat conservation or natural community conservation plan. No new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the FOR will occur. Therefore, the FOR remains adequate and complete with respect to this topic. XI. Mineral Resources a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?(No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The FEIR Initial Study determined that, because the project site did not include mineral resources, no impact would occur and no further analysis was required. The project is located in a substantially built- out area of Santa Ana, and the site was previously disturbed with grading and construction. No mineral MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 32 75B-77 resources were identified and no changes have occurred. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete with respect to mineral resources. XII. Noise As detailed in the FEIR, construction operations would increase existing noise levels for the short term, and residential land uses would be subject to significant adverse long-term noise impacts. Mitigation measures were included in the FEIR to reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level. a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The FEIR identified short-term noise impacts from on-site demolition and construction activities. The primary source of construction noise is heavy equipment. The mitigation measures in the FEIR reduced potentially significant short-term construction noise impacts to a less than significant level. The FEIR identified long-term noise impacts as mobile source noise impacts from traffic, aircraft noise impacts from John Wayne Airport, and operational noise from the operation of the project components. The mitigation measures included in the FEIR will reduce potentially significant long-term noise impacts to a less than significant level. Development of the residential units will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the FEIR. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete with respect to this topic. b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) As detailed in the FEIR, the Noise Study concluded that construction will generate excessive ground- borne vibration or groundborne noise levels. However, because this will only occur during the construction phase of the project, this impact is not considered significant. Mitigation measures in the FEIR will be implemented to reduce groundborne vibration/noise levels. Development of the modified condominium component will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the FEIR. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete with respect to this topic. c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Ambient noise levels due to project implementation will be comparable to what was previously analyzed in the FEIR. The City of Santa Ana has an adopted Noise Ordinance for exterior noise levels. The table below depicts the noise standards in the City's Municipal Code: City of Santa Ana Exterior Noise Ordinance Standards Noise Level That May Not Be Daytime Night Exceeded for More Than 7:00 a.m. -10:00 p.m. 10:00 pm. - 7:00 a.m. 30 minutes in any hour 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) 15 minutes in any hour 60 dB(A) 55 dB (A) 5 minutes in any hour 65 dB(A) 60 dB(A) 1 minute in any hour 70 dB(A) 65 dB(A) Any time 75 dB(A) 70 dB(A) Source: Section 18-312 of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR and the previously approved Addendum will ensure that no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the FEIR will occur. Therefore, the FEIR remains complete and adequate as it relates to noise. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 33 75B-78 In regard to traffic noise impacts, the project as proposed in the 2009 Addendum would result in 758 fewer trips per day than the project approved in 2005. The addition of 24 residential units is not anticipated to create a substantial noise increase either operationally or due to increased traffic. Noise impacts due to traffic will be less than originally analyzed. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete with respect to noise impacts from traffic. d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Development of the project will have no new or more severe impacts related to temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels beyond those addressed in the FEIR. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete with respect to this topic. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) John Wayne Airport is approximately 1.1 miles south of the project site. However, the project site is outside of both Noise Impact Zones 1 and 2. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the potential to expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Develop- ment of the project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the FEIR. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete with respect to this topic. fi For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Development of the project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the FEIR. The project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the FOR remains adequate and complete with respect to this topic. XII1. Population and Housing a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads of other infrastructure)? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) While the original project approval included 276 low-rise residential units, the proposed project includes 300 units. However, the 2009 Addendum eliminated 14 lofts that were originally approved in the FEIR, for a net gain of 10 residential units in the proposed 2011 Addendum. This does not represent a substantial population growth and the analysis in the FOR remains adequate and complete. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The project site does not currently contain housing, and no housing will be displaced by project construction. Development of the project as modified will have no new or more severe impacts than those analyzed in the FEIR. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 34 75B-79 c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) As noted above, no existing housing will be displaced necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No new or more severe impacts than those analyzed in the FEIR will occur and, therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete. XIV. Public Services a) Would the project result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? Fire Protection? Police Protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public Facilities? (!Vo Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The FEIR analyzed the impacts to the Santa Ana Unified School District based on the addition of approximately 787 students for the entire MacArthur Place project as approved in 2005. The Santa Ana Unified School District was experiencing severe overcrowding and mitigation was included in the FEIR requiring the developer to pay school impact fees in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 50. The payment of fees will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit and no additional or more severe impacts than were previously identified will occur. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete with regard to impacts on schools. The proposed project will require fire, police, and emergency services. Mitigation Measures in the FEIR were designed to minimize potential impacts to such services. The FEIR provides for coordination with public service providers to ensure their ability to serve the project. The project will have no new or more severe impacts to fire, police, and emergency services beyond those addressed and mitigated in the FEIR. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete with respect to this topic. XV. Recreation The FEIR provides for the payment of Park Acquisition and Development Fees, parkland dedication or in- lieu fee payments to reduce impacts to recreation facilities. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks of other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) An evaluation of the impacts to recreation related to the project was presented in the FEIR. As noted in the FEIR, the proposed project will include on-site recreation amenities for residents and guests. As currently proposed, the amenities for the condominium component will now be located on the roof/deck of the parking structure rather than in ground-level courtyards as analyzed in the FEIR. Additional amenities beyond what was originally planned are now included, resulting in an additional benefit to residents. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the FEIR. Therefore, the FEIR remains complete and adequate as it relates to this topic. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 35 75B-80 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Construction of recreational amenities was considered in the FEIR. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the FEIR. Therefore, the FEIR remains complete and adequate as it relates to this topic. XVI. Transportation/Traffic A Traffic Study was prepared by Urban Crossroads in October 2003 and revised in October 2004 for the MacArthur Place South project. The FEIR included analysis based on that study. Urban Crossroads subsequently prepared a Trip Generation Evaluation (2009 Traffic Evaluation) dated April 1, 2009 for the 2009 Addendum, which analyzed traffic impacts resulting from the elimination of identified project components and the addition of a 185-room hotel component. An updated traffic analysis has been prepared by KOA Corporation (2011 Traffic Study) dated February 2011 for the proposed modifications to the condominium component. The study analyzed data related to the increase in the number of residential units to determine the impact of expansion of the previously approved project. While the City's final approval was for a 155-room hotel, the more conservative 185-room analysis in the 2009 Addendum was used as the basis for analysis in this Addendum. The following information is based on the analysis contained in the traffic study, which is incorporated herein as Appendix B. a) Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roadv, or congestion at intersections)? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The FEIR identified significant impacts due to the increase in traffic from the MacArthur Place South project. Mitigation Measures were included in the FEIR to minimize the impacts. The FEIR traffic study concluded that impacts to SR-55 on-ramps would be considered an unavoidable significant impact. The 2009 Traffic Evaluation by Urban Crossroads and the 2009 Addendum concluded that the proposed project would result in reduced trip generation for all timeframes evaluated as compared to the traffic analyzed in the 2005 FEIR. The reduction in traffic volumes was partly due to use of the optional alternative for high- and low-rise apartment units rather than condominium units. The 2011 Traffic Study used a study area that was determined based on the previous studies and through consultation with City of Santa Ana staff. Of the eight intersections included in the analysis, one is shared with the City of Costa Mesa, one is located within the City of Irvine, and two are under Caltrans jurisdiction. The following are the intersections identified for analysis: • Main Street at Dyer Road • Main Street at MacArthur Boulevard • Main Street at Sandpointe Avenue • Main Street at Sunflower Avenue (City of Costa Mesa) • MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard • SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard (Caltrans) • SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard (Caltrans) • Red Hill Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard (City of Irvine) The 2011 Traffic Study scope was limited to intersection analysis only. No roadway segment average daily traffic (ADT) or ramp and freeway mainline analysis was conducted because extensive analysis was previously conducted and is not necessary based on the addition of 24 residential units (10 net MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 36 additional units). The study incorporated the Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Edition, methodology that is required by Caltrans for all intersection analysis. In addition, the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) technique was used, which measures the amount of traffic signal "green" time required for the intersection. Street operating conditions are typically described in terms of "level of service" (LOS). LOS ranges from Level A (free flow, little congestion) to Level F (forced flow, extreme congestion). The City of Santa Ana considers LOS D as the threshold of an acceptable service level for intersections outside Major Development Areas (MDA) and LOS E as the maximum threshold for intersections located within an MDA. The City of Costa Mesa defines LOS D as an acceptable operation level for all intersections. The City of Irvine defines LOS E as acceptable for intersections within the Irvine Business Complex and LOS D or better for all other intersections. These criteria are consistent with Measure M target levels and meet or are more stringent than Congestion Management Plan (CMP) criteria. Following are the levels of service that are acceptable for the study intersections: • Main Street at Dyer Road (LOS D) • Main Street at MacArthur Boulevard (LOS E) • Main Street at Sandpointe Avenue (LOS D) • Main Street at Sunflower Avenue (LOS D) • MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard (LOS E) • SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard (LOS E) • SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard (LOS D) • Red Hill Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard (LOS E) All traffic data used in the KOA 2011 Study was collected in October and November 2010. Peak hour intersection analysis was performed using the TRAFFIX software program by Dowling Associates. Existing traffic data was obtained from Transportation Studies, Inc. of Tustin. Long-range (2035) analysis is based on future traffic forecasts from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) travel demand forecasting model (OCTAM 3.3). The OCTAM model uses the latest adopted demographic forecasts, commonly referred to as Orange County Projections, adopted in 2006 (OCP-2006). Detailed model data is included in the 2011 Traffic Study (Appendix B). The City of Santa Ana's project impact analysis criteria indicates that a significant project impact occurs when the ICU value increases by greater than .01 and achieves unacceptable LOS (E or F). Costa Mesa defines LOS D as an acceptable level of operation for all intersections. Irvine states that intersections within the Irvine Business Complex should operate at LOS E or better for peak hour and LOS D or better at all other intersections. In addition, projects must comply with the Orange County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) criteria. The CMP states that a project cannot be allowed to reduce LOS or increase flow by more than 3% at a location that is forecast to experience LOS E or F generally. Since this criterion is less stringent than the City's, any project that meets the City criteria will also normally meet CMP criteria. Existing Conditions Due to significant land use development in recent years, the KOA 2010 Study determined that some significant roadway and intersection improvements within the study area have changed since the original traffic study was conducted. The intersection of Main Street at MacArthur Boulevard has been recently improved and fully built out. Exclusive right turn lanes have been constructed for all approaches to the intersection. Table 1 depicts the AM (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and PM (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) peak hour conditions. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 37 75B-82 Table 1- AMIPM Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Existing Conditions Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS "E" ICU Method ICU/LOS ICU/LOS OK Main Street at Dyer Road 0.669 / B 0.8151 D Main Street at MacArthur Boulevard 0.665 / B 0.6791 B X Main Street at Sandpointe Avenue 0.2971 A 0.4691 A Main Street at Sunflower Avenue 0.3931 A 0.704 / C MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard 0.6871 B 0.674 / B X SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.6941 B 0.616 ! B X SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.7571 C 0.6331 B Red Hill Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard 0.5581 A 0.791 ! C X HCM Method Delay/LOS Delay/LOS SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 18.9 / B 17.11 B x SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 19.6 / B 16.71 B Note: ICU Delay is in seconds/vehicle As shown in Table 1, all study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours for Existing Conditions. Opening Year Without Project Conditions For purposes of analysis, opening year was projected at year 2013. Opening year traffic increases were derived using the existing (2010) traffic volumes plus 1% annual growth rate from 2010 to 2013. Traffic increases also considered other approved developments that may generate additional traffic. The City identified one relevant project at 1501 West MacArthur Boulevard (9,800 square feet of commercial use). Trips generated by the cumulative project were included in the opening year forecast. Table 2 summarizes the result of the LOS analyses for existing without project, plus cumulative development. Table 2 - AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Opening Year (2013) Without Project Conditions Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS "E" ICU Method ICU/LOS ICU/LOS OK Main Street at Dyer Road 0.6871 B 0.8391 D Main Street at MacArthur Boulevard 0.684 / B 0.6981 B X Main Street at Sandpointe Avenue 0.308 / A 0.481 /A Main Street at Sunflower Avenue 0.4051 A 0.7251 C MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard 0.7061 C 0.694 / B X SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.714 / C 0.634 / B X SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.788 / C 0.651 / B Red Hill Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard 0.574 / A 0.813 / D X HCM Method Delay/LOS DelaylLOS SR-55 SB Rams at MacArthur Boulevard 19.3 / B 17.4 / B X SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 20.1 / C 16.9 / B rote: wD Delay is in seconasrverncie As indicated in Table 2, all intersections will operate at acceptable LOS for the Opening Year Without Project conditions. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 38 75B-83 Long Range (2035) Without Project Conditions The year 2035 was selected by KOA for analysis based on the latest OCTA OCTAM 3.3 traffic model buildout year 2035, which assumes construction of direct-access HOV drop ramps at SR-55/Alton Parkway. Table 3 summarizes the results of the LOS analyses for this scenario. Table 3 - AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Long Range (2035) Without Project Conditions Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS "E" ICU Method ICUILOS ICU/LOS OK Main Street at Dyer Road 0.862 / D 0.8921 D Main Street at MacArthur Boulevard 0.725 / C 0309 / D X Main Street at Sandpointe Avenue 0.3221 A 0.5421 A Main Street at Sunflower Avenue 0,673 / B 0.793 / C MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard 0.763 / C 0.776 / C X SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.771 / C 0.719 / C X SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.833 / D 0.691 / B Red Hill Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard 0.636 / B 0.835 / D X HCM Method Delay/LOS Delay/LOS SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 20.3 / C 17.5 / B X SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 21.4 / C 17.6 / B Note: ICU Delay is in seconds/vehicle As indicated, all study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS for the Long Range Without Project conditions. Project Trips Project-related traffic consists of trips on any portion of the street system that will begin or end at the project site as a result of the development of the proposed project and is a function of the extent and type of development proposed for the site. Trip generation is a measure of the number of trips that will be made to or from the project. Project trip generation was calculated in accordance with the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation (8`h Edition, 2008). Table 4 presents the trip generation rates. Table 5 shows daily and peak hour trip generation for the project site under opening year (2013) and long range (2035) conditions. Table 4 - Project Trip Generation Rates Peak Hour ITE AM PM Land Use Code Quantity* In Out Total In Out Total Dally Condominium Project (5 story condo 230 300 dwelling units 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.35 017 0.52 5.81 Lake Towers (High-rise Apartment) 222 175 dwelling units' 0.08 0.22 0.30 0.21 0.14 0.35 4.20 Condominium Project (Cinema Tower) 232 150 DU 0.06 0.28 0.34 0.24 0.14 0.38 4.18 Business Hotel 312 185 occupied rooms** 0.34 0.24 0,58 0.37 0.25 0.62 7.27 source: i it (i nsuwie or Transportation Engineers) I np Generation Manual, 8'n Edition, 2008 ' The currently occupied 174 unit portion of the Lake Towers was captured in the traffic count data. Therefore, only the unoccupied portion is included. "Rates were based on the original number of hotel rooms proposed and analyzed in the 2009 Addendum, which is a more conservative analysis. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 39 75B-84 Table 5 - Proposed Overall Site Trip Generation Summary Peak Hour AM PM Land Use ITE Code Quantity In Out Total In Out Total Daily Opening Year (2013) Condominium Project (5 story condo) 230 300' dwelling units 21 111 132 105 51 156 1,743 Lake Towers (High-rise Apartment) 222 175 dwelling units 14 39 53 37 25 61 735 Business Hotel 312 185 occupied rooms 63 44 107 68 46 115 1,345 Subtotal 98 194 292 210 122 332 3,823 Internal capture (5%) 5 10 15 11 6 17 191 Total 93 184 277 200 116 315 3,632 Lon Range 2035 Condominium Project (5 story condo) 230 300' dwelling units 21 111 132 105 51 156 1,743 Lake Towers (High-rise Apartment) 222 175 dwelling units 14 39 53 37 25 61 735 Condominium Project (Cinema Tower) 222 150 dwelling units 9 42 51 36 21 57 627 Business Hotel 312 185 Occupied Rooms 63 44 107 68 46 115 1,345 Subtotal 107 236 343 246 143 389 4,450 Internal Capture (5%) 5 12 17 12 7 19 222 Total 102 224 326 234 136 370 4,227 Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, 8(h Edition, 2008 'Expanded from 276 du to 300 du in comparison with the Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2004.02, March 2009. Opening year conditions with a total of 300 dwelling units (175 "for-rent" units) and a 185-room business hotel generate approximately 3,632 daily trips with 277 AM peak hour trips and 315 PM peak hour trips. Long-term conditions with a total of 450 dwelling units (300 dwelling units in 5-story buildings plus 154 dwelling units in the Cinema Tower), 175 for-rent condominium units and a 185- room business hotel will generate 4,227 daily trips with 326 AM peak hour trips and 370 PM peak hour trips. Project trip distribution has been modified slightly from the original traffic study analysis. The 2011 Traffic Study includes a proposed Alton Avenue overpass at the SR-55 freeway with direct connections to the SR-55 HOV lanes. The interchange was not considered in project opening year, but was included in the long-range 2035 analysis. Traffic projected to utilize Alton Avenue and the HOV interchange was manually distributed to the parallel roadway - MacArthur Boulevard. The re- distributed traffic is a beneficial feature to long-range trip distribution patterns. Opening Year (2013) With Project Conditions Table 6 illustrates the result of the level of service analyses for opening year. As indicated in the table, all intersections will operate at acceptable LOS for the opening year with project conditions. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 40 75B-85 Table 6 - AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Opening Year (2013) With Project Conditions Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS "E" ICU Method ICUILOS ICUILOS OK Main Street at Dyer Road 0.692 / B 0.840 / D Main Street at MacArthur Boulevard 0.688 / B '0.7101C: x Main Street at Sandpointe Avenue 0.328 / A 0.485 / A Main Street at Sunflower Avenue 0.415 / A 0.740 / C MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard 0.744 / C 0.707 / C x SR-55 SIB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.734 / C 0.658 / B x SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.793 / C 0.669 / B Red Hill Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard 0.5801 A 0.819 I D x HCM Method Delay/LOS Delay/LOS SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 19.6 / B 18.1 / B x SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 20.4 / C 17.4 / B Note: ICU Delay is in seconds/vehicle Long Range (2035) With Project Conditions Table 7 illustrates the long range traffic conditions with the addition of project-related traffic to the surrounding street system. Traffic volumes were derived by adding the long range trips to the long range background traffic volumes. As shown, all study intersections will operate at acceptable LOS for the 2035 with project conditions. Table 7 - AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Long Range (2035) With Project Conditions Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS "E" ICU Method ICUILOS ICUILOS OK Main Street at Dyer Road 0.865 / D 0.894 / D Main Street at MacArthur Boulevard 0.731 / C 0.8201 D x Main Street at Sandpointe Avenue 0.350 / A 0.547 / A Main Street at Sunflower Avenue 0.689 / B 0.810 / D MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard 0.808 / D 0.794 / C x SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.7921 C 0.744 / C x SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.847 / D 0.7101 C Red Hill Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard 0.6421 B 0.840 / D x HCM Method Delay/LOS Delay/LOS SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 20.7 / C 18.3 / B x SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 21.8 / C 18.2 / B Note: ICU Delay is in seconds/vehicle Determination of Significant Impact Traffic impacts for the proposed project are determined by comparing the traffic conditions in the future without the project to future conditions with the project, giving special consideration to locations where LOS is not forecast to be adequate. Traffic impacts are identified as significant if the proposed project results in a significant change in traffic conditions on a roadway or intersection. The thresholds to determine significant traffic impacts for the proposed project are as follows: MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 41 75B-86 • A significant project impact occurs when the ICU value increases by greater than .01 and achieves unacceptable level of service (E or F) or worse Table 8 illustrates a comparison of study intersections under Opening Year (2013) conditions. As shown, the proposed project will not generate a significant impact to the intersections within the study area. Table 8 - Determinations of Traffic Impacts (Opening Year (2013) Conditions) AM Peak Period PM Peak Period 2013 NP 2013 WP Increase 2013 NP 2013 WP Increase Signalized Intersections ICUILOS ICUILOS ICU Impact ICU/Los ICU/LOS ICU Impact Main Street at Dyer Road 0.687 / B 0.692 / B .005 NO 0.839 I D 0.8401 D .001 NO Main Street at MacArthur Boulevard 0.684 / B 0.688 / B .004 NO 0.6981 B 0.710 / C .012 NO Main Street at Sandpointe Avenue 0.308 /A 0.328 / A .020 NO 0.481 /A 0.485 / A .004 NO Main Street at Sunflower Avenue 0.405 / A 0.415 / A .010 NO 0.725 / C 0.740 / C .015 NO MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard 0.706 / C 0.7441 C .038 NO 0.694 / B 0.707 / C .013 NO SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.714 / C 0.734 / C .020 NO 0.634 / B 0.658 / B .024 NO SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.778 / C 0.793 / C .015 NO 0.6511 B 0.6691 B .018 NO Red Hill Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard 0.574 / A 0.580 / A .006 NO 0.813 / D 0.8191 D .006 NO Signalized Intersection HCM Method Delay/LOS Delay/LOS Delay Impact Delayll-OS Delay/LOS Delay Impact SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 19.3 / B 19.61 B 0.3 NO 17.41 B 18.1 / B 0.7 NO SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 20.1 / C 20.41 C 0.3 NO 16.91 B 17.41 B 0.5 NO Note: ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization. Delay is in seconds. LOS = Level of Service. Table 9 illustrates the comparison of study intersections under Long Range (2035) conditions. As shown, the proposed project will not generate a significant impact at any intersection within the study area. Table 9 - Determinations of Traffic Impacts (Long Range (2035) Conditions) AM Peak Period PM Peak Period 2035 NP 2035 WP Increase 2035 NP 2035 WP Increase Signalized Intersections ICU/LOS ICUILOS ICU Impact ICU/LOS ICUILOS ICU Impact Main Street at Dyer Road 0.862 / D 0.865 / D 0.003 NO 0.8921 D 0.894 / D 0.002 NO Main Street at MacArthur Boulevard 0.725 / C 0.731 / C 0.006 NO 0.8091 D 0.820 / D 0.011 NO Main Street at Sandpointe Avenue 0.322 / A 0.350/A 0.028 NO 0.542 / A 0.5471 A 0.005 NO Main Street at Sunflower Avenue 0.6731 B 0.689 / B 0.016 NO 0.793 / C 0.8101 D 0.017 NO MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard 0.7631 C 0.808 / D 0.045 NO 0.776 / C 0.7941 C 0.018 NO SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 07711 C 0.792 / C 0.021 NO 0.719 / B 0.744 / C 0.025 NO SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.8331 D 0.8471 D 0.014 NO 0.691 / B 0.710 / C 0.019 NO Red Hill Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard 0.636 / B 0.6421 B 0.006 NO 0.835 / D 0.840 / D 0.005 NO Signalized Intersection HCM Method Delay/LOS DelaylLOS Delay Impact Delay/LOS Delay/LOS Delay Impact SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 20.3 / C 20.71 C 0.4 NO 17.5 / B 18.31 B 0.8 NO SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 21.4 / C 21.81 C 0.4 NO 17.6 / B 18.21 B 0.6 NO Note: ICU = Intersection Capacity utmzation. Delay is in seconds. LOS = Level of Service. Conclusions The 2011 Traffic Study analyzed eight critical intersections for the Opening Year (2013) conditions and Long Range (2035) conditions. The study found that the proposed project would have no significant impact at any study intersections. No new mitigation measures are required and the previous analysis in the FEIR remains adequate and complete in the area of traffic impacts. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 42 75B-87 Queuing Analysis A queuing analysis was included in the 2011 Traffic Study to determine if vehicles traveling northbound on Main Street would be delayed due to the right-turn movement into and from the project. As indicated on the 2011 Site Plan (Exhibit 6), the project will have two access points along both Main Street and MacArthur Boulevard. The signalized intersection at MacArthur Boulevard and MacArthur Place is the main access point, followed by the signalized intersection of Main Street and Sandpointe Avenue. Right-in and right-out driveways will be located along MacArthur Boulevard between Main Street and MacArthur Place and along Main Street between Sandpointe Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. No gate control is proposed at the driveway locations. The queuing analysis was conducted using Synchro software and included adjusted trip distribution. Analysis included year 2013 With Project conditions and year 2035 With Project Conditions. Because the project will have a total of four access points, with the majority of project trips using the signalized intersection of MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard, the analysis assumed that 10% of the project trips will make the right-turn movement from the project driveway onto Main Street. Queuing analysis worksheets are included in the Traffic Analysis which is included as Appendix B herein. 2013 With Project Conditions - The analysis showed that for the AM Peak Hour, 9 vehicles (approximately 1 vehicle every 6 minutes 40 seconds) would make a northbound right-turn movement onto the driveway. For the PM Peak Hour, there would be 20 vehicles (approximately 1 vehicle every 3 minutes) making the turn. The analysis concluded that based on the low project turning volumes, there will be no queue for the northbound right-turn movement for either the AM or PM Peak Hours and no impact will occur. 2035 With Project Conditions - The analysis showed the for the AM Peak Hour, 10 vehicles (approximately 1 vehicle every 10 minutes) would make the northbound right-turn movement. For the PM Peak Hour, 23 vehicles (approximately 1 vehicle every 2 minutes 37 seconds) would make the right-turn movement. The conclusion based on the analysis is that there wi It be no queue for the northbound right-turn movement for either the AM or PM Peak Hour in year 2035 and, therefore, no impact will occur. b) Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The FEIR addressed traffic impacts to surrounding streets and freeways. Mitigation measures were included to reduce impacts. Fair share contributions towards proposed improvements will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The 2009 Addendum concluded that the project would result in fewer daily trips than the project analyzed in the FEIR, and no new or more significant impacts will occur. As determined in the KOA 2011 Study and detailed in section a) above, the modifications to the project proposed herein will not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Therefore, the FEIR remains complete and adequate. c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) No change in air traffic patterns will occur as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the FEIR remains complete and adequate as it relates to this topic. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 43 75B-88 d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The analysis in the FEIR considered traffic impacts on the existing streets within the project site and in the surrounding area. No design features or incompatible uses are proposed that would substantially increase hazards. Therefore, the FEIR remains adequate and complete for this topic. e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Emergency access exists within the development area of the proposed project, and no changes or modifications are proposed in this Addendum. Therefore, the FEIR remains complete and adequate as it relates to emergency access. fl Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Parking requirements were analyzed in the FEIR, and provision was made for the required amount of parking for all components of the project. To accommodate the proposed hotel included in the 2009 Addendum, a total of 615 parking spaces will be provided and are comprised of a combination of spaces in the existing parking structure and an interim surface parking lot which will be utilized until the Cinema Tower and associated parking structure is constructed. Project modifications proposed in this Addendum include the construction of a 6-level 660-space parking structure. The structure will include a combination of 16 handicapped, 348 tandem, and 296 full size parking stalls. The City's current parking requirement is for 600 tenant stalls and 60 visitor stalls for a total of 660 stalls based on 2.2 stalls per unit. Therefore, the project, as modified, meets the current parking requirements. The proposed retail component consisting of 2,100 square feet of resident serving uses will require employee parking. An assumption of a 5% vacancy rate for the residential units, in addition to the provision of 60 guest parking spaces in the six story parking structure, will adequately handle parking for retail employees. No new parking impacts will occur with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, the FEIR remains complete and adequate for the provision of required parking. g) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The proposed project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, the FEIR remains complete and adequate as it relates to this topic. XVII. Utilities and Service Systems The technical reports prepared for the FEIR were relied upon to calculate the originally proposed project's impacts on water and sewer demand. The 2009 Addendum to the FEIR proposed that the retail/restaurant and Cinema Lofts components of the project would be removed, and a hotel would replace the retail and restaurant uses. At that time, the City of Santa Ana confirmed that a 12-inch sewer main was recently constructed that would meet the sewer needs of the project. Additionally, staff in the City's Public Works Department indicated that adequate water infrastructure existed to support the project. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 44 75B-89 a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The addition of 24 residential units, for a net gain of 10 units from the approved 2005 project, is not anticipated to exceed wastewater treatment requirements. The City of Santa Ana confirmed that adequate infrastructure existed for the project, as modified by the 2009 Addendum. In addition, mitigation measures in the FOR were designed to minimize potential impacts to utilities and service systems. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the FEIR. b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Mitigation measures were designed to minimize potential impacts to utilities and service systems. As detailed in correspondence with the City of Santa Ana Planning Division and Public Works Agency, the proposed hotel project sewer discharge need will be addressed by a new 12-inch sewer main that was recently constructed in MacArthur Place. More than adequate water and sewer infrastructures have been constructed at the proposed hotel project frontage to meet the project's water and sewer needs. The data from the Walden and Associates Domestic Sewer Technical Report for MacArthur Place dated March 3, 2004 and revised January 14, 2005 was utilized to calculate the proposed project impacts on sewer demands. Additionally, removal of the retail, restaurant, and commerciaUresidential components of the Cinema Lofts resulted in a reduction in demand for water and sewer usage. Sewer usage by the hotel approved in the 2009 Addendum has been adequately covered by the installation of a 12-inch line along the hotel frontage. The project, as addended, would result in a sewer demand of 304,204 gallons per day, which is less than .0405 million gallons per day capacity. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the FEIR. c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) As detailed in the FEIR, the previous project was to be entirely developed with impermeable surfaces. The proposed project will also be entirely developed with impermeable surfaces. Therefore, no adverse impact on the existing storm water drainage facilities is anticipated, because the project, as proposed, is substantially the same in terms of runoff from the project analyzed in the FEIR. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the FEIR, and the FEIR remains adequate and complete. d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) As detailed in the FEIR, the City of Santa Ana Water Department provides water service to the MacArthur Place South project area. The data from the Walden and Associates Domestic Water Technical Report for MacArthur Place (Amendment No. 1) dated March 3, 2004 and Amended November 19, 2004 was utilized to calculate the originally proposed project impacts on water demand. As detailed in correspondence with the City of Santa Ana Planning Division and Public Works Agency, more than adequate water and sewer infrastructures, and services and laterals, have been constructed at the proposed hotel project frontage that can meet the project's water and sewer needs. Four 1-inch water meters, one 2-inch water meter, and a 6-inch sewer lateral are available at the project's frontage in MacArthur Boulevard. A 6-inch water vault and meter and an 8-inch fire service MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 45 75B-90 are also available. Additionally, as detailed in the FEIR, at 2020, the City's overall water production would be 55,370 acre feet per year. Between 2010 and 2020 the City's water production would increase by 2,410 acre-feet per year. The increased amount of water production between 2006 and 2020 would accommodate the increased water demand generated by the project and the projected build out of the City's current General Plan. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the FEIR, and the FEIR remains adequate and complete. e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) As detailed in the FEIR, the previous project would not result in wastewater generation that would exceed the design capacity of the Orange County Sanitation District's (OCSD) Reclamation Plant No. 1. It is anticipated that OCSD would be able handle wastewater from the proposed project. However, if Plant No. 1 is operating at capacity, wastewater flows would be diverted to Reclamation Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a need to expand or construct a new wastewater treatment plant. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the FEIR. J) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) As detailed in the FEIR, the project as previously proposed would have a solid waste disposal demand of 6,424 pounds per day. The change in solid waste based on the modified condominium component is not expected to be significant. The identified daily capacity available at the Bowerman landfill is adequate to support the potential increase. Mitigation measures in the FEIR will ensure that no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the FEIR will occur. Therefore, the FEIR remains complete and adequate as it relates to utilities and service systems. g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The solid waste generated by the project will not violate federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Mitigation measures were designed and included in the FEIR to minimize potential impacts to utilities and service systems. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the FEIR. XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Impacts to the environment were analyzed in the MacArthur Place South FEIR and the subsequent 2009 Addendum. Due to the location of the project on an urbanized site, no impacts to biological resources will occur. The proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment or substantially reduce the habitat or endanger a fish, wildlife, or plant species. Therefore, the FEIR, as addended, remains adequate and complete. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 46 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable ft{ture projects)? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) The FEIR stated that the project would contribute cumulatively significant adverse emissions to the South Coast Basin, which is already a non-attainment area. This impact is significant and adverse and cannot be mitigated to levels of insignificance. An update Air Quality Assessment dated January 27, 2011 concluded that no impacts due to construction or operational emissions would exceed the significance thresholds. However, in the absence of thresholds for Greenhouse Gas emissions, it must be considered that any GHG emissions contribute incrementally to a cumulative impact. However, the impact will not be regionally significant. The FEIR identified significant unavoidable and cumulative impacts in the area of air quality emissions. The incremental change from the proposed project odes not rise to the level of significant when compared to the project analyzed in the 2005 FEIR. The FEIR also stated that the project would have cumulative impacts regarding transportation and traffic due to the uncertainty and issues regarding fair-share funding for mitigation measure T-6, regarding the construction of a two-lane metered on-ramp to the SR-55 freeway. Due to the uncertainty of implementation, cumulative impacts were considered for the year 2025. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the MacArthur Place South FEIR. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis) Mitigation measures have been provided in the MacArthur Place South FEIR and the 2009 Addendum to reduce impacts. The project will have no new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed and mitigated in the FEIR. MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 47 75B-92 E Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance PLANNING DIVISION 1. Project Title: MacArthur Place South EIR Addendum II. Project Numbers: III. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Santa Ana IV. Contact and Phone Number: Vince Freaoso/(714) 667-2713 V. Project Location: Southeast Corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Main Street in southeast Santa Ana VI. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Lyon Community Development, 4901 Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660 VII. General Plan Designation: _ District Center (DC) Vlll. Zoning: Specific Development (SD) IX. Description of Project: The project applicant is proposing a modification to the low-rise condominium component of the originally approved project. The condominiums, as approved in the EIR, would include three separate buildings ranging in height from 50 to 60 feet (5 and 6 stories) containing 276 residential units. The unit types ranged from one to three bedrooms and baths. Residential styles included typical single-story condominiums, townhouses, and live/work units. An interior courtyard would contain a water feature and a recreation area including a tot lot, a swimming pool, a game table, a BBQ area, and a seating area. A total of 689 parking stalls would be provided on two levels of parking - one subterranean level and one above-ground level. The architectural design provided a staggered roofline, providing visual relief from that of a solid structure with a single roofline. The proposed project includes 300 residential units in 3 buildings with a maximum height of 65 feet, a 6- level parking garage with 660 stalls, a garage-top deck with recreational amenities including pool/cabanas, a tennis court, seating areas with tables and chairs, BBQ facilities and a recreation building with fitness and game rooms, a conference room and cafe/kitchenette, and 2,100 square feet of retail space. Landscaped open courtyards and public plazas will be located throughout the site. Detailed descriptions of the proposed components are provided herein. X. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Sandpointe residential neighborhood is located west of the project site across Main Street and is composed of 1-story and 2-story single-family residential homes. North of the Sandpointe neighborhood is the Main Attraction condominium development. Immediately north of the project site is the MacArthur Place mixed-use development containing office, retail, hotel, and residential components. Hotels are located north and south of the project site. XI. Other agencies whose approval is required: None MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 49 75B-93 Environmental Checklist CEQA Compliance Environmental Checklist Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by that project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. O Aesthetics O Agricultural Resources O Air Quality O Biological Resources O Cultural Resources O Geology and Soils O Hazards and Hazardous Materials O Hydrology and Water Quality O Land Use and Planning O Mineral Resources O Noise O Population and Housing O Public Services O Recreation O Transportation and Traffic O Utilities and Service Systems O Mandatory Findings of Significance Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that: A. ? The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. B. ? Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. C. ? The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D. ? Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR (EIR No. - ) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required. E. ® Pursuant to §15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. - 2004-02 ) has been prepared earlier and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the previous EIR adequate and these changes do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. An ADDENDUM to the EIR shall be prepared. F. ? Pursuant to §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. - ) has been prepared earlier; however, subsequent proposed changes in the project and/or new information of substantial importance will cause one or more significant effects no previously discussed. A SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared. Signature Printed Name Date MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 50 75B-94 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Responses to Environmental Checklist Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). II. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. III. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. IV. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (V) below, may be cross-referenced). V. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. VI. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. VII. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Vlll. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. IX. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 51 75B-95 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance No Substantial New Change from Significant More Severe Previous Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Impacts Analysis 1. Aesthetics - Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely ? ? affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. Agricultural Resources - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? III. Air Quality - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable Air Quality Attainment ? ? Plan or Congestion Management Plan? b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or proposed air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emission which exceeds quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ? ? IV. Biological Resources -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services? b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive ? ? natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 52 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance No Substantial New Change from Significant More Severe Previous Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Impacts Analysis c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, E marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or E wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological F1 F resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. Cu ltural Resources - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical F] resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique ? E] archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or E] ? site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal El ? cemeteries? VI. Geology and Soils - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ? El iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ? 0 iv) Landslides? El El b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ? n c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become El 0 unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform El Building Code (1994) creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or ? El alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 53 75B-97 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance No Substantial New Change from Significant More Severe Previous Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Impacts Analysis VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles where of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Q For project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death ? 1:1 M involving wild fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? IX. Hydrology and Water Quality -Would the project: a) Violate any Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ? groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including El ? through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site? MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 54 75B-98 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance No Substantial New Change from Significant More Severe Previous Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Impacts Analysis d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death ? ? involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X. Land Use and Planning - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? XI. Mineral Resources - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be ? El of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource ? El recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XII. Noise - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards ? ? established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration ? or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project ? ? vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the ? ? project vicinity above levels existing without project? MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 55 75B-99 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance No Substantial New Change from Significant More Severe Previous Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Impacts Analysis e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIII. Population and Housing - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ? El 10 example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the ? ? construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of ? ? replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. Public Services a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public service: Fire protection? El 1-1 0 Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? 1:1 E XV. Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or ? expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVI. Transportationlrraffic - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard ? established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 56 75B-100 Responses to Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance No Substantial New Change from Significant More Severe Previous Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Impacts Analysis c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVIL Uti lities and Service Systems - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities ? or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing ? ? entitlements and resources or, are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate ' ? the project s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? VIII, Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively " considerable? ( Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 57 75B-101 75B-102 Appendix A - Air Quality Assessment KPC Environmental, Inc. January 27, 2011 MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 75B-103 4 KPC Environmental, Inc. AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT MacArthur Place Project MacArthur Boulevard & Main Street Santa Ana, California February 2011 PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: CAA Planning KPC Environmental, Inc. 65 Enterprise, Suite 130 21380 Loquat Street Aliso Viejo, CA. 92656 Wildomar, CA. 92595 Contact Person: Contact Person: Shawna Schaffner Kevin Carr, REA CEO -CAA Planning Principal KPC Env. Inc. (949) 581-2888 (951)294-0822 75B-104 KPC Environmental, Inc. 21380 Loquat Street Wildomar, CA. 92595 951-294-0822 AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROJECT: MacArthur Place Project (Modification to Approved Project) MacArthur Boulevard and Main Street Santa Ana, Orange County, California. DATE: February 2, 2011 PREPARED FOR: CEQA Initial Study, Air Quality Impacts of the Subject Project. REVIEWED AND t nos report was prepared for assessing the air quality impacts of the designated project for the purpose of completing an E vironmemal Initial Study. The report was prepared using guidance from the South Coast Air Quality Management Districts CEQA Handbook and the Department of Toxic Substances Control REA Environmental Assessment report guidance. The report and its contents are for the express use of the client. KPC Environmental, Inc- and CAA Planning. The contents herein are considered confidential. Acceptance of this report constitutes an agreement by the client to assume full liability for the information contained herein. The information in this report is being supplied in good faith and was obtained using sources and data considered to be reliable, the accuracy of information not obtained by KPC Environmental. Inc. cannot be guaranteed. Liability is limited to the fee charged for this specific report. 75B-105 Table of Contents Section: Page: 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Project Description and Location 1 2.0 Air Study Description 1 3.0 Regional Setting 2 3.1 South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) 2 3.2 Description of Regional Climate and Its Effect on Air Quality 2 3.2.1 Climate 2 3.2.2 Temperature 3 3.2.3 Rainfall 3 3.2.4 Humidity 3 3.2.5 Wind 3 3.2.6 Inversions 4 4.0 Air Quality Data for SCAB 5 4.1 Air Quality Management Planning 5 4.2 Regional Air Quality Summary 2006 -2008 7 4.3 Determining Emission Significance 9 4.3.1 Emission Significance Thresholds 9 4.3.2 Sensitive Receptors & SCAQMD LST's 10 4.3.3 Additional Indicators 11 75B-106 5.0 Air Quality Impact Analysis 5.1 Construction Emissions 5. 1.1 Mass Grading/Parking Structure Excavation Emissions 5.1.2 Site Trenching/Foundation Emissions 5.1.3 Building Construction Emissions 5.1.4 Architectural Coatings 5.2 Construction Impacts 5.3 Area and Operational Emissions 5.4 CO Hotspot Analysis 5.5 Impacts of Area & Operational Emissions 6.0 Conclusion 6.1 Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan 6.2 Cumulative Impacts 6.2.1 Cumulative Climate Change (GHG) Impacts 6.3 Level of Significance Before Mitigation 6.4 Mitigation Measures/Best Management Practices (BMP's) 6.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation References Appendixes A - URBEMIS Data (Construction) B - URBEMIS Data (GHG) B - LST Data - Worksheets C - SCAQMD 2006 - 2008 Air Quality Data 12 12 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 20 20 21 22 75B-107 List of Tables Table: 4-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards Carbon Monoxide 4-2 Regional Criteria Pollutant Attainment Status SCAB 4-3 Regional Air Quality Summary Source Receptor Area 24 2006-2008 4-4 Mass Daily Thresholds 4-5 LST Results 5-1 Mass Grading/Excavation Emissions 5-2 Trenching/Foundation Emissions 5-3 Building Construction Emissions 5-4 Architectural Coatings 5-5 Area/Operation Emissions Page: 8 9 10 13 14 15 15 16 75B-108 MacArthur Project Modification - Santa Ana - Air Quality Assessment KPC Environmental, Inc. 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Project Description and Location The proposed project is a modification to a previously approved project with the applicant proposing modifications to the low-rise condominium component and the parking structure. The approved project included a 5 and 6 story condominium component with a total of 276 residential units and a 2-story parking structure with one subterranean level and one above-ground level with a total parking capacity of 665 vehicles. The proposed amendment will increase the number of residential units to 300 while maintaining the overall footprint and square footage of the approved project. The approved project parking structure will be modified as a 6-level structure with one subterranean level and five above-ground levels for a total parking capacity of 660 vehicles. The roof area of the parking structure will be developed for recreational uses. The project site is located at Main and MacArthur Blvd. in the incorporated area of the City of Santa Ana, Orange County, California. The site is located in an air quality region known as the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for air quality administration. This assessment includes various phasing in the construction of the proposed project modification to the parking structure which includes: mass grading/excavation, trenching & foundation work, building construction, architectural coatings, and existing and future estimated area, operational, and green house gas (GHG) emissions associated with the proposed modified project. Because the proposed modification to the condominium component will not increase the footprint or total square footage of the approved project no assessment was completed as the construction and anticipated emissions were reviewed and reported in the Air Quality Analysis completed by Giroux & Associates, dated November 11, 2004. Assessment of the modification to the parking structure does not include demolition as this phase was completed during the construction of various components of the existing approved project site. 2.0 Air Assessment Description This assessment is based on guidance contained in the South Coast Air Quality Management Districts CEQA Air Quality Handbook, CARB's Preliminary Draft Report on Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for GHG under CEQA, the Bay Area AQMD (BAAQMD), GHG Plan Level Quantification Guidance, and acceptable environmental practices. Modeling programs including Urban Emissions Model, (URBEMIS 2007, 9.2.4); emissions inventory program, Emfac; and dispersion model, CALINE 4 were utilized to determine the projects air quality impacts on the environment. 02/02/11 75B-109 MacArthur Project Modification - Santa Ana - Air Quality Assessment KPC Environmental, Inc. The emissions estimates represent a "worst-case," because they incorporate the assumption that construction activities occur at the peak daily levels throughout the entire construction period. Data utilized to forecast emissions was obtained from available project data, development plans, and resource material where indicated. The information for the modeling programs used to forecast emissions is based on the project data, resource material, or default values where no data was available. 3.0 Regional Setting 3.1 South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) Santa Ana, Orange County is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The SCAB's severe air pollution problem is a consequence of the combination of emissions and meteorological conditions which are adverse to the dispersion of those emissions. The summertime maximum mixing height (an index of how well pollutants can be dispersed vertically in the atmosphere) in Southern California averages the lowest in the U.S. The Southern California area is also an area with abundant sunshine, which drives the photochemical reactions, which form pollutants such as ozone. In the SCAB, high concentrations of ozone are normally recorded during the spring and summer months, while high concentrations of carbon monoxide are generally recorded in late fall and winter. High PM 10 and PM2.5 concentrations can occur throughout the year, but occur most frequently in the fall and winter. Although there are changes in emissions by season, the observed variations in the pollutant concentrations are largely a result of seasonal differences in weather conditions. 3.2 Description of Regional Climate and Its Effect on Air Quality Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that environmental studies include a description of the environment in the vicinity of the project, as it exists before initiation of the project. The information describing the Environment Setting of the project site includes information on the climate, the existing quality of ambient air at the proposed project site, significant air pollutant sources, both stationary and mobile. 3.2.1 Climate The climate of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The Basin is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean and high mountains forming the remainder to the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The climate of Southern California found in the Santa Ana area of the SCAB is described as a Mediterranean-type climate characterized by long warm summers and moderate winters with moderate precipitation and a maritime influence giving a marine layer and a temperature inversion layer. 02/02/11 75B-110 MacArthur Project Modification - Santa Ana - Air Quality Assessment KPC Environmental, Inc. The extent and severity of air pollution problems in the SCAB is a function of both natural physical characteristics of the region (weather patterns, topography) and man- made influences (traffic, development). Factors such as wind, sunlight, temperature, humidity, rainfall, and topography all affect the accumulation and/or dispersion of pollutants throughout the SCAB. Historical Climate data is collected by the Western Regional Climate Center with the closest monitoring station located at the Santa Ana Fire Station. Climate data collected includes temperature and precipitation. 3.2.2 Temperature The annual average temperature varies little throughout the SCAB, averaging 62-degrees Fahrenheit, with the Santa Ana area annual maximum temperature averaging 75.7- degrees Fahrenheit and an annual minimum temperature averaging 51.9-degrees Fahrenheit. The average high temperature in the project area is 68.6-degrees Fahrenheit during the winter and 82.3-degrees Fahrenheit during the summer. Low temperatures can range from around 43.8-degrees during winter nights to 59.9-degrees Fahrenheit during summer nights. For site-specific analysis, temperatures selected represent the lowest average temperature when assessing CO and Nox impacts and the highest average temperature when assessing ROG. 3.2.3 Rainfall Practically all of the annual rainfall in the SCAB occurs during the November- April period. Summer rainfall normally is restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast and slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Annual average rainfall in the Santa Ana area is 13.67 inches. 3.2.4 Humidity Although the SCAB has a semi-arid climate, the air near the surface is surprisingly moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer on most days. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SCAB by offshore winds, the ocean effect is dominant. Periods with heavy fog are frequent; and low stratus clouds, sometimes referred to as "high fog" are a characteristic climate feature. Annual average relative humidity in the SCAB ranges from 70% coastal to 57% inland. 3.2.5 Wind Winds play a significant role in the air quality conditions of the SCAB. The area is characterized by light average wind speeds which limit the capability to disperse air contaminates horizontally. The average wind speed in the project area is between 5 and 12 miles per hour (mph) out of the West-Southwest. The dominant daily wind patterns consist of sea breezes during the day with nighttime offshore breezes as the air drains off the mountains that surround the region. 02/02AI 75B-111 MacArthur Project Modification - Santa Ana - Air Quality Assessment KPC Environmental, Inc. During spring and early summer days, most of the pollution produced on an average day is lifted by the warm air and moved out through the mountain passes. This effectively creates a flushing of the SCAB of pollutants away from the valleys. During the late summer and winter months, this flushing effect is less pronounced due to the lower wind speeds and early off-shore winds. This stagnation causes the pollutants to be trapped in the regions valleys. 3.2.6 Inversions Vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SCAB is hindered by the presence of a temperature inversion in the layers of the atmosphere near the earth's surface. The height of the base of the inversion is known as the "mixing height." The mixing height changes under atmospheric conditions while the top end of the inversion remains constant. Usually the mixing height is lower in the morning and increases in altitude as the day progresses. The mixing height presents a barrier to the vertical dispersal of air contaminants. During winter months the inversion normally breaks down by mid morning. Pollutants generated by both stationary and mobile sources mix with less contaminated air beneath the inversion layer and will become more concentrated unless the inversion breaks down. On days of no inversion layer or when winds average 15 mph or greater, there will be no significant smog effects. The potential for high concentrations varies with each season. Late spring, summer and early fall, light winds, low mixing height, and increased sunlight combine to produce conditions for the production of photochemical oxidants, e.g. ozone. When strong inversions are formed on cool winter nights with light winds, carbon monoxide generated by automobile exhaust becomes concentrated. CO values are normally at their highest levels from the period of November through February. 02/02/11 75B-112 MacArthur Project Modification - Santa Ana - Air Quality Assessment KPC Environmental, Inc. 4.0 Air Quality Data for SCAB 4.1 Air Quality Management Planning & Regulatory Setting The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. Table 4-1 contains the federal and state emissions standards with relevant health concerns. Table 4-1 Ambient Air Oualitv Standards AIR STATE STANDARD FEDERAL MAJOR SOURCES MOST RELEVANT POLLUTANT PRIMARY EFFECTS STANDARD Ozone (03) 1 br - 0.09 ppm 1 hr- • Motor vehicles, paints, Short-term exposures: 8 his - 0.07 ppm 8 hrs - 0.08 ppm coatings, solvents. Pulmonary function decrements and breathing difficulty. Long-term exposures: Risk to public health, vegetation damage, property damage. Carbon Monoxide 1 hr - 20 ppm l hr - 35 ppm Internal combustion Aggravation of aspects of (CO) 8 hrs - 9 ppm 8 hrs - 9 ppm engines (vehicles). coronary heart disease; decreased exercise tolerance in persons w. vascular and lung disease; impairment of CNS functions; possible increased risk to fetuses. Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average - 0.03 Annual Average - 0.053 Internal combustion Risk to public health implied (NOz) ppm ppm engines (vehicles). by pulmonary and extra- I hr - 0.018 ppm l hr - • pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes; contributions to atmospheric discoloration. Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average - ` Annual Average - 0.03 Fuel combustion, Broncial constriction (S02) 1 hr - 0.25 ppm ppm petroleum refining accompanied by symptoms 24 hrs - 0.04 ppm 1 hr - • processes, chemical which may include wheezing, 24 hrs - 0.14 ppm facilities. shortness of breath and chest tightness during exercise or physical activity in persons w. asthma. Suspended Annual Arithmetic Mean Annual Arithmetic Mean - Construction, industry, Exccss deaths from short- Particulate Matter - 20µg/m3 • agriculture, vehicles, term exposures and (PM10) and natural occurrences exacerbation of symptoms in 24 hrs - 50µg/m3 (wind, storms) sensitive patients w/ 24 hrs - 150pg/m3 respiratory disease; declines in pulmonary function especially in children; increased risk of premature death from heart or lung diseases in elderly. Suspended Annual Arithmetic Mean Annual Arithmetic Mean - Construction, industry, Particulate Matter - 12µg/m3 15pg/m3 agriculture, vehicles, (PM2.5) and natural occurrences 24 hrs - • 24 hrs - 35pg/m3 (wind, storms) Lead (Pb) Monthly - 1.5µg/m3 Monthly - • Battery manufacturing Leaming disabilities in and recycling. children; impairment of blood Quarterly - • Quarterly - 1.5µg/m3 Combustion processes. formation and nerve conduction. Sulfates (S04) 24 hrs - 25pg/m3 • Industrial Processes. Decrease in ventilatory function; aggravation of asthma symptoms; vegetation damage; degradation of visibility. Sources - CARB and SCAQMD • - no standard established ppm - parts per million, µg/m3 - micrograms per cubic meter 02/02/11 75B-113 MacArthur Project Modification - Santa Ana - Air Quality Assessment KPC Environmental, Inc. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) could not meet the deadline with the Federal Standards for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PM-10 and as such was mandated to develop a plan for bringing the SCAB into compliance. In the SCAB, the agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it several times as earlier attainment forecasts were shown to be overly optimistic. The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with airshed designated with "serious" or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past decade. The currently adopted clean air plan for the basin is the 1999 SIP Amendment, which accelerates the schedule for a number if new SCAQMD rules and regulations, approved by the U.S. EPA in 2000. The U.S. EPA has yet to approve the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted the most recent updates to the clean air "blueprint" in June 2007. The 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) provides an outline for achieving reductions in emissions while increasing air quality within the SCAB. Table 4-2 Regional Criteria Pollutant Attainment Status SCAB Pollutant State Federal Ozone Extreme Non-attainment Non-attainment PM10 Serious Non-attainment Non-attainment PM2.5 Non-attainment Non-attainment sox Attainment Attainment CO Attainment Attainment NOx Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment Other (vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, etc) Unclassified or Attainment Unclassified OT Attainment Ozone: The EPA has replaced the one-hour ozone standard with an eight-hour standard set at 0.08 ppm. The new standard accepted by the USEPA includes a calculation where the three highest measurements are disregarded and the fourth highest measurement is averaged over a 3-year period in determining if the standard is met. PM10 (Course particulate matter): On September 21, 2006 the Federal standard of 50 ug/m3 was replaced with a new 24-hour standard of 150 ug/m3. PM2.5 (Fine particulate matter): In September 2006 the Federal standard of 65 ug/m3 was reduced to 35 ug/m3 for the new 24-hour standard. 02/02/11 75B-114 MacArthur Project Modification - Santa Ana - Air Quality Assessment KPC Environmental, Inc. Nitrogen Dioxide: California reduced the NO2 1-hour standard from 0.25 ppm to .18 ppm in February of 2007. Greenhouse Gases (GHG): Presently there are no federal regulations on the reduction of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) or to reduce their effects on global climate changes. In the State of California Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), known as the Global Warming Solutions Act was passed by the state legislature in August of 2006. AB32 requires that levels of GHG be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020 and by 80 percent of the 1990 levels by the year 2050. In order to address GHG emissions and comply with AB32 in General Plans and CEQA documents Senate Bill 97 (SB97) required the State's Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop guidelines for CEQA compliance on how to address GHG emissions along with mitigation measures to reduce project GHG emissions. Guidelines with changes to CEQA 15064.4 Determining the Significance of Greehouse Gas Emissions encourages lead agencies to quantify GHG emissions of proposed projects where possible and recommends that lead agencies consider several other qualitative factors in determining significance including: 1) the extent to which a project may increase or reduce GHG as compared to the existing environmental setting; 2) whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines is applicable to the project; and 3) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. 4.2 Regional Air Quality Summary 2006 - 2008 According to the current data from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resource Board (CARB) in 2008, there were a total of 120 days for the new 8-hour ozone standard in the SCAB (Basin) locations were exceeded. The number of days exceeding the federal ozone standard varied widely by area, from zero to 97 exceedances, depending on location with the majority of exceedances occurring in the Riverside and San Bernardino County regions. Exceedances were fewer at the coast, increasing to a maximum in the Basin's Central San Bernardino Mountains and inland valleys, and then decreasing further downwind in the Basin's far inland areas. The Central San Bernardino Mountains area exceeded the federal ozone standard most frequently, 97 days. The more stringent state standard was exceeded on 115 days in the same area. In 2008, carbon monoxide concentrations did not exceed the Federal or State standards in the SCAB for either the 1-hour or 8-hour concentrations. The highest carbon monoxide concentrations were recorded in Riverside County and central Los Angeles county areas. The maximum 8-hour average concentration of 4.3 ppm, recorded in South Central Los Angeles County, which is below the federal and state standards by 4.7 ppm. 02/02/11 75B-115 MacArthur Project Modification - Santa Ana - Air Quality Assessment KPC Environmental, Inc. The following table contains the most recently released air quality monitoring data for the area closest to the project site according to the SCAQMD SRA/City Table. The monitoring site selected for this area includes the data from station #17 which is located in the Central Orange County. The most recent data (2008) from the air quality monitoring station SRA #17 indicates there were 4 days on which the current Federal 8-hour ozone standards were exceeded and the current State 8-hour standard was exceeded a total of 10-days. Monitoring for PM 10 and PM2.5 at SRA #17 indicates no exceedances of PM 10 for the Federal 24-hour standard and 3- exceedances for the State 24-hour standard. PM2.5 exceeded the current Federal standard a total of 13 days during 2008. CO concentrations in the area did not exceed federal or state standards. Table 4-3 Regional Air Quality Summary Source Receptor Area 24 Years 2006 - 2008 Number of Pollutant California Federal Maximum Days samples exceed Standard Standard Year Measured Federal/State Concentration Standards Carbon Monoxide 9.0 ppm 9.5 ppm 2006 3-0 0/0 8-hour 8-hour 2007 2.9 0/0 2008 3.6 0/0 Ozone 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 2006 0.11 0/5 1-hour 1-hour 2007 0.127 112 2008 0.105 0/2 Nitrogen Dioxide 0.25 ppm 0.0534 ppm 2006 0.11 0/0 (N02) 1-hour AAM (a) 2007 0.10 0/0 2008 0.09 0/0 Sulfur Dioxide 0.25 ppm 0.03 ppm 2006 - 0/0 (802) 1-hour AAM 2007 - 0/0 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm 2008 0/0 24-hour avg. 24-hour avg. (b) 0.50 ppm 3-hour avg. b Fine Particulate 50 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 2006 104 017 Matter (PM-10) 24-hour 24-hour 2007 75 015 2008 61 013 Fine Particulate 65 ug/m3 (d) 2006 56.2 810 Matter (PM-2.5) 35 ug/m3 2007 79.4 1410 24-hour 2008 67.9 1310 ppm -Parts Per Million AAM - Annual Arithmetic Mean -- Pollutant Not Monitored (a) The federal standard is annual arithmetic mean N)2 greater than 0.0534 ppm. (b) The state standards are 1-hour average S02 > 0.03 ppm, 24-hour average > 0.04 ppm, and 3-hour average > 0.05 ppm. The federal standards are annual arithmetic mean S02 > 0.03 ppm, 24-hour average > 0.14 ppm, and 3-hour average > 0.50 ppm. (c) Less than 12-months of data available. (d) Revised Federal standard for PM2.5 from 65 down to 35 ug/m3 effective December 17, 2006. 02/02/11 75B-116 MacArthur Project Modification - Santa Ana - Air Quality Assessment KPC Environmental, Inc. 4.3 Determining Emission Significance 4.3.1 Emission Significance Thresholds To identify projects that will adversely affect the regional air quality through direct and indirect sources the SCAQMD has established significance thresholds to determine air quality impacts of a project. The SCAQMD established these significance thresholds, in part, based on Section 182 (e) of the Federal Clean Air Act, which identified levels of volatile organic gases from stationary sources operating in extreme non-attainment regions for ozone at 10 tons per year. The value set by the CAA was converted into threshold levels in pounds per day for the construction and operational phases of a project. The SCAQMD states that any project located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) having daily emissions from both direct and indirect sources that exceed the emissions thresholds should be considered significant. To determine whether or not air quality impacts from the proposed project are significant, impacts will be evaluated and compared to the significance criteria in the following table. If impacts equal or exceed any of the following criteria, they will be considered significant. TnhlP d_d Mass Dail Thresholds Pollutant Construction Operation N% 100 lbs/day 55 Ibs/day ROGNOC 75 lbs/day 551bs/day PM 10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day sox 150 lbs/day 1501bs/day CO 550 lbs/day 550 Ibs/day PM2.5 55 lbs/day 551bs/day In addition to the significance threshold for NOx, ROGNOC, PM10, SOx and CO, the California State 1-hour and 8-hour CO standard is used for determining the existence of CO Hotspots created directly or indirectly by a project. The criteria for CO Hotspots are covered in the CO Hotspot Analysis of this report. 02/02/11 9 75B-117 MacArthur Project Modification - Santa Ana - Air Quality Assessment KPC Environmental, Inc. 4.3.2 Sensitive Receptors & SCAQMD LST's When considering land uses and population densities in their jurisdiction, local public agencies should be aware of land use compatibility issues, particularly in reference to sensitive receptors. A sensitive receptor is a person in the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant than is the population at large. Sensitive receptors and associated facilities that house them in proximity to local CO sources, toxic air contaminants or odors are of particular concern. Sensitive receptors include the very young, elderly, and persons suffering from illness are normally associated with locations such as schools, day-car facilities, convalescent care facilities, medical facilities, and residential areas. Sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the proposed project site include the residential areas surrounding the project site. Evaluations according to SCAQMD recommendations need to be conducted to ensure that sensitive receptors will not be exposed to localized concentrations of the criteria pollutant carbon monoxide (CO). High levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion in particular slow-moving and idling vehicles. Depending on the existing background concentrations of CO, roadways have the potential to be CO hot spots. Therefore projects with sensitive receptors or projects that could negatively impact levels of service (LOS) should utilize the Emfac 2007 v. 2.3 and CALINE 4 programs to evaluate the effects of vehicle emissions to determine if the project will cause the state 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards to be exceeded, creating a "CO hotspot." As part of the review for potential impacts on Sensitive Receptors the SCAQMD has been requesting that all projects less than 5-acres in size complete the Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Analysis. The LST's were run for the project as shown in Table 4-6 and indicate that no LST's are estimated to be exceeded during the construction of the project. The LST's were conducted for Mass Grading/Excavation and Construction with defaults or modified to compare with URBEMIS emissions as appropriate. The receptor distance was selected at 50 meters on a 1-acre site. Table 4-5 LST Results Construction Phase CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 No Demolition 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No Site Preparation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grading 16.9 37.1 2.2 1.8 Building 12.5 31.0 1.7 1.5 Localized Significance Threshold 753.0 83.0 12.0 4 Exceed Significance? NO NO NO NO 02/02/11 10 75B-118 MacArthur Project Modification - Santa Ana - Air Quality Assessment KPC Environmental, Inc. 4.3.3 Additional Indicators Additional indicators to be considered when screening criteria to evaluate the need for further analysis with respect to air quality can be found in the SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook. The additional indicators noted by the SCAQMD are as follows: • Project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation. • Project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area which would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP. • Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot. • Project might have the potential to create or be subjected to objectionable odors that could impact sensitive receptors. • Project will have hazardous materials onsite and could result in an accidental release of air toxic emissions or acutely hazardous materials posing a threat to public health and safety. • Project could emit an air toxic contaminant regulated by District rules or that is on a federal or state air toxic list. Project could involve burning of hazardous, medical, or municipal waste as waste-to-energy facilities. • Project could be occupied by sensitive receptors within a quarter mile or an existing facility that emits air toxics identified in District Rule 1401 or near CO hot spots. • Project could emit carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants that individually or cumulatively exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in I million. According to the SCAQMD if the project has significant air quality impacts, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared. If impacts of a project can be reduced to below the emissions significance levels through mitigation, then a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) can be prepared. The MND or EIR should use the methods recommended by the SCAQMD and ARB to quantify the levels of emission using the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, URBEMIS, CALINE, and Emfac. All feasible mitigation measures to reduce emission to the lowest possible level should be identified and applied to the greatest extent possible. 02/02/11 II 75B-119 MacArthur Project Modification - Santa Ana - Air Quality Assessment KPC Environmental, Inc. 5.0 Air Quality Impact Analysis Air quality impacts/emissions associated with a project can be placed into two categories, temporary (short-term) or long-term emissions. Temporary (short-term) emissions are generally associated with the demolition, grading, and construction activities of the project while long-term emissions are associated with the day-to-day operation, use, and area emissions from such activities as vehicle use, consumer product use, and energy generation/consumption. Short-term emissions will be covered under section 5.1 Construction Emissions while long-term emissions will be covered under section 5.2 Area and Operational Emissions. The emissions estimates for the proposed projects present the "worst-case" scenario with limited mitigation included in the modeling and PM-10 (fugitive dust) from grading activities calculated at the worst-case level of 20 lbs. /day instead of the average 10 lbs. /day. The construction schedule is based on 260-working days for all construction related activities (excavation/grading, trenching, construction, and architectural coating). The emissions calculations assume that the majority of the equipment is operating 5-days per week for 6 to 8-hours each day. It is highly unlikely that the majority of the equipment on-site will be operated at this projected schedule producing the calculated emissions each day. Modeling of emissions from the proposed project is based on the square footage calculations and information presented on the project site plan with construction equipment estimates and scheduling based on URBEMIS Defaults or modified based on familiarity of similar projects. The type and number of equipment and length of schedule chosen for each phase has been selected to present a "worst-case" scenario for construction related emissions. The area and operations emissions were generated with no mitigation measures to present the "worst-case" scenario for the site's impact on the local area. Mitigation measures that shall be employed along with additional mitigation measures that could be employed to further reduce emissions of the construction and operation of the proposed project will be discussed in section 6.2 of this assessment. 5.1 Construction Emissions: Construction emissions can be distinguished as either onsite or offsite. Onsite emissions generated during construction principally consist of exhaust emissions (CO, ROGNOC, NOx, SOX, PM10, CO2 and PM2.5) from construction equipment, fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2,5) from grading and excavation, and ROG emissions from asphalt paving and architectural painting. Offsite emissions during construction typically consist of exhaust emissions from truck traffic and worker commute trips; road dust associated with traffic to and from the construction site; and fugitive dust (PM1o and PM2_5) from trucks hauling materials, construction debris, or excavated soils from the site. 02/02/11 12 75B-120 MacArthur Project Modification -- Santa Ana - Air Quality Assessment KPC Environmental, Inc., The analysis for the proposed project assumed a schedule for the construction and estimated the project completion in 12-months. Increasing the construction timeline would allow for each task in the construction of the buildings to be completed over a greater timeline which in some cases such as grading/excavation and coatings would decrease the estimated emissions presented in this analysis. This analysis is presenting a "worst-case" construction scenario using a compressed construction schedule to present the construction emissions at the highest anticipated levels. 5.1.1 Mass Grading/Parking Structure Excavation Emissions The proposed project site will require mass grading/excavation to prepare the site for construction. Mass Grading estimates in this assessment are based on a default URBEMIS scenario with PM10 levels at 20 lbs/acre/day utilizing 5-pieces of heavy equipment including 2-excavators, 1-grader, 1 rubber tired dozer, 1 tractors/loaders/backhoes, and 1-other (ICE) equipment over a period of approximately 40 active work days. Estimated emissions during grading/excavation included export of approximately 200,000 cubic yards of soil from the excavation using 20-cubic yard dump trucks traveling 1,000 vehicle miles per day. Mitigation measure (Best Management Practice) of watering site 2-times per day was used for PM10 & PM2.5. No mitigation or BMP's were used in the URBEMIS model for other emissions constituents. Table 5-1 Mass Gradin2/Excavation Pollutant Unmitigated (lbs/day) Mitigated (lbs/day) SCAQMD Threshold ROG 8.36 8.36 75 NOx 78.53 78.53 100 CO 40.07 40.07 550 PM 10 23.89 15.20 150 S02 0.04 0.04 150 PM 2.5 7.66 5.85 55 CO2 9.797.61 9.797.61 N/A void-underline indicates exceedance of SCAQMD Threshold. 02/02/11 13 75B-121 MacArthur Project Modification -- Santa Ana - Air Quality Assessment KPC Environmental, Inc. 5.1.2 Site Trenching/Foundation Emissions Trenching/Foundation includes work on the site to prepare the site for utilities and foundation/footing work to support the site structures. Trenching estimates in this assessment are based on utilizing 4-pieces of heavy equipment including 2 excavators, 1 other general industrial equipment, and 1 tractors/loaders/backhoe over a period of approximately 10 active work days. No mitigation measures were utilized in the URBEMIS model for the emissions for this phase. Table 5-2 TrenchinLy / Foundation Pollutant Unmitigated (lbs/day) Mitigated (lbs/day) SCAQMD Threshold ROG 1.98 1.98 75 NOx 16.48 16.48 100 CO 9.05 9.05 550 PM 10 0.83 0.83 150 SO2 0.00 0.00 150 PM 2.5 0.76 0.76 55 CO2 1,839.01 1,839.01 N/A Bold-underline indicates exceedance of SCAQMD Threshold. 5.1.3 Building Construction Emissions Construction proposed as part of this project will include the construction of 6-level parking structure with one subterranean level and 5 above ground levels for approximately 140,000 square feet. The roof of the structure is proposed to be developed for recreational uses including BBQ area, spa, pool, and picnic areas. Default conditions were used in URBEMIS to model potential emissions that would be associated with the construction activities and the movement of materials and work crews to/from the site. Building construction estimates were based on utilizing 6 pieces of equipment including: 2 forklifts, 1 tractor/loader/backhoe, 2 aerial lifts, and I crane over a period of approximately 210 active working days. Equipment operating hours were estimated at 8- hours per day for all equipment with the exception of the forklifts estimated at 6-hours of operation per day and the crane estimated at 4-hours per day. The run hours present a worst-case scenario as most equipment will not be continuously in operation for an entire work shift. 02/02/11 14 75B-122 MacArthur Project Modification - Santa Ana - Air Quality Assessment KPC Environmental, Inc. Table 5-3 Building Construction Pollutant Unmitigated (lbs/day) Mitigated (lbs/day) SCAQMD Threshold ROG 1.69 1.69 75 NOx 11.73 11.73 100 CO 12.77 12.77 550 PM 10 0.76 0.76 150 S02 0.01 0.01 150 PM 2.5 0.69 0.69 55 C02 2,217.67 2,217.67 N/A Bold-underline indicates exceedance of SCAQMD Threshold. 5.1.4 Architectural Coatings Architectural coatings estimates were based on coatings taking place over the last 45 active working days of construction using URBEMIS defaults. Additional decreases in ROG (VOC) can be obtained by using High Velocity Low Pressure Applicators (HVLP), and NO VOC coatings, which contain <g/1 VOC. The majority of architectural coatings will be applied as interior paints which would offer the best reduction using Low VOC and No VOC paints. Using Low and No VOC coatings along with HVLP equipment it is estimated would likely reduce the VOC emissions below the calculated mitigated values generated in the URBEMIS model for the proposed projects. Table 5-4 Architectural Coatings Pollutant Unmitigated (lbs/day) Mitigated (lbs/day) SCAQMD Threshold ROG 66.67 66.67 75 NOx 0.04 0.04 100 CO 0.71 0.71 550 PM 10 0.01 0.01 150 S02 0.00 0.00 150 PM 2.5 0.00 0.00 55 C02 96.71 96.71 N/A Isola-unuerune indicates exceedance of SCAQMD Threshold. 02/02/11 15 75B-123 MacArthur Project Modification - Santa Ana - Air Quality Assessment KPC Environmental, Inc. 5.2 Construction Impacts Construction emissions would be below the SCAQMD's significance thresholds for CO ROG, NOx, PM10, PM2.5 and SOx. With no exceedances of the significance thresholds predicted emissions would be considered to have a less than significant adverse impact during the construction phase of the project. Emissions levels however, can be further lowered through implementation of mitigation measures found in this study. The highest level of emissions from the project will be short-term and cease at the completion of the construction of the project. PM 10 and PM2.5 generated as a result of grading operations can be mitigated to the lowest possible levels by adhering to SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, and 403.1 along with the implementation of BMP's & mitigation measures recommended in this assessment. 5.3 Area and Operational Emissions: Data contained herein was obtained from default values for the modifications to the project which included 300 mid-rise condominium units and parking structure using the URBEMIS program and includes the calculated values for Area Emissions. The Area Emissions Table 5-5 includes emissions from the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the facilities, consumer products usage, natural gas use, and landscaping equipment use. URBEMIS default values were used for all proposed sites with no mitigation measures employed in the model. Traffic data was obtained from the Updated Main & MacArthur Development Project Traffic Impact Study dated December 2010 as completed by KOA Corporation. According to the estimated emissions there will be no significant increase in criteria pollutants with the proposed project as compared to the existing entitlement. Additionally, all criteria pollutants are below the SCAQMD's significance thresholds. Table 5-5 Area Emissions Pollutant Unmitigated (lbs/day) SCAQMD Threshold ROG 28.39 55 NOx 15.82 55 CO 122.31 550 PM 10 22.96 150 S02 0.14 150 PM 2.5 4.49 55 C02 17,511,24 N/A Hold-underline indicates exceedance of SCAQMD Threshold. 02/02/11 16 75B-124 MacArthur Project Modification - Santa Ana - Air Quality Assessment KPC Environmental, Inc. 5.4 CO Hotspot Analysis The proposed project was previously examined for air quality by Giroux & Associates in an assessment dated November 2004 which included CO Hotspot analysis. The Traffic Impact Study dated December 2010 as completed by KOA Corporation indicated that the project with modification will not generate additional significant impact to the study intersections and will not generate adverse effects on the surrounding street system. Since there are no significant traffic effects to the Level of Service (LOS) at the study intersections and the project modifications do not change the current approved property usage no new traffic emission or intersection assessments were made for CO Hotspots. It should be noted however that recent CO Hotspot Modeling in the area performed by KPC on nearby projects using CALINE and EMFAC with current and future worst case traffic conditions indicated that CO Hotspots will not likely occur in the vicinity of the proposed project site. 5.5 Impacts of Area and Operational Emissions The majority of emissions associated with Area and Operational Emissions are generally due to vehicle exhaust emissions. Area and Operational Emissions associated with the project would be below the SCAQMD's significance thresholds for PM10, CO, NOx, ROG, PM2.5 and SOx. As a result regional emissions associated with the combined area and operational emissions for the project would be considered to have a less than significant impact on regional air quality. Operational use of emissions generating equipment will be regulated under the SCAQMD and new sources subject to review prior to use. Permits are required by the SCAQMD prior to construction, installation, or operation unless specifically exempted for all equipment that emits or controls air contaminants. 6.0 Conclusion 6.1 Consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) The proposed project was previously assessed under an existing EIR; this assessment included only modification not contained in the original EIR. The proposed project is in an area covered by a General Plan and designated for the type of land use(s) that the project is proposing and would be covered under the City's General Plan. The City requires that the projects conform to population and traffic forecast contained in the current General Plan. General Plan forecasts for development and traffic are used within the AQMP. The AQMP provides a basis for assessing air quality within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and provides for pollutant control strategies and is used in establishing the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP defines how the SCAB will achieve the federal ambient air quality standards. Because the projects are not predicted to increase the population or traffic conditions beyond what is forecast in the General Plan, regional emissions associated with the project are accounted for within the AQMP and are therefore consistent with the AQMP. 02/02/11 17 75B-125 75B-126 Appendix B - Updated Main 6t MacArthur Traffic Impact Study KOA Corporation February 2011 MacArthur Place South EIR - 2011 Addendum 75B-127 Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project Traffic Impact Study In the City of Santa Ana February, 2011 Prepared for. CAA Planning, Inc. 85 Argonaut, Suite 220 Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Prepared by: FF KOA CORPORATION PLANNING E ENGINEERING 1 120 W. La Veta Avenue, Suite 660 Orange, CA 92868 (714) 573-0317 (714) 573-9534 Job No:JB03128 75B-128 KOA CORPORATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING 1 120 West La Veca Avenue. Suite 660 Orange. CA 92868 E: 714.573.0317 f: 714.573.9534 www.koacorporation.com February 18, 2011 Ms. Shawna Schaffner CAA Planning, Inc. 85 Argonaut. Suite 220 Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Subject: Traffic Impact Study for the Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project in the City of Santa Ana Dear Ms. Schaffner: KOA Corporation is pleased to present the Traffic Impact Study for the Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project in the City of Santa Ana. The project site (previously called "Hutton Centre Residential Development" and "MacArthur Place South Development") is located southeast of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Main Street. A traffic study was conducted several years ago and the site was approved to include a residential development plus other commercial and office uses. The developer has recently updated the site plan and increased the residential density of the proposed condominium project (5 story condominium building) from 276 condominium units to 300 condominium units. There are no changes for other potential uses. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of the expansion of the previously approved condominium project (5 story condominium building) from 276 to 300 dwelling units. A traffic study analyzing critical intersections based on the approved project traffic analysis assumptions has been conducted to evaluate if the increase in condominiums will generate significant impacts to the surrounding roadway system. This traffic impact study has been prepared to meet the traffic study requirements of the City of Santa Ana. Please contact our office if you have any questions about the report, or if you need additional information. It has been a pleasure to prepare this study for CAA Planning, Inc. Sincerely, Min Zhou, PE Principal J-*U010V803128_$A Moen McArthur TIS SwdrlDocumeMtAourNW3128_Report_FE8201 I _REV 0218201 I.Doc LOS ANGELES ONTARIO ORANGE SAN DIEGO SOUTH BAY 75B-129 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... I 2. PROJECT STUDY METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 4 STUDY TIMEFRAMES ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 PROJECT STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................................................................... 4 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 TRAFFIC COUNT DATA ................................................................................................................................................................. 6 LONG RANGE TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS .............................................................................................................................. 6 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................... 8 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 8 EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ......................................................................................................... I 4. OPENING YEAR (2013) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS ...................................................... 13 S. LONG RANGE (2035) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS .......................................................... 17 6. PROJECT TRIPS .....................................................................................................................................19 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 21 7. OPENING YEAR (2013) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ............................................................... 28 8. LONG RANGE (2035) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ................................................................... 31 9. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ............................................................................... 34 10. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................................36 KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PLANNING d ENGINEERING i Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-130 FIGURE I -PROJECT VICINITY MAP ..................................................................................................................................2 FIGURE 2 - PROJECT SITE PLAN .........................................................................................................................................3 FIGURE 3 - EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY .........................................................................................................10 FIGURE 4 - EXISTING (2010) AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES .................................................................................... 12 FIGURE 5 - CUMULATIVE PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................................................................. 14 FIGURE 6 - OPENING YEAR (2013) WITHOUT PROJECT AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ..................................... 16 FIGURE 7 - LONG RANGE (2035) AM/PM WITHOUT PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ....................................... 18 FIGURE 8 - OPENING YEAR (2013) PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION, INBOUND ......................................................... 22 FIGURE 9 - OPENING YEAR (2013) PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION, OUTBOUND .................................................... 23 FIGURE 10 - LONG RANGE (2035) TRIP DISTRIBUTION, INBOUND .......................................................................... 24 FIGURE I I - LONG RANGE (2035) TRIP DISTRIBUTION, OUTBOUND ..................................................................... 25 FIGURE 12 - OPENING YEAR (2013) PROJECT ONLY AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES .......................................... 26 FIGURE 13 - LONG RANGE (2035) PROJECT ONLY AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ............................................. 27 FIGURE 14 - OPENING YEAR (2013) WITH PROJECT AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES .......................................... 29 FIGURE 15 - LONG RANGE (2035) AM/PM WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ............................................. 32 TABLE I -AM/PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................. I I TABLE 2 - CUMULATIVE PROJECT ................................................................................................................................... 13 TABLE 3 - AM/PM PK HR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS OPENING YEAR (2013) W/O PROJECT CONDITIONS...... 15 TABLE 4 - AM/PM PK HR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LONG RANGE (2035) W/O PROJECT CONDITIONS.......... 17 TABLE 5 - PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES ............................................................................................................. 19 TABLE 6 - PROPOSED OVERALL SITE TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY .........................................................................20 TABLE 7 - AM/PM PK HR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS OPENING YEAR (2013) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ....28 TABLE 8-AM/PM PK HR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LONG RANGE (2035) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ....... 3 1 TABLE 9 - DETERMINATIONS OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS (OPENING YEAR (2013) CONDITIONS) ...............................35 TABLE 10 - DETERMINATIONS OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS (LONG RANGE (2035) CONDITIONS) ................................35 FF KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PLANNING 8 ENGINEERING ii Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-131 Appendix A - Analysis Methodologies Appendix B - Traffic Count Data Appendix C - Long Range Model Refinement Process Worksheets Appendix D - Existing Conditions Intersection Analysis Worksheets Appendix E - Cumulative Project Information Appendix F - Opening Year (2013) Without Project Conditions Intersection Analysis Worksheets Appendix G - Long Range (2035) Without Project Conditions Intersection Analysis Worksheets Appendix H - Trip Generation Information Appendix I - Opening Year (2013) With Project Conditions Intersection Analysis Worksheets Appendix J - Long Range (2035) With Project Conditions Intersection Analysis Worksheets KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project NANNING 6 ENGINEERING iii Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-132 1. Introduction CAA Planning, Inc. has requested a traffic impact study for the proposed Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project. The project is located within a larger planned multi-use development site southeast of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at Main Street. An Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02, MacArthur Place South, was conducted in March 2009 by CAA Planning. At the time the study was conducted the site was to include 775 condominium units (174 condominium units currently occupied, 175 "for-rent" units, a 276-unit condominium building, and a 150-unit Cinema Tower), and a 185-room business hotel. The developer has recently updated the site plan and proposes to increase the residential density of the condominium project (5 story condominium building) from 276 to 300 condominium units. The purpose of this traffic study is to analyze the impact of the expansion of the previously approved condominium project (5 story condominium building) development from 276 condominium dwelling units to 300 dwelling units. The project will also include 175 condominiums to be "for-rent" units, a 150 condominium unit Cinema Tower, and a 185-room business hotel. In addition to these units, 174 condominium units in the project are already occupied. The project site is located at the southeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Main Street. Figure I shows the vicinity of the proposed project as it relates to the regional circulation network. Figure 2 shows the project site plan. PF KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PLANNING & ENGINEERING I Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-133 ++.w?vwra,?aor,juryw _r,`uro Not LO tl i P9 KOA CORPORATION City of Santa Ana Figure I PLANNIN', [r G,r rear,;, Updated Main & MacArthur Development ProjectTIS ProlectVicinity Map 75B-134 N c5 CL CL t]i J ? I i jj? li .? I I ? ? I I c ? ? y O ? - I ? r F V 75B-135 2. Project Study Methodology This chapter documents the methodologies and assumptions used to conduct the traffic study for the proposed project. This section contains the following background information: • Study timeframes • Project study area • Capacity analysis methodologies Study Timefromes This traffic study presents an analysis of the critical intersection operating conditions during the AM and PM peak hours for the following anticipated timeframes: • Existing Year 2010 • Project Opening: Year 2013 • Long Range Buildout: Year 2035 The following scenarios have been analyzed: • Existing Conditions (2010) • Project Opening Conditions (2013) without Project • Project Opening Conditions (2013) with Project • Buildout (2035) Conditions without Project • Buildout (2035) Conditions with Project Project Study Area The study area was determined through analyzing the previous traffic study report and consulting with the City of Santa Ana staff. Figure I depicts the overall study area and identifies the intersections analyzed within the study area. A total of 8 intersections have been identified for analysis. While the majority of the intersections are within the jurisdiction of the City of Santa Ana, one intersection is shared with the City of Costa Mesa, another intersection is located within the City of Irvine, and two intersections are under Caltrans jurisdiction. As shown previously in Figure I, the study area consists of the following intersections: • Main Street at Dyer Road • Main Street at MacArthur Boulevard • Main Street at Sandpointe Avenue • Main Street at Sunflower Avenue (City of Costa Mesa) • MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard • SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard (Caltrans) • SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard (Caltrans) • Red Hill Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard (City of Irvine) PF KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PLANNING & ENGINEERING 4 Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-136 Project Study Methodology Since the purpose of the study is to examine the possible impact of increasing the number of housing units in the condominium project from 276 to 300 dwelling units, the study scope has been limited to intersection analysis only. No roadway segment ADT or ramp and freeway mainline analysis is proposed to be conducted for this study. Analysis Methodologies This section presents a brief overview of traffic analysis methodologies and concepts used in this study. Street system operating conditions are typically described in terms of "level of service." Level of service is a report-card scale used to indicate the quality of traffic flow on roadway segments and at intersections. The levels of service range from Level A (free flow, little congestion) to Level F (forced flow, extreme congestion). Traffic conditions on most roadway facilities are analyzed using the principles of the specific analysis methods contained in the Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Edition (HCM), a publication of the Transportation Research Board, a research agency affiliated with the Federal Government. Chapter 9 of the HCM is devoted to analysis of signalized intersections and Chapter 10 is devoted to the analysis of unsignalized intersections. The methodology in the HCM for signalized intersections is based upon measurements or forecasts of control delay for traffic utilizing all approaches to the intersection. Intersection average delay and poorest movement delay are reported for all unsignalized intersections. Caltrans requires HCM methodology for all intersection analysis. Traffic conditions in Southern California are also often evaluated at signalized intersections using a methodology known as the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) technique. This analysis is widely accepted and essentially measures the amount of traffic signal "green" time required for the intersection. It is a significant variation from the HCM method; however, it produces results that are generally similar. Appendix A lists the ICU level of service criteria for signalized intersections and the HCM criteria for unsignalized intersections. It also defines the level of service and ICU ranges as applied to signalized intersections. Based upon the Circulation and Land Use elements of the City of Santa Ana General Plan, for intersections located outside of Major Development Areas (MDA), the City considers Level of Service (LOS) D as the threshold of an acceptable service level and LOS E as the maximum threshold for acceptable service levels for intersections located within a MDA. The City of Costa Mesa defines LOS D as an acceptable traffic operation level for all intersections. The City of Irvine General Plan states that roadway segments and intersections inside of the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) should operate at LOS E or better for peak hour conditions. Others should operate at LOS D or better. These criteria are consistent with Measure M target levels, and are either more stringent than, or meet Congestion Management Plan (CMP) criteria which designates LOS E as the minimum acceptable level of service. The different acceptable levels of service for the study intersections are defined below: KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PLANNING B ENGINEERING 5 Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-137 Project Study Methodology • Main Street at Dyer Road (LOS D) • Main Street at MacArthur Boulevard (LOS E) • Main Street at Sandpointe Avenue (LOS D) • Main Street at Sunflower Avenue (LOS D) • MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard (LOS E) • SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard (LOS E) • SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard (LOS D) • Red Hill Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard (LOS E) The specific assumptions for the ICU analysis include the use of a saturation flow value of 1,700 vehicles per lane per hour (VPLPH), with the exception of those intersections in the City of Costa Mesa where a saturation flow value of 1,600 VPLPH is used to be consistent with the City of Costa Mesa procedures. No capacity adjustments are applied to protected movements with dedicated lanes (including both right and left turns), except within the City of Santa Ana, where a reduced capacity of 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour is used for dedicated turn lanes. In the City of Irvine, free right-turn lanes are assumed within the analysis wherever dedicated approach and departure lanes exist, regardless of the presence or absence of yield signs. A loss time factor of 5 percent is applied to the ICU calculations for all jurisdictions except the City of Costa Mesa, where no loss time is assumed. Finally, a "de facto" right- turn lane is assumed to exist when the outermost through lane is 19 feet or greater in width and parking is prohibited. The analysis of peak hour intersection conditions was conducted using the TRAFFIX software program developed by Dowling Associates. The following peak periods were selected for analysis: • Weekday AM (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM) • Weekday PM (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM) Traffic Count Data Existing traffic data was obtained from Transportation Studies, Inc. of Tustin. All traffic count data used in this study was collected in October and November, 2010 and is complied in Appendix B of this report. Long Range Traffic Volume Forecasts The long range (2035) analysis is based on future traffic forecasts obtained from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) travel demand forecasting model (OCTAM 3.3). Since the original traffic study was completed, the OCTAM model has been updated and the long range condition is now represented as 2035 conditions. To be consistent, a new model run has been obtained from OCTA to assist in the focused traffic study. OCTAM 3.3 is OCTA's travel demand forecasting model. It is used to evaluate circulation and transit system needs throughout the County of Orange. The OCTAM 3.3 model consists of a 2,940 traffic PF KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PLANNING $ ENGINEERING 6 Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-138 Project Study Methodology analysis zone (TAZ) system which encompasses the five (5) counties in the Southern California region. The primary focus of the modeling area is Orange County. The OCTAM 3.3 model uses the latest adopted demographic forecasts, commonly referred to as Orange County Projections, adopted in 2006 (OCP-2006). The OCP-2006 demographic forecasts include data in 5 year increments through 2035 and are the official Orange County forecasts. The growth in housing, population, and employment included in the OCP-2006 demographic projections is consistent with the anticipated growth that is expected in conjunction with the cities' General Plan land use and circulation elements. The latest OCTAM 3.3 model data were used as the basis for producing the refined 2035 future intersection turning movement volumes based on the algorithm obtained from the report Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design (National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 255, Transportation Research Board, 1982, pp. 105-109), commonly referred to as NCHRP-255. Minor manual adjustments have been conducted for traffic flow conservation and reasonableness checks. Appendix C includes the initial refined 2035 turning movement volumes for each intersection from the OCTAM model based on the NCHRP-255 methodology. Significant Impact Criteria The City of Santa Ana, City of Costa Mesa, and City of Irvine have similar but slightly different significant impact criteria to identify intersections that can be categorized as either satisfactory or deficient, so that appropriate mitigation measures can be made for non-satisfactory intersections to bring them to satisfactory operating conditions. The City of Santa Ana's project impact analysis criteria indicate: • A significant project impact occurs when the ICU value increases by greater than .01 and achieves unacceptable level of service ("E" or "F). Since no relevant unsignalized intersections are included in the study, the criteria for unsignalized intersections are not listed herein. The significant impact criteria provided above are based on the City's General Plan. In addition, projects must also comply with the Orange County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) criteria. The CMP specifies that a project cannot be allowed to reduce level of service or increase flow by more than 3% at a location that is forecast to experience Level of Service E or F, generally. This criterion is generally less stringent than the City's criteria, so any project that meets the City General Plan criteria will also normally meet the County CMP criteria. KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PLANNING 6 ENGINEERING 7 Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-139 This section documents the Existing (2010) Conditions in the study area. The discussion presented here is limited to specific roadways, transit routes, and bikeways in the project's vicinity. Existing Roadway Conditions KOA conducted an updated field review for this project. Due to significant land use development in recent years, there are some significant roadway and intersection improvements within the study area that have changed since the original traffic study was conducted. Streets in the project vicinity that could be affected by the proposed expansion project include Main Street, MacArthur Boulevard, Dyer Road, Sandpointe Avenue, Sunflower Avenue, Imperial Promenade, and Red Hill Avenue. Main Street Main Street is a north-south arterial roadway in the project vicinity, located west of and adjacent to the project site. Main Street is designated as a 6 lane Major Arterial on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The posted speed limit along Main Street is 40 mph. The intersection of Main Street at MacArthur Boulevard has been recently improved and fully built out since the original traffic study. Exclusive right turn lanes have been constructed for all approaches of the intersection. Main Street is served by OCTA Routes 53, 463 and 794. There are no striped bike lanes provided on Main Street. MacArthur Boulevard MacArthur Boulevard is an east-west roadway in the project vicinity, located adjacent to and north of the project site. The arterial has a full interchange with the SR-55 Freeway. Within the study area, MacArthur Boulevard is designated as a 6 lane Major Arterial on the MPAH. The posted speed limit along MacArthur Boulevard is 45 mph. MacArthur Boulevard is served by OCTA Routes 55, 76, 464, and 794. There are no striped bike lanes provided on MacArthur Boulevard. Dyer Road Dyer Road is an east-west roadway located about '/2 mile north of the project area. The roadway provides a full interchange with the SR-55 Freeway. Dyer Road is designated as a 6 lane Major Arterial on the MPAH. The posted speed limit along Dyer Road is 40 mph. Dyer Road is not served by OCTA bus routes and there are no striped bike lanes provided on Dyer Road. KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PLANNING 8 ENGINEERING 8 Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-140 Existing Conditions Sandpointe Avenue Sandpoint Avenue is an east-west roadway, adjacent to the project site. Sandpointe Avenue is not shown on the MPAH. In the project vicinity, Sandpointe Avenue is a two-lane undivided residential street west of Main Street, and a four-lane divided street serving the commercial development on the east side of Main Street. Sandpointe Avenue has a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. Sandpointe Avenue is not served by OCTA bus routes and there are no striped bike lanes provided. Sunflower Avenue Sunflower Avenue is an east-west roadway, located southwest of the project site. In the project vicinity, Sunflower Avenue is designated as a 6 lane Major Arterial on the MPAH. The posted speed limit on Sunflower Avenue is 45 mph. Sunflower Avenue is served by OCTA Routes 86, 464, and 794. Within the project vicinity there are Class II striped bicycle lanes along Sunflower Avenue. MacArthur Place MacArthur Place is a north-south roadway, serving two major commercial development sites on the north and south sides of MacArthur Boulevard. MacArthur Place is not shown on the MPAH. Red Hill Avenue Red Hill Avenue is a north-south roadway, located east of the project site. Red Hill Avenue is designated as a 6 lane Major Arterial on the MPAH. The posted speed limit along Red Hill Avenue is 50 mph. Red Hill Avenue is served by OCTA Routes 71, 76, and 212. Within the project vicinity there are Class II bicycle lanes along Red Hill Avenue. Figure 3 illustrates the current lane geometry conditions for all study intersections. PF KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PLANNING K ENGINEERING 9 Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-141 13 . . Dyer Rd ?l114? r hhf tV MacArthur Blvd Alton Ave L ' X114 r h tf ? z b a alumbineAve / t+ / ? I Y ? H ' Sandpointe Ave F ` \ Sunflower Ave T \ 1l1l ? 11 7 r l L ?-- ?? 1 7? r y z hhfft LEGEND " -Z • Study Intersection 1 Project Site J130100-01138 sw r-Un P4Wrhur TiS SwCjMn.Ipi.lRgwe1J80313g_Figu,- Not to Scale PV KOA CORPORATION City of Santa Ana Figure 3 PLANNING s rNt.n?treiN:; Updated Main & MacArthur Development Project TIS Existing Intersection Geometry 75B-142 Existing Conditions Existing Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service The study area was observed during both the morning and the evening peak hours. The indicated levels of service shown in Table I are representative of observed traffic conditions in the study area. Appendix D contains the level of service analysis worksheets for Existing Conditions. Table I - AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Existing Conditions Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS d"Ey" ICU Method ICU/LOS ICU/LOS OK Main Street at Dyer Road 0.669 / B 0.815 / D Main Street at MacArthur Boulevard 0.665 / B 0.679 / B x Main Street at Sandpointe Avenue 0.297 / A 0.469 / A Main Street at Sunflower Avenue 0.393 / A 0.704 / C MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard 0.687 / B 0.674 / B x SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.694 / B 0.616 / B x SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.757 / C 0.633 / B Red Hill Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard 0.558 / A 0.791 / C x HCM Method Delay/LOS Delay/LOS SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 18.9 / B 17.1 / B X SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 19.6 / B 16.7 / B w - 1-iwcuun Capacky uuuzaTion, Delay is in seconds/vehicle, LOS = Level of Service As shown in Table I, all study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours for Existing Conditions. Figure 4 illustrates the Existing (2010) AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes. KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PLANNING 8 ENGINEERING I I Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-143 1061 /612 \ 129/53 III 230 / 109 166/1? t _L07/161 809 / 624 -? 4451 1011 " 174/8 154/168 78/ 179'1 j x5,273 478 / 1053 Dyer Rd 740 / 460 155 / 165 I I 1565 / 313 299/259 J +I! 148/473 /596-? 4 375/1 196/8 175/221 42 / 405 1 x93 /152 340/785 \ \ MacArthur Blvd Alton Ave Columb S E a v ?n d n e Ave . . . . . 31/31 31 /258 I 1195/525 104/8KJ 1613/174 16811912 -? 4----808 / 1635 141/448 66/210 60/182??r2/572 / 28 / 28 4 N i 1n \ ? b \SandpointeAve Sunflower Ave \ 1 I ( / - ,?J/ ? \ y ?eJ3?lpJ i J?'3O?JS ?J 69) % 862/588 48/50 I 1158/40 \ 56/2L2 L21/156 \ 7/0 - ----- P- 16/7 19/124 \ 1 2/151 (165/69 \ 509 / 1427 ; ?r Q- d s? i 9S i ?!.?/O3?s O o! C /!SY .J3!/e?9? 38/64s9/9?s 620 / 305 264 / 426 1111 /5 J 424 7 580 t 15/1 2/0-1 1/1 526/495 1/3 J 98O/ r ?!9 176, 809,1 j r5 /3 sa2? °zo 244/915 J& LEGEND N !s • Study Intersection Project Site ? X)(/)O( AMlPMVolumes J:\i01NJawI18_S1 Main MaAMur T!5 SruAyUnaly.IS1Fl`urclJB031I9_N`uresil Not to Scale KOA CORPORATION City of Santa Ana Fvriramc x Figure 4 [r ciral,r.awc 1 Updated Main & MacArthur Development ProjectTIS Existing (2010) AM/PM w/o Project Pk Hr. Vol. 75B-144 4. Opening Year (2013) Without Project Conditions This section documents the analysis for the Opening Year (2013) Without Project conditions. Opening Year (2013) traffic increases were derived using the existing (2010) traffic volumes plus 1% annual growth rate from 2010 to 2013. Opening Year (2013) traffic increases also considers additional traffic that may be generated by other developments that have been approved. KOA and the City identified one relevant project near the project site which will add traffic to the intersections analyzed in the study. Table 2 lists the cumulative project that was analyzed as part of this study per City direction. Table 2 - Cumulative Project ID No. Location Project 1 1501 West MacArthur Boulevard 9,800 square feet of commercial use Source: City o f Santa Ana Planninn Deoartment_ The trip generation and distribution attributed to this cumulative project is documented in Appendix E of this report. The trips generated by the cumulative project are included in the Opening Year (2013) traffic forecast. Figure 5 shows the cumulative project location. KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PLANNING R ENGINEERING 13 Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-145 LEGEND . N Study Intersection - Project Site ? Bristo1-Mau4rthur Center Project hUW04W312 S "-MacArthur TlSSVI*Amly.i.\Rgure\Cumulat Tnp_Diatai Not to Scale KOA CORPORATION City of Santa Ana Figure 5 p1ANN1roc s ENGiNCeelr•1c Updated Main & MacArthur Development ProjectTIS Cumulative Project Location 75B-146 Opening Year (2013) Without Project Conditions Table 3 summarizes the result of the level of service analyses for this scenario. Figure 6 illustrates the Opening Year (2013) Without Project AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes. Appendix F contains the analysis worksheets for the estimated Opening Year (2013) Without Project conditions. Table 3 - AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Opening Year (2013) Without Project Conditions Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS "Epp ICU Method ICU/LOS ICU/LOS OK Main Street at Dyer Road 0.687 / B 0.839 / D Main Street at MacArthur Boulevard 0.684 / B 0.698 / B x Main Street at Sandpointe Avenue 0.308 / A 0.481 / A Main Street at Sunflower Avenue 0.405 / A 0.725 / C MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard 0.706/ C 0.694 / B x SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.714 / C 0.634 / B x SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.788 / C 0.651 / B Red Hill Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard 0.574 / A 0.813 / D x HCM Method Delay/LOS Delay/LOS SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 19.3 / B 17.4 / B x SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 20.1 / C 16.9 / B -arai.y vauaauuu, vc,ay w m aecanasiveniue, LVJ = Level of Service As indicated on Table 3, all intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service for the Opening Year (2013) Without Project conditions. PV KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project P1ANNINC 9 ENGINEERING 15 Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-147 1093 / 631 133 / 55 I I II 237 / 112 171114? 10/166 833 / 643 --1- 458 / 1 179/8 159/173 80/184'1 x180/281 Dyer Rd 492 / 1086 / 762/474 \ 160 / 171 I I 1582 / 322 (308 / 268 jl? 52/487 1380 / 617 -? 387 / 1 202/6 80/228 \ 4314181 T x199 / 157 350/809 / Alton Ave \ L \ C \ \ MacArthur Blvd ?n b a 2 v a F ' 1e Ave ? ' i i 32/32 \ 32 / 266 I 1201 / 541 Y11132'/942-----s- 07 / 8? ( 1 / 179 s 833 / 1 45 / 4? ? 686 / 216 \ 62 / 1871 1 x167 / 589 29/29 / N 1 ? \SandpointeAve F \ . . Sunflower Ave \ 1 I 80yi??s ?83j?.? 98 ,3) A \ 6'48 \ \ \ \ 888/607 49/52 I I 1163/41 \ \ 3\ 58/27 /161 \ t 22 7/0 • 1/1 \ 16/7 20/128 1 1 27151 x170171 1 I 524/1471 , a? .?P a 986/ 6? j3 3/?i 6-0 ` /j9i) -\V rG 193/ \ s 39 ?16j s3 639/315 2721439 I 1111 15 437 / 597 t 15/1 2/0 ---P- 4 1/1 9/6`fJ 542/510 1/3 f Ir R\\\? 181 / 8331 15 / 3 .9 251 /943 ems, LEGEND ssq ?iq N '21? • Study Intersection Project Site ? XX/XX AM/PM Volumes J:13010yB03128 SA Main MarArahur T15 SadylAmlysh?Fleurc1fB0311B f;ureaai Not to Scale KOA CORPORATION City of Santa Ana Figure 6 PLANNING s e Na1NI ERIN(; Updated Main & MacArthur Development ProjectTIS OpeningYr. (2013) AM/PM w/o Proj Pk Hr.Volumes 75B-148 S. Long Range (2035) Without Project Conditions This section develops the Long Range (2035) traffic conditions in the study area, without the proposed project. It includes development of the buildout traffic conditions in the study area based on traffic growth projections provided by the OCTAM 3.3 model applied to existing traffic patterns. The year 2035 was selected for analysis based on the latest OCTA OCTAM 3.3 traffic model buildout year 2035. The 2035 traffic model assumes construction of direct-access HOV drop ramps at SR-55/Alton Parkway. To forecast traffic growth conditions for the year 2035, the OCTA OCTAM 3.3 traffic model data was used as the basis for producing the refined 2035 future intersection turning movement volumes. Figure 7 illustrates the resulting Long Range (2035) Without Project AM and PM peak hour volumes. Table 4 summarizes the results of the level of service analyses for this scenario. Appendix G contains the analysis worksheets for the Long Range (2035) Without Project Conditions. Table 4 - AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Long Range (2035) Without Project Conditions Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS "E" ICU Method ICU/LOS ICU/LOS OK Main Street at Dyer Road 0.862 / D 0.892 / D Main Street at MacArthur Boulevard 0.725 / C 0.809 / D x Main Street at Sandpointe Avenue 0.322 / A 0.542 / A Main Street at Sunflower Avenue 0.673 / B 0.793 / C MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard 0.763 / C 0.776 / C X SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.771 / C 0.719 / C x SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.833 / D 0.691 / B Red Hill Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard 0.636 / B 0.835 / D x HCM Method Delay/LOS Delay/LOS SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 20.3 / C 17.5 / B x SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard N ICU -I 21.4 / C 17.6 / B ate. -ntersection Capacity utilization. Delay is in seconds/vehicle. LOS = Level of Service. As indicated, all study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable level of service for the Long Range (2035) Without Project conditions. Pr KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PLANNING 8 ENGINEERING 17 Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-149 1167/673 \ 142/58 I 1253„20 183/158 1118/117 890/809 -622/111 3181242 53/196 - 190/3551 F200/382 L 526 / 1158 / Dyer Rd 815 / 506 \ 171 / 182 I 1622 / 344 329/341 3/520 1403/656-499/1 233 /119 233 / 243 59/5791 j x212/267 374/1084 \ \ 1 MacArthur Blvd to A 2 Alton Ave d a b Columbine Ave . ' ' . . L ? C / 34/34 \ 34 / 284 1 I 1215 / 578 \\ 114/90 9/241 1968 / 1124 +---889 /1999 15515300/281 66 / 200.1 ? F1 78 / 629 K 31/31 w a ISandpointeAve \ Sunflower Ave \ 1 I I S9i G B9 \90 lq6 99? 1022 / 754 53 / 55 II I 1174 / 44 \ 62 / 29__J 23/172 8/0 1/1 \ 18/8 21/136 1 1 2/171 I 182/76 560 / 1729 ?e -1 a ?B 763/382 383/469 I I 112/6 !s 466 / 638 t 17/1 e!! lO?q 3/0? ?-- 3/1 1343 / 832 2/3 !0)e ??3Si 326/9481 4 308/ 1309 S9 '!93 LEGEND ?% 6 N • Study Intersection Project Site ? XX/XX AM/PM Volumes Ji201 OYS03120 _SA Main MarArt ur TIS StudyUmlysia\FiS,24S03128 Fip,rea.ai Not [O Scale PF KOA CORPORATION City of Santa Ana Figure 7 PLANNING S LNGiN[ r.RIN ; Updated Main & MacArthur Development ProjeccTlS Long Range (2035)AM/PM w/o Project Pk. Hr.Vol. 75B-150 Project-related traffic consists of trips on any portion of the street system that will begin or end at the project site as a result of the development of the proposed project. Project-related traffic is a function of the extent and type of development proposed for the site. This information is used to establish traffic generation for the site. Project Trip Generation Trip generation is a measure or forecast of the number of trips that will be made to or from the project. It is generally equal to the traffic volume expected at the project entrance. The project trip generation has been calculated in accordance with the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation (8th Edition, 2008). Table 5 presents the trip generation rates. Daily and peak hour trip generation for the project site under Opening Year (2013) and Long Range (2035) conditions is shown in Table 6. As indicated for the Opening Year (2013) conditions, with a total of 300 dwelling units of condominium, 175 condominium units to be "for-rent" units, and a 185 room business hotel, the proposed project under Opening Year (2013) conditions generates approximately 3,632 daily trips with 277 AM peak hour trips and 315 PM peak hour trips. For the Long Term (2035) conditions, with a total of 450 dwelling units of condominium (300 dwelling units of 5 story condo plus 150 dwelling units of Cinema Tower), 175 condominium units to be "for- rent" units, and a 185 room business hotel, the proposed project under Long Range (2035) conditions generates approximately 4,227 daily trips with 326 AM peak hour trips and 370 PM peak hour trips. The proposed project trip generation calculations are presented in Appendix H of this report. Table 5 - Project Trip Generation Rates' ITE PEAK HOUR LAND USE QUANTITY2 AM PM CODE DAILY IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Condominium Project (5 story 230 300 DU 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.52 5.81 condo) Lake Towers (High-rise 222 175 DU 0.08 0.22 0.30 0.21 0.14 0.35 4.20 Apartment) Condominium Project (Cinema 232 150 DU 0.06 0.28 0.34 0.24 0.14 0.38 4.18 Tower) - 185 Occupied Business Hotel F 312 0.3T . 24 .58 .37 .25 .62 7 27 I Rooms . Note I: Source: ITE (Ins titute of Tran sportation Engineers) T rio Gen eration Ma nual- a Fdiri- ')W Pd - 1• Ell I . A-11I.... , t.. KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PLANNING & ENGINEERING 19 Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-151 Project Trips Table 6 - Proposed Overall Site Trip Generation Summary' PEAK HOUR ITE LAND USE QUANTITY2 AM PM CODE DAILY IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Opening Year (2013) Condominium Project (5 story 230 300 DU 3 21 111 132 105 51 156 1,743 condo) Lake Towers (High-rise 222 175 DU 14 39 53 37 25 61 735 Apartment) 185 Occupied Business Hotel 312 63 44 107 68 46 115 1,345 Rooms Subtotal 98 194 292 210 122 332 3,823 Internal Capture (5%) 5 10 15 11 6 17 191 Total 93 184 277 200 116 31S 3,632 Long Range (2035) Condominium Project (5 story 230 300 DU 3 21 111 132 105 51 156 1,743 condo) Lake Towers (High-rise 222 175 DU 14 39 53 37 25 61 735 Apartment) Condominium Project (Cinema 222 150 DU 9 42 51 36 21 57 627 Tower) 185 Occupied Business Hotel 312 63 44 107 68 46 115 1,345 Rooms Subtotal 107 236 343 246 143 389 4,450 Internal Capture (5%) 5 f 2 17 12 7 19 222 Total 102 224 326 234 136 370 4,227 Note I: Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, 8 Edition, 2008. Note 2: DU = dwelling units Note 3: Expanded from 276 du to 300 du in comparison with the Addendum to final Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02, March 2009. KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PLANNING S ENGINEERING 20 Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-152 Project Trips Project Trip Distribution Figure 8 through Figure I I illustrate the anticipated project inbound and outbound trip distribution pattern for the estimated opening year and long range conditions, extracted from the previous approved traffic study. These figures indicate the proportion of project traffic that will use the street segments and turning movements indicated. According to the previous report, the distribution was originally obtained from the OCTAM model select zone model run. The key difference between the opening year and long range distribution is that an Alton Avenue overpass is proposed at the SR-55 freeway with direct connections to the SR-55 HOV lanes. The HOV interchange was not implemented in project opening year but is to be included in the long range condition. The traffic which will utilize Alton Avenue and the HOV interchange in long range conditions was manually distributed to the parallel roadway - MacArthur Boulevard. The AM and PM peak hour project-only traffic volumes for the Opening Year (2013) are shown in Figure 12 while the AM and PM project-only traffic volumes under the Long Range (2035) Conditions are shown in Figure 13. Future traffic levels in the project vicinity are expected to be changed by the amounts shown on these figures. KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project ' PLANNING 8 ENGINEERING 21 Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-153 KOA CORPORATION City of Santa Ana Figure 8 PLANNING & CNG(NEMNC, Updated Main & MacArthur Development Project TIS OpeningYr.(2013) Project Trip Distribution, Inbound 75B-154 KOA CORPORATION City of Santa Ana Figure 9 ' NANNING s [,vG?NeeciN<; Updated Main & MacArthur Development Project TIS Opening Yr. (2013) Project Trip Distribution, Outbound 75B-155 ..?.nv?furcyw _riNre?y 75B-156 Pr KOA CORPORATION City of Santa Ana figure 10 PLANNING N [ NGrNC[awc Updated Main & MacArthur Development ProjectTIS Long Range (2035) Project Trip Distribution, Inbound 75B-157 PVKOA CORPORATION FCity of Santa Ana Figure I I PLANNING 8 CNGLNC CR W (' pdated Main & MacArthur Development Project TIS Long Range (2035) Project Trip Distribution Outbound 5/10 0/0 I 110/0 0/0? ?0 0/0 • 0/0 - - 0/0? ?6 - ' - 0/0l r6/3 9/6 Dyer Rd 0/0 0 0/0 I 18,18 ?. b Y N 0/0__J 117_/10 9/20 . 18/11 = 2/4? ?-0-1 0 0/0 4/21 r0/0 Alton Ave 0/0 110/0 0/0 ?Jjl? _ 0/0_J 0/0 0/0 . 0/0 - 13/28- 3 52 /112 Columbine Ave 35 / 221 F103/65 i ' 0/0 i i q IF MacArthur Blvd ' 3s"V? 0 3y rn ? b Sandpointe Ave ` 0/0 0 0/?1?/4 0, " 0/0-J t 4/2 Sunflower Ave 0/0 . 010 tj rr\\ ` 0/0--4 42/27 ? 7 ?' °"° 1 '1 \` 1 ' 0/0l 1 F21/46 1 O,° / ° °"O 6'71 0/0 1 'o 1 22/14 20„3 I 110,0 J 1 '3i 3y ?7 20 / 22? 0/0 0/0 . 0/0 0/0? 0/0 J (? X8'38 ^/ \°'o 0/01 r0/0 / 1 1 / 24 ' O" ° LEGEND N • Study Intersection Project Site . ? XX/XX AM/PM Volumes JA201GY60112e_sA winr+rrAre , TIS SI.&' -1-i.?Fit„Ryew I28 F-r?,.., Not to Scale FV KOA CORPORATION City of Santa Ana Figure 12 F1nNnlwc, a [ NG1rdLCFrJr.. 1 Updated Main & MacArthur Development Project TIS OpeningYr.(2013) Project Only AM/PM Pk.! rrVol. 75B-158 5/12 \ 0/O I1V 0/0__J t-0/0 0/0 -• *-- 0/0 0/0I ; 317 0/011 r/4 11/7 Dyer Rd \ 000, 0/ 0/0 ,/26 0 I 0/0? IL ? 25/15 10/23 -? 22/14 2/5? 0/0 ? 1r/a ZI 5/3 0/0 \ \ \ MacArthur Blvd II ?n b N S Alton Ave v a ro Columbine Ave i i N b ? _ / 6/14 \ 0/0_J t0/0 0/0 --? . 0/0 16/37 49/112 47/2911 x108/65 13/8 / )) E a ' ' B O -90 O- \SandpointeAve \ Sunflower Ave \ 1 I IF 11--? 9- -O / O °-O \ ° 10 0 O- / O- O O \ \ 0/0 \ 0/0 112/5 \ 0/0? 5/3 \ 0/0 -? . 0/0 \ 0/0? 2/31 1 1 0/Ol x23/54 0/0 I ' 27/16 \ 25/,5 I ? ?/U 11/26_11 t 0/0 0/0 -? 0/0 0/0? 0-10 0/011r/O 37i °- °-°/ ° O -O /O-° -vO a 9 4?0-!? -?l / O-O - R/ 0-0 ?Oi O-O / O O 7-??. 0 12/28 °-O °'° 79-33 LEGEND • N Study Intersection Project Site XX/XX AM/PM Volumes J120104.B03128 SA rwn raww- nsawyw,ah???wc?rcyeo3iie Flwn?.v - Not to Scale KOA CORPORATION City of Santa Ana Figure 13 ?IAfJN RJG 8 ENGW r [RAN Updated Main & MacArthur Development ProjectTIS Long Range (2035) Project OnlyAM/PM Pk. Hr.Vol. 75B-159 This section documents the analysis for Opening Year (2013) With Project conditions. Table 7 summarizes the result of the level of service analyses for this scenario. Figure 14 illustrates the Opening Year (2013) With Project AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes, which are generated by adding the Opening Year project only volumes to the Opening Year (2013) Without Project volumes. Appendix I contains the analysis worksheets for the Opening Year (2013) With Project conditions. Table 7 - AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Opening Year (2013) With Project Conditions Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS "E" ICU Method ICU/LOS ICU/LOS OK Main Street at Dyer Road 0.692 / B 0.840 / D Main Street at MacArthur Boulevard 0.688 / B 0.710 / C x Main Street at Sandpointe Avenue 0.328 / A 0.485 /A Main Street at Sunflower Avenue 0.415 / A 0.740 / C MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard 0.744 / C 0.707 / C X SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.734 / C 0.658 / B X SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.793 / C 0.669 / B Red Hill Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard 0.580 / A 0.819 / D x HCM Method Delay/LOS Delay/LOS SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 19.6 / B 18.1 / B x SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 20.4 / C 17.4 / B - -_r.y ?_...-....-... --....y .. ................... c... - ?...a - mac- v oe, Vice. As indicated on Table 7, all intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service for the Opening Year (2013) With Project conditions. KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PLANNING 8 ENGINEERING 28 Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-160 1098 / 641 \ 133 / 55 I 1237 / 112 -i 458/1 kRd 1 10 / 166 162/179 ' 0 / 1841 F1 86 / 284 501 / 1092 Dyer 762 / 474 \ 160 / 171 jl 1590 / 340 308/268 j 16_9/497 1389/637 405/1 204 / 737-4 180 / 228 \ 47 / 4201 1 F, 99 / 157 350 / 809 Alton Ave ? Coh \ 1 MacArthur Blvd rn a 2 ?n v i i ne Ave ? ' i / / / 32 / 32 \ 32 / 266 1201 / 541 107 / 84__J 631 / 179 1732 / 942 *-833 / 1 158/77 ? 38 / 328 97 / 20991 j x270 / 654 29 / 29 11 / / /q OS ?n 1 \SandpointeAve \ \ \ Sunflower Ave \ 1 1 1 ' 3q 839 `'!8 C83J /J03 \? ?` /?q8 !q0 B39 S? !JJ?. \ \ \ 888 / 607 \ 49/52 1165/45 \ 58/27 L/163 1 7/0 1/1 16/7 2/155 \ 1 2/151 191/117 1 \ 524 / 1471 a 3 6JJ00.? ?q?J,f j 3!?i iIr 690 Js /931 ?J3 Sfl?' 661 / 329 292 / 452 1 L l /5 /S ?-/I J9y 00, 6J3? 447 / 619 t 1511 2/0 1/1 542/510 J1 ?J?BJ? 181 / 8331 I F5/3 /OS/ 262/967 -f s?/g LEGEND rye S, N 11? • Study Intersection El Project Site ? XX/XX AMlPMVolumes l:uoi oyea3i ze_sA nrn wwdror ns smMun?j,wsur<yeoa i ie_Hr,rezv Not to Scale PF KOA CORPORATION I City of Santa Ana Figure 14 vlnNnwGSeNG1NeeFr?:, I Updated Main & MacArthur Development Project TIS OpeningYr.(2013)AM/PMwlProjectMHr.Vol. 75B-161 Opening Year (2013) With Project Conditions Queuing Analysis The proposed project will have two access points along Main Street and two access points along MacArthur Boulevard. The signalized intersection of MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard is the major access point, followed by the signalized intersection of Main Street at Sandpoint Avenue. A right- in and right-out driveway located along MacArthur Boulevard, between Main Street and MacArthur Place, will be another access point for the proposed project. The fourth access point will be a right-in and right-out driveway along Main Street, between Sandpointe Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. A queuing analysis was conducted for the northbound right-turn movement at the proposed project driveway along Main Street for the 2013 With Project conditions. Synchro software was used to conduct the analysis. The trip distribution was adjusted for this analysis. Since the proposed project will have three other access points, with majority of the project trips using the signalized intersection of MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard, it is assumed that 10% of the project trips will make a northbound right-turn from Main Street onto the project driveway and 10% of project trips will make a right-turn movement from the project driveway onto Main Street. No gate control is proposed at the project driveway. For the AM Peak Hour, there are 9 vehicles (approximately I vehicle every 6 minutes 40 seconds) making a northbound right-turn movement onto the project driveway. For the PM Peak Hour, there are 20 vehicles (approximately I vehicle every 3 minutes) making a right-turn movement at the project driveway in the PM Peak Hour. Based on the low project turning volumes at the project driveway and the Synchro queuing analysis, there will be no queue for the northbound right-turn movement, for both the AM and PM Peak Hour. Therefore, no queuing impact of this project is predicted along Main Street. See Appendix I for traffic volumes at the project driveway and queuing analysis worksheets. KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PLANNING & ENGiNEERiNG 30 Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-162 I8. Long Range (2035) With Project Conditions This section documents the Long Range (2035) traffic conditions with the addition of project-related traffic to the surrounding street system. The Long Range "With Project" traffic volumes were derived by adding the Long Range project trips to the Long Range (2035) background traffic volumes. Figure 15 illustrates the resulting long range peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project during the AM and PM peak hours. Table 8 summarizes the results of the level of service analysis for the Long Range "With Project" conditions. Appendix J contains the analysis worksheets for the Long Range (2035) "With Project" conditions. Table 8 - AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Long Range (2035) With Project Conditions Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS "E" ICU Method ICU/LOS ICU/LOS OK Main Street at Dyer Road 0.865 / D 0.894 / D Main Street at MacArthur Boulevard 0.731 / C 0.820 / D X Main Street at Sandpointe Avenue 0.350 / A 0.547 / A Main Street at Sunflower Avenue 0.689 / B 0.810 / D MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard 0.808 / D 0.794 / C X SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.792 / C 0.744 / C x SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.847 / D 0.710 / C Red Hill Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard 0.642 / B 0.840 / D x HCM Method Delay/LOS Delay/LOS SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 20.7 / C 18.3 / B X SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard N ICU = I 21.8 / C 18.2 / B Me. ntersection Capacity Ualizadon. Delay is in seconds/vehicle. LOS = Level of Service. As indicated, all study intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service for the 2035 With Project conditions. KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PIANNING & ENGINEERING 31 Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-163 1172/685 \ 142 / 58 I 1 1253 / 120 183/158 ?L8/117 890 / 809 - -622 / 1 1 318/242 256/203 190/3551 x207/386 537 / 1165 Dyer Rd 815/506 17111 82 I I 1633 / 370 J+I? 329/341 L8/535 -a 1413 / 679---b. 4-521 / 1708 235 / 124 233 / 243 7 j x2 Alton Ave 12 / 267 64/582 374/1084 d b ? \ 7 . a :, Jsx MacArthur Blvd 1 \ Sandpointe Ave E \ \ Sunflower Ave \ 1 I / 40 / 48 \ 34 / 2844 I 1215 / 578 114/901649/241 1968 / 1124 ? X889 / 1 171/90 749/393 \ 11312291 f x286/694 44 / 39 / .? 1 89? JSB? ?G 89 i \?/ 6S c JyO i Jp9 '99) Si. \ 10221 / 754 \ 53/55 I 76/49 \ \ \ 62 / 29 L26 / 175 8/0 -01 1/1 \ 18/8 J3/167 1 2 1 1 , 71 ?F205 / 130 I 560 1N 4O ,9 104 790 / 398 408/484 ?2/6 J 6J6 ?J epy? °93 477 / 664 t 17/1 3/0 +-- 3/1 asp\? 1343 / 832 2/3 /09T R\CCC\ 326/948 j F1/4 /ySO/ `S89'JJ? 320/1337 sy % LEGEND a?? 969 • N y8 Study Intersection Project Site . ? XXJXX AMIPMVolumes J:uOioye03138 _SA n.in f4cArNur TIS $aArWuysiNi'`u?e1JB0312B_n`ureui Not co Scale Pr KOA CORPORATION I City of Santa Ana Figure 15 PLANNING & ENGINEERING Updated Main & MacArthur Development ProjectTIS Long Range (2035)AM/PM w/Project Pk.Hr.Vol. 75B-164 Long Range (2035) With Project Conditions Queuing Analysis The proposed project will have two access points along Main Street and two access points along MacArthur Boulevard. The signalized intersection of MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard is the major access point, followed by the signalized intersection of Main Street at Sandpoint Avenue. A right- in and right-out driveway located along MacArthur Boulevard, between Main Street and MacArthur Place, will be another access point for the proposed project. The fourth access point will be a right-in and right-out driveway along Main Street, between Sandpointe Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. A queuing analysis was conducted for the northbound right-turn movement at the proposed project driveway along Main Street for the 2035 With Project conditions. Synchro software was used to conduct the analysis. The trip distribution was adjusted for this analysis. Since the proposed project will have three other access points, with majority of the project trips using the signalized intersection of MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard, it is assumed that 10% of the project trips will make a northbound right-turn from Main Street onto the project driveway and 10% of project trips will make a right-turn movement from the project driveway onto Main Street. No gate control is proposed at the project driveway. For the AM Peak Hour, there are 10 vehicles (approximately I vehicle every 10 minutes) making a northbound right-turn movement onto the project driveway. For the PM Peak Hour, there are 23 vehicles (approximately I vehicle every 2 minutes 37 seconds) making a right-turn movement at the project driveway in the PM Peak Hour. Based on the low project turning volumes at the project driveway and the Synchro queuing analysis, there will be no queue for the northbound right-turn movement, for both the AM and PM Peak Hour. Therefore, no queuing impact of this project is predicted along Main Street. See Appendix J for traffic volumes at the project driveway and queuing analysis worksheets. FV KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PLANNING & ENGINEERING 33 Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-165 9. Determination of Significant Impact i To analyze future conditions it is necessary to analyze the traffic impacts related to development of the project. The traffic impacts for the proposed project are determined by comparing the traffic conditions in the future without the project to comparable future conditions with the proposed project with special consideration at locations where level of service is not forecast to be adequate. It is also necessary to indicate whether any predicted traffic impacts are significant. Traffic impacts are identified as significant if the proposed project results in a significant change in traffic conditions on a roadway or intersection. The significant impact criteria provided below are based on all cities traffic study guidelines (City of Santa Ana, City of Costa Mesa, and City of Irvine). The thresholds to determine significant traffic impacts for purposes of this project are as follows: • A significant project impact occurs when the ICU value increases by greater than .01 and achieves unacceptable level of service ("E" or "F") or worse. Since no unsignalized intersection is included in the study area, discussion for the impact of the unsignalized intersections is not included. Table 9 shows the comparison of study intersections under Opening Year (2013) conditions. As indicated, the proposed project will not generate significant impact to the intersections within the study area. Table 10 shows the comparison of study intersections under Long Range (2035) conditions. As indicated, the proposed project will not generate significant impact to all intersections within the study area. E, KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PLANNING & ENGINEERING 34 Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-166 Table 9 - Determinations of Traffic Impacts (Opening Year (2013) Conditions) AM Peak Period PM Peak Period Signalized Intersections 2013 NP ICU/LOS 2013 WP ICU/LOS Increase ICU Impact 2013 NP ICU/LOS 2013 WP ICU/LOS Increase ICU Impact Main Street at Dyer Road 0.687 ! B 0.692 / B .005 NO 0.839 / D 0.840 / D .001 NO Main Street at MacArthur Boulevard 0.684 / B 0.688 / B .004 NO 0.698 / B 0.710 / C .012 NO Main Street at Sandpointe Avenue 0.308 / A 0.328 / A .020 NO 0.481 / A 0.485 / A .004 NO Main Street at Sunflower Avenue 0.405 / A 0.415 / A .010 NO 0.725 / C 0.740 / C .015 NO MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard 0.706 / C 0.744 / C .038 NO 0.694 If B 0.7071 C .013 NO SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.714 / C 0.734 / C 020 NO 0.634 If 8 0.6581 B .024 NO SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.778 / C 0.793 / C .015 NO 0.651 / B 0.669 / B .018 NO Red Hill Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard 0.574 / A 0.580 / A .006 NO 0.813 / D 0.819 / D .006 NO Signalized Intersection HCM Method Delay/LOS Delay/LOS Delay Impact Delay/LO Delay/LOS Delay Impact SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 19.3 / B 19.6 / B 0.3 NO 17.4 / B 18.1 If B 0.7 NO SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 20.1 / C 20.4 / C 0.3 NO 16.9 / B 17.4 / B 0.5 NO Note: ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization. Delay is in seconds. LOS = Level of Service. Table 10 - Determinations of Traffic Impacts (Long Range (2035) Conditions) AM Peak Period PM Peak Period Signalized Intersections 2035 NP ICU/LOS 2035 WP ICU/LOS Increase ICU Impact 2035 NP ICU/LOS 2035 WP ICU/LOS Increase ICU Impact Main Street at Dyer Road 0.862 ! D 0.865 / D 0.003 NO 0.8921 D 0.894 / D 0.002 NO Main Street at MacArthur Boulevard 0.725 / C 0.731 / C 0.006 NO 0.809 / D 0.820 / D 0.011 NO Main Street at Sandpointe Avenue 0.322 / A 0.350 / A 0.028 NO 0.542 / A 0.547 / A 0.005 NO Main Street at Sunflower Avenue 0.673 ! B 0.689 / B 0.016 NO 0.793 / C 0.810 / D 0.017 NO MacArthur Place at MacArthur Boulevard 0.763 / C 0.808 / D 0.045 NO 0.776 IF C 0.794 / C 0.018 NO SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.771 / C 0.792 / C 0.021 NO 0.719 / B 0.744 / C 0.025 NO SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 0.833 / D 0.847! D 0.014 NO 0.691 If B 0.710 / C 0.019 NO Red Hill Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard 0.636 / B 0.642/8 0.006 NO 0.835 / D 0.840 / D 0.005 NO Signalized Intersection HCM Method Delay/LO Delay/LO Delay Impact Delay/LO Delay/LO Delay Impact SR-55 SB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 20.3 / C 20.7 / C 0.4 NO 17.5 / B 18.3 / B 0.8 NO SR-55 NB Ramps at MacArthur Boulevard 21.4 / C 21.8 / C 0.4 NO 17.6 / B 18.2/9 0.6 NO voce: i%..v = intersection Capacity Utilization. Delay is in seconds. LUb = Level of Service. PF KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PLANNING & ENGINEERING 35 Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-167 10. Conclusions CAA Planning, Inc. has requested a traffic impact study for the proposed Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project. An Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 200402, MacArthur Place South, was conducted in March 2009 by CAA Planning. At the time the study was conducted the site was to include 775 condominium units (including a 276-unit condominium building) and a business hotel. The developer has recently updated the site plan and proposed to increase the residential density of the condominium project (5 story condominium building) from 276 to 300 condominium units. Per the initial scoping process with the City of Santa Ana, eight critical intersections have been analyzed for the Opening Year (2013) conditions and Long Range (2035) conditions. In all scenarios analyzed, the study found that the proposed project would have no significant impact at any study intersection. KOA Corporation recommends that the City of Santa Ana find the Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project will not generate additional significant impact to the study intersections and therefore will not generate adverse effect on the surrounding street system. KOA CORPORATION Updated Main and MacArthur Development Project PLANNING & ENGINEERING 36 Traffic Impact Study in City of Santa Ana 75B-168 O 0. Q U to L O V cu Q. 4-+ E c O L W U. E ca L. CL O CL O ca O O O O O ca CD PE r a N L ? (n c U oU UV o co N (D 0 0 N c EXHIBIT 7-SBul69 c a? E 0 v ar a oc E v c c rn a E- i a cis E i a cis E co ZF) cc °1 0 0 a co 0 a ? Q c O > > r n i a c0 m ane ? as ?? co ` C i a a a i a N q N m N L O ? ?j O 'C O c O C O CL a U a U a U a U c o a .. n n n a m 75 a°i -aoi -aoi m a°i M E c d a>i a a>> a a>i a d a > -°o > v °o. ?i : 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a a a a 0 c 0 0 0? o o ° (D co Q) 4) E c cc n ca cn cts cc F - Via? a ? c $ c ° °c' o c o to LE a a? a-a aU Q a.n CL 00 E E E o E o v E n n a m y m O Qa Co CI c c0 n rn c c Q a co r a? c m m m U O m U co ¢ cc OC o_C a N 0 o p o LLI O w In d 0 L a N Q) a1 U O- L O 2' 5 CD a -i N CL c N 0) u) O aS c_... E c O y C O _a>ao _ • V a) N Z a .--. ? O ca a .C n N C ZF ? . O ? N 41 a U C Fi ?rn- nc?n a) wa a c°ccu , - d 2 j C n°o22 `nc`dc w 'L d °i a) rn d e0 - c i` c .N o a? = c t o ,f L- "-' a co 'pC to `o c i U co U C v) to O p? v? N "Lco c C n O Q L ° o ?j c°n o Z5 ?3cc ca?aci°? G I -a -c ? _?p tnc Em 4)8 ?nQap?a ° t?_rnQ -n E .y r + •• U o Ca_ c 0 E t nrnt a`? 7 a) c,2 a c'c o? co - ? c t o n a o O c t a " ° ?'c o c cc 2 c - co 0 n N o e a°v"co rn _ o a c4°`<?fl va°i a i ° a-Loa -0 ?a i ito a a f t" :g m a mo a - `°Q m U o? ?? viia M a) 0 E j= co -ca En =a) LL w - CD a E c rn N u) 53 O w -C C U M ° a t cct, ccl n c _ _ o y N 2i E O m c°i t c m U - Q a) [ 6 a O 2 v O a) . C a t 3 c H "U c a V O aCl _? C .L...-• `? a) O '° °c a tV a7 a?n o _ (1) a c m (n Q °1 cu Q.. L 4G o 4) O a) j es U d c a? o a ) O c E O "p 0 p e o p _ 7 N 7 ,Q n« O ° aC co L 7 _ c y as N a "ia a ?- oao o° o 0 3 'a c c c° ?o o m? 2L aD > ?o co c Si) c 0 y.o cN 5 N o' cp n a? g a? m ° r o N rn. o rn rn ° cy a cc-cam a> $ ° x , ? a m _o a S $ ?c Q n 2 a) o o o $ a`? E c co (D ° c? ?n o o va :3 - 3C L 7 0? d a - (' d E O c L a) C a ? cD 4 C a>j cti cis L _ rn j O O Q O C ` = 0 o m ui a c a _ °° D o o U O a a4-- E n a c n o o (A a s a a a Q ¢ N ' a M G N O a- 0 O. a L_ C f0 7 O N N 0 C C a ° t 0° 'Z N Q co N C 75te -T?b H C a/ E E 0 v ? w to n o E 0 V am c g?o ca a co ¢cc aa a :e 0 C C c q co a) > on (q CU cc fn m c a O o o -c 0- C) u C3- a c O a ;? a n a w ° CD > o v 06 E d d y N O ` O O w a a a a o o c ? . c o CI C c m . m F y N U C n a p O O d _0 ca O L S O C ' a00 (2-- p a o ? v E do n a Q `i 0 c co >, n m Q U n m m d t [L ¢ cC o w w w U) o 0 0 d a) C V O r p O C m C L m L ?j a) d O ?=7 d O tS 'O N C p) r .a C O 7 N N O C co w CD C CO p •w C O N F' O` y m co S° T N m 'O d 7 C aI co C? C > va-D?n? C co N Q) n.c 0 0>o iri C C N (D C v?cinm v>>tc Ua`?cm c 10 E4) m s p a) O O E C ca O E V d 0 N M O O mt a? O v? E ol _ a> c€ 3c ° ??, m O a) G Y • o a NyE ° m r Z o L L- -0 N - m O] h m a1 E 0 cu - U O (D E O E Q C- a) Lo a) a) v NO) a) O m O '0 O C t > L ?m'?jc L 0 n b c c ?? ip C ^ a) _m C O y > 3o cnc °LL n3 o0$ `a o > m a N o _ a? CD a) m U o w - ? a te w dS ° p O oc :> m m m e (D •°c c? = g 7 c-° 2 c vi d c- a . a (D 2 ? o v> E a*- o ?` c c U o w .0) a= d c e co °'m•c ,co 2- C5 - ? a ) m p° o ` °0 E H° o c c¢ °Lm. o d E v a? ° 3 o•v Q E N c 0 v c? S o o 8 o n t Z a) C', 0) 0 $ CA ° d r rn> . CL:g LL- O N t O N O > W ° O p j 0 ' ) E O ° ' n O to fn L ° T N :r W a> cca v aci C °$ co o aa) cxs -0 o CI m(D co 1 a) o cc 460 cc E 3 ILI 'C O co F- C U, m N-= O (A 2 W d -? Q N C m S N •C N c>V N O` as r, ca O c 3 a? 7 a> 3 rn O l •y p -'pQ a) Q ' c a? a> to C O C O m -m Z a T m c a c Q o Ei a? m FA O) °? a) Fn m tE t CM m O O O >. N n C1 C ? E O m Q E N' d m C co ° y ca 0 ? . N m n x oy o r-. A E C . • ° m a? 0 o 2? (D E > °o $ c? o - d 3 c o ?? :s 0 ° ???2. z C a? 6,a'0, N o = C x ??aw .?- o . > N a) is u) •G E co M f!) _ U) cx 1? FL c+i q c r a a Q c¢7 v O a` 01 C O Q N c N C O X- :3 O U) N U c0 d L a U N c O O ? O N ?I O ?3 ISMi 71 Y d E C E O U W CL O E O U RM S a co c ai o Q o 0 c 0 > > 02 v v CL - to O '9 '9 w 2 O U a 4. c c o a a Q a d o o > 0 > 0 > _ v c nE d v ?w o 0 0 a a (L 0 0 e ( > E oo c t E- c F-- O O N O 0 0 o U "O 0 o as rn3 0) v •? gas c c c rn -o d E O d .E c n . CL .ts na CL rn c rn c ` Q '° v 0 E C7 co U n O Cl) W 0 w 0 W 0 as as o E c o 3 ° a m co `O c rno d Eve a c .N c- o G c ti io -was- > E c 0a i 0 o > E co o 15 - cu c d? 0 E d) d a) 0) 'cz c LD C H a) a) o co 0 %i U c n - Y > Y 0 c's N - H - d C U Q cC d C C a) O cc -0 (l? U ro p \° ?i Of 0 ?'S C y a) -D, 'D c'cc -0 co u ?cco m 0 5 8A o a? m ? E o E _ $ E E co c (D as o (D cd (D 3 o m$ n 0 E a` Q .0 (D a) .0 1-- N H H° E c9i C E t'i U c rn m 'cc 7 7 7 7- co C v co ca c X ` c o E 0 C c4 '? v cs 2 U 0 C in n vi co C L cif O cn 3 cv m a > a i ci 0 cn sZ 0 L Q N 4) (o 211 O 01 C cA d cn .L-. O] E d1 N V7 O 3 c n N -? O co 0 E V C ftl Q as 0 co •- a) tJ c c 0 ; c a co a i co 0 a > 'rn $3 w- as m m o c > - a) E t a c w 0 y 4D Y E cis = i c ny cn OO : C o a) cD d 'n t) ? L O L C co ! m 0 ? '..' ? O C ? E C ?. G) O U t O I co co - 3 p c cn Sc co C - - N 0 pa cg 3 .S n > 3 ED OL C7 _ 2 o c a (1) can is o n t o> o r=cu(1) (1) a oUC c 2 a 0 a) O ca as c t'j aci 2 N h N U rLi? L d W 8 E * p H F- as as - v cn rn O 70 C V? cc r 0 w0 iC d d O y C E n . dS p c ? ? ? ? v E ? N c rn • O rn v n` ad c o C ca 0 c` 0 > L a) as .C E as ao co 5) 0 as Sa cV C?J O U Q LO C N a1 O a` O) c_ O a O c c0 Q1 c O .c 7 O N a 7 t Q co 2 c O 2? O O - O N co N - c P?91§16172 f/1 C al E E U m a? a n D E 0 U TT L ? CL CL ai o Q C: o CL 0 0 n_ 'c co 0 o c cc a>> a>> a > > a> ffi `o w o a? a? a> p? o 0 0 6 U a a ? d c 2 ` cc m a o E 0 `m CL CX. CL 0 ar 0 0 0 d C > > > M c o 8 rn a) v a) o w -o 0 'o n E a?i 9 - o o •o i 0 cr Q a a a d 0 0 0 0 CD C n • . a. C C c C =3 E c ? C =3 F CY) w d MA y a C c` cn a) O_ C" O O O O •O O D ate' 3 a`a a n ca a co ai .. € 0 E n Q n 0_ n Q a CL C;) CD c CY) a o c7 m' m C7 C7 m ac rx ¢ !19 Lr o 0 0 0 0 ° a?ci c m U O C M a?i ?p > a) E m o ' U is d . c Q t= a) O L a) • :C C fn 8 d >O w LS. O N 4 °a > (D _ O O U 06 LL C .-. 8 o c ° O o a? a> > d ?' o ' d u; ay vi V °o c3v c > a a> c a) n 3 y ` io ?a o rn ° y O H O O a7 C7 0 E O •O U m. 'E y, y C d a) N U o r c. p .L a) 7 a) ? O •V L 07 C v? o a Q N N d d y O d h c EEC a O _ N a) O n a> v? L a) > 0 i1 cUU rn N O) C L c m rn E EL° c cC C,- c a m c ?j c d N .t. c Z o Z 0 7 C, 0 'o G1 C o? d =o c . c N 'O O Q C p -0 c/1 O cOA 55..?? 8 W o Ag -. -8 C -- ? fl' -p a N ' ` C3 -E ? 9 U`d ? L ° N c E a)C7 o E 0 > CIL cn o Q j rn E s- -`a mi m x m ° rn > n n is m r n ° c (a U o o `d L U) a c N E a 0 rnor n? n c n rn°,c o °o rn ?°a E a> m° cu -? 8? a, E a) .E- _ y o ° = obi ° ° Cd 2 A-- w w a' ? ' o t E nY o ° N Co iu y . n o c N a i rn o G a ° o i fl -0 o c a C t a . _o 0) v° E o y m vi a O 7 L O 7 o _ v a? o y d Z C -O s in o c 3 o -cs n O) co c c0 H 78 °T o m d .?. O cc CO vl - C o t?r,o n =8 o a) o m > y a? _ a> c L C -7; m o E 'o 4a) c o o o rn a 3 co c cu5 n o ? cca ? E t c o a •.?°- n ? y a? ° c` - N L 'Q C H 2 cC C C N M H 51s p ) C . N N 8 a) H +A i.. C 8 C ?-C a) ~ ?1 m L > H c i t d co A O a) _ N d 7 N y a) `8 E _ "' a) C d ? - N C L 41 C a) E rn v ?c °• N .C y 0 0 '0 0 ca C C cc (u ° t O C C C O p E d 7 O y o 0- 'pp : j O d ? oo E- N T ? O '0 O c7 N O U y o v v rn 3 'c i O N N •C ... d 7 d d E° E N a) U a: N L d o u c p > 8 y d cu co O C) d a O n o n ce I -o Fn C7 in n O CD C'3 7 C7 C14 c7 C7 CJ U-i C7 O 0) O d N .O C ca m C O L_ 7 O U c0 a 7 co v r_ cO C? 0 O N CD N '= c ?? :3 ?592173 d E E 0 v a? m A n o E 0 U a c y co m co d $ o ¢ o a •- C > co ? a, > CKS c/1 0 a) o C a) 10 C C 0 O N O O O O j j O a U a U U c ?° .. a a 0 0 0 a? a a? > a? > a? > a> > a? > `? d c -a d 'a -o O Q) 'o () v a) v n E a 'o 0 ` 0 0 0 a° a a _ a a a 0 0 0 0:? o m a) cn e (D c (D c co Cc: c 0 c c_ ca € im W E co co .- co € E `- , a? v Q to a? fn Q y a> fA Q _fA U) a) N Q O O O c? O U T O tm °- c co m c 12 a o Q cm a a? a U a a. 0) N -tt € a n aL c? E W C CL n a _ KM o w a v - ? = 8 w m 0 C7 (D U O Z cc w cr w C w cr ir 0 0 0 w 0 w 0 C ' o > O C ca (D y to -0 O C ?I c° a i '> O Y v a > n a>i o 3 c c " ' c a E P a> i oa> - 0? S o 2 0 ycco 2 0. 5 OU = ha. Z5 -?o;p 0 O . T W CM Ca ' 1 D E -0 ? mod{ Q O L Q 3 d C lb L C L `• O .C 75 U .C V C C O cc d al N °? o o ••' lC m- 0 L C w O' d° o fl 3 n L in U c y c n („) ?--• y C CD Q Q a? m° Q c •y a> m r c U Q yL--. a) O° V O C° O 7 p p L--, ° c) y $ OL-• c td a' rL - 0 +L. N O '? y N O ?a '`c?0 a) -+' -O L 000 C " 7c U U •-- V j c O €c° ' ci d co 0 D? o `a E w a O m y cn O"? L oQ 7a? o, a aE ?U C C O-0 o, n° c5 i r+ ? O a)ca V Ma? 0 U o a)U h L U a1 - N L]. C •00 N C O N 2 (' O n 7 8_ _y - d E C n CM O io 3 a°) 0c D7 J N C O O C m rn ca c a co io a>i ` `O O (M ? Q a) $ N a. j N f ? y? c .- 2 cr a? p aL act0-? j ai °O •°c ts:f:- 15 .8 WO) C% is .?cc O o U t.° acid a) 0 o rno:rl :+ co O O c c O C a) a1 0 ,m E 3: Ij ? cd a) Off' 8 O ` p Q? c E N C o O Q E a? d a iL o U o (> E_ ? ? o_ ° O 7 o Q - a) a' a) co : c- o - 0 aD m O nt a) CD cn a) L m a) o ? N C t= Q1 O C N ` "•' C d io O cu y C d g N Q d cO C C ` aD C> N O •Q •'?" C O c . tC E U ?a? ccn -0 cn C O ?c ?Ea> CO ca 4) p ,-. ? •p > a) >a)c ?°_ C to N . ?ccna) co o O b y C ? N Q O ,C m 0 o O _ C O d O y N j -y is `O a C at$ Fii O O U O= d O d vi O N w N O c n a > C a) cEO r 's cn Z5 Z5 :F -0 -a 16 a = Q co O L C O p p 0. a7 N C = _ m cq -5 '? a) c L C C Q > Q ) a O in m N C O Q O Cn C C Q: as ns E O Q a o (c} •O 0 Q w nY co d Z N Co r 06 Co N C7 (7 C7 = 2 = r- M 0) 0 a C_ O a U C t9 C 0 W U a 0 ca C 0 2LO C O O p N CD d L.. C Y5'11 "Y74 N E E 0 U w m m n c E 0 U 2 P ? s a 01 p 0 co U p 0 co U ° U c a) a i _ Y c c$ c$ a a -ia a o ¢ o co C5 -2 ?? (D v 7? N O c n c a) a) ca N C U) CL - N CD O° c O° (D O C d am ?NN C C ° ° ' C N oC E c's - U W c U W c d U W CL Tc L d 0 CIS c c ca a n n n d E E oo o > 0 > 0 > 0 0 ? N U a) a) a) > a) a) N C ? ? a a a a a g CL E E '9 N N N O N d O O O O O Cc co a- CL 0 0 a) 0 CD E > U N o 0) c` p 0 ? C 0 C 7 d C co d a) U 7 C .1-f 7 E a) ca d C E ~ n T U C c? C y 0 N C O U O .? N Z5 N n CD G O . C ! U '? d O _ p O p O C a) O O) C e C cs) CD cn Z5 ?j CF O O d a d a d d O) C) '? U V G U N U Q Q C w C36 C co - C D7 ( Q o o € j a) U UO a) n a) n a) UO (7 c0 C7 d p m m m W C w O w CI Cl W Ct w O W CI U W O 2- AL - O - a) O a) d, C° cC d U) c rn 700 2 °-d Z ? C E c= O °-ccc o g° '-? r° -OIL'-- E ID CD c o o -° C, to ° 7 E c U E a' 2 0 c acid c0 U) 0_ a 4) -0 a) +L N p i; y c U ~ O_ y a) n•- N E co -0 0 0 8 N C? N E CL E , 0 $ a) a) rn- 32 c c6 N y nY • C p .C Z a) 7 C wt„ L d -p ca q a) 7 0 N :C a p to 'O ? :j:- cc d Q- ,Q) a C C n •- J 1O j ' C C E ?. N •C) € cl) -p N N D_ to •C C ?C , m C C {? cC m fV d -_ CDC c0 E iO O cC N E d N E ° . - n? 0a 3 E H N C C (n °v d C CL ) C)-) 3 N m c a) a) 0 a v °i c + c c6 c a) E a g a N m 7 ' ; n y o o S a 06 o` U c `a n L3: . `m U cn a N N n 0 ` 7 m n ° v c o Q E cg m N C Z5 N 5 O O N E c? a) N .D W C N tO E _ d n 2 CI C O) a) a d V c E (D e ( ca O fT7 w at? N ???fftt N tj c- 0) (n f6 d a) _C 0 Q N O) = p D .0 cm a N Co co c? N O N _ V N •0 C Z O N a c0 a a) _ (D 3: c' n 2 N C) U (O i C O cu ?' in vi L O U) ° c ° q? N° a) c ° Q1 ?. O N U O cu c o 0 a U a) a) L p? c o ~ a c N ty D •_'r N N 0- •3 1)U o O) E 2 a) c Co i a c v c Z -° N 0 c i y °c o a) CU 2 c i c a) N aNi ?" a) ° m o W z v) o a a) N Y E n S5 C O. cxs t7) p N r N Q / =3 2 s N n N r == N N? N Q W V n U) Q) Z d: a) m U 0 a) d ° 0 , c N yr.J . O a n v V (D N N a) F- y d a) 41 = C C O m c co a) ? co O a) CZ ? C N E n a7 N O cn C, CL CL 2 OL.. N w 0 .?- ? o O d N o C C d Q cu - $ N p Cn m "O N ) C d O> C_ N E ' o c 0 7 C N c t 7f _• O> E c cn a) v O n C m E C 'c m O 'C O_ an d c n m d a a) m a) n m a? i da E a) a) da Ea V a) o dam E:fs 0 ca o d iS omzzU) o 7 CI ...ZE'US C a ? CV cli 2 2 = = 2 m 2 m N rn O Ol C_ O O_ Q? 'O co co 0) C 0 O N U lp a 7 Q U f0 C O 2Lo O O 0 m N 0)C J :3 16 Pfeb-175 CD E E V m ? o n G E 0 V rn CU w c CL - cu W CO L> CIS ctj co CIS d 0 Q C Q 0 Q a a V C° cco m c 0 a? c cci ai cc o m U cco o so U oc ' o? ? o ' U 0 0 U o, oa 0LL1 a. U0? U d CJ U Um O Off. °? ac? CL n n Cl. y c a? o 0 0 a) 0 a) 0 CD 0 m 0 m 0 a) 0 a) °) M (D ) 4 is -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cc a a. a a a a a ? o E 0 0 0 0 0 0 U c 0 CL ct% C o T U to C != U O C' U C. 9 Q fq C U cq C U N C- C CU CL `p_ O) CO 0 ? co E co E N E ca n CD (D n en n LO n Ln n se n H CL O C O OCIO O O O O C O C C C 0 O co ` O q , . ` O O O O a m 0 8 a rn a A d rn a m O_ rn a E € E E E .E E U E R a a _ R a . n a 0) C cl) 0) C7 C cm rn Q CIS N C7 C7 0 CO (5 C7 C7 m d 2 D cr aC 0= Cc 0= o= ¢ p W LU W LL! W W W W O .L > N -O O C C O N L N C F- - 0- L U N d 9 O O N a> -°- 7 a) cn 'O O c O 4 .0 E O E [a D1 U W CO d Y O fa O) O U CO ) O `O a) (A , O :C 7 a co > 9 O 7 N C y p C O () ?' O O a) CO a) t d >' o a) a) O -? -u Cc -0 ca cm 0 0 o L 0) nd $ o Ya nY - n y n'o . p ad °L o co E m fl d cm c c °= v L ?? n ?c0n W ?C'lio0 ¢? 'N C CD D of 03 '05 cL :E:- n.? O o°°cm d) O ?j N Q ) -0 O/ E Z5 O LL C as a) C E Q O C a M" y a- -.?- UJ 3 O a) c L Q ) O C € m -r C to c OL a) 0 .'?. 15 n c` O w rVf-. ° O O c € ? E E " " y N Q ` c > n rn o n,cn.a - o a> ca c w o cm :S c? c d y cm a d ui rn Ti c cri 5 2 o a' v rn CIS 0 ? z a a c a? vi N ca n a y e cin caw o c rna? ?LL o? 3a ? = U ° c o rna c rn-? o ? o' d otc -o co.?a cim in 0 a °? rnm?n a m aso mio ..co°o c 0 a c°° -EoL o p U d a? ~ 0 a`? ° - co a> E U 'tn c 0 ° o is •Z. L co o? m n m o o Z- . p o - °- n > u m a? oc c° $ C ) :ts y 0 nom, 0 L U Ol '? a) T.? d- C n ? ? ? a) N a n ? N y U C 7 - ? T a) O cn ' ca n 7 - c fcz > p 7 O =3 $ co a: N U E N -O U U N E U T C's a) 'O cad n w a) a) O r' • ' CO a y OC 0 c (? C O C ` C CO >. C .Q KS as N C O 5 Q 'n _n as 0 C O se [a n- ` Cn U cn ? j (a N 0 . O y C> L ` •O .L..' a) fC O CO n c OR y •L.+ N O O _ w 0 .L... (D 0 L as N x a) y co N O 2 = O V) y y V)j c d L $ycnE0` O N O/.'rS rnoE C N n oona n CL c5 O' 0 C Cl) 00 a) Docw3w E N ID N O a p) o H CJ oLU N ofcdis O 01 OJ a) - C .o >,.G C OC°d'a)cc 0 p. ° E . . ca C O> a c 9 $ O> c°? O> ' a o?m c O a) o O app > O a L a a CL o > co ca c) E d v E . ca a v c? a a v i3 v iri co ri ao CD 7 ;z 2 S 2 = 2 S S 2 0) rn O 0- 0) C O CL N c ca QJ C _I_- :3 O co d) U N (L 7 L O C 0 ?U) O O O CD N N ..O) N c c Page 8 of 16 75B-176 c a) E E 0 v ? d a n o r= rn a E °) ° 0 0 0 0 C O d a) a) N a a a a n E'i VS 15 ') W a) Q7 O O O O a a a a c a 3 n a n n 4) d N d -aa) w a ° a n E ° 2- i o 0 0 0 or ° a` a a a 0 0 e W a) V) m cc E cc E a =o cy Q ca d - _0 C O? O O 2 O Q O O U O U .a =3 ? € E Y eE ?i) n o a) 0 c a cm CP) c cc?cc ?n CL a c m U U ca O O a) E a Ir a p?p O O <A O O aai - N O N fn N -C a) C N o N `? N 'J a C'A c N .p m rn a c! n o C A N N C cU0 = c`n p a) nY Z :? C p 1n d N (` K C Y C a tnn oC _C R O '$ ?O C ?` 7 C p C ?C U ?C N ca Q C a O - p p p p d 0 CD C N y o) t CA N m toad CA ` Eorn°oc nT mNV ? : a a f n?`? ad d CD .0_ R O a) N N N a) N .? U C d >` a) > E 0 N a E .O o O [O «- N a) U C ° a a) a co C V C_ co m a N C co 2:, d C o N a L C Q) n S] d d 0 0 CD N r R7 U C O E 3 -°p cO E N 0 a LU a (? N C FL N d p?7 U N L n Q? C N N C . a s ID `n v n C -0 0 C : z -a E A 8 c: to R ? • y c (n o t a) ?° L C °)o C OI ` U c :a nY ° a c c o c a? a -0,-- o o m c I- t° c a ? cn 3 0 _ 3 n ° o a° - N > v a) o N o a`? o 0 > m ? U N a) c a) N t- co c ?-° C v d 7 N V) 23 O Q 0 - cc cc m a a) cc 0- a) a p ? fi n C _a _N 0 Cc - . - a y rn a o o cC 8, cis 8 (D 3 8 L n a y m vin cis m o m VS c o a ? U N 0 N Q o 4) rn? ? Tv c n a a ) ca 0 . rn?i?: o o f ca c'13 O d ca r n d -° =O °) U • a) in cCU _ N p a) 7 a N (? C-o `C •C ,+?_ '- N :a L ai ?. a o N c N ED Q C C 'O ai C In U y N a) U =3 o cu c rn a) co co O y - 3 a a m c`n . = h p c Z v y y no?? 0 c +p ° c?? °Z aTm c 8 3E of 'c?oc=a) ai c a y U .c N W o a E iaa`> ° oo v ? O o?'ca 8 n c o y o- a r n a) n cc n) m o`_ gmcarpiL? a °) c u $ `o ° 3a U Q c IL a ) ? Q-) a co o a a :° ° CL 0 co (n (1x) co ? d1 y N CM V J Z Z Z Z Z 0 C 12 rn O a` rn C O CL O C cu rn C L O O co U N a s O C O ?LO O° 0 N C?u N '- C V N 6 7-5 -177 N _C N E E 0 v a> a) 2v a o E 0 v CL co a`> as B Cl- 0 CL Q? 0 CL 0 ¢ o = C m ° a) (D a) CD a) = a) > 2 C - o _0 to -o CL - ' o a) GC o 0 0 0 o c o d a a d n n n a _d d ° o > 0 > 0 > o > O > O > N N w U O °o E S-- 2 O O O 'O 'O a a a a a_ 0- (b n c c o o O! C) O :C O 2 U O = E U o E ' E 2 E 2 c > v ?:. O 'O h a N U CIO y O n N C a C O CO U O C 8 [71 C YO S.N+ O O O U c d 0,0 ` m 0 O a C Q O a c o a D CD E E E E .E_ E 0i € c n n Q Q 0 a c a AM tM cm a a T ? v V m 0 0 U 0 0 d CE m 9 'N Li w O w w 0 w 0 w 0 C +?.. ca o) > E C/ Q) C '_ N O 7 N N >,Q t0 _ () O C O Cn A? d C Y E a) ? L CO ' C E N Q N N c U N O N co a) Z C L O O O ZS a O fd O O [O 76 !0 Q) ?O O E U N c L U co N 'o Vj O /0 AO CO a) {U .0 U a O E 9 o> 2 U O N? 0 2° _ L O >O a) N 0 O cc C a) CD > L = O E > (Cf N N Y O d C N 1 C Q q 'p E a 4) c` ? - O a N? a= 8 co `V N - 0 c c N C o? c o o ? O C ?i cD 2 c Q) - a) O O> 'm a=i2Zrnn?? c L... 'U s 0° d No a) d a) a) =- N 0 i N tO N ns Q t0 O COO c a)Ea aa)s n?co o a- U N O 2 d 0) o ? - C-3 -0 0 N .S y cc, n O E a) N > t N C ?J C a= O Z5 C a) "O v ?i n? O U Q e G L t N N L Y R) E 1 0, a) ? E a) O t 7 C a) "" p) O U O 'L..' c 6 T-0 U ca C CNO .-, E 2 N 0 0 0 a p O C O U P Cb C - m C O ?_ " m U 0 CT E (? L C C W CT p T 1- 0 • U O p- p- O? N t0 j Cp O () /?1 C U C N N •? cc E a y 0 j C :3 O O O OC O? r a) O n co a N° N p N 7 N S-- C U C) E C N a cc a 3 H N tLn °' L U in to N • H m 2 O 08 0 Ci a' 7C) Q) O •? E- N C w ? 8 N >> V L Z` O "C C H C ti O N 2 a) _ i0 D 2 w N c0 O m w a O 0) LE = v 0 U O to p O - p E N 0 C O Z L O O ) CO N d O N CM _ Ei w co C 'C a C O^ ^ "O A N= >? C c0 Oa U y j T ?N+ c` E -0 C C a o (j m 0 C c° Cc y y d 7 H O 76 cccOcSMv?i??? o ?z?L? °)o 0 C)- c:,- ` 00s> o 0 ° co °w2 QQ c 0 0 c C C _ N O O O Q) N cc .0+ 2 UN p) N N 7 L p m~ co C •0 _ p C ? L C CO .?- N fn U co ??... N C c0 'Q 7 a n. in a 0 8 ui tD ^ z Qj 0 ? z z z z z C O a C_ 0 a Nm LL C co co C 0 L 7 0 U N a 7 Q U cc c O C O Op M N ? N c 2 ???78 N C d E 0 v o d m n o E 0 v c cm CL c ` ° LL M ca d o o m a QE a = c o m y rn C `? an d Y s c o? a CO U E c?1p CL Ea OC ° 4?, c m o a U co 00 Ua o co d 1O n n d a y? 0 0 0 0 Z y N a>i - m m m n E 0 a a N U N ? O O O O Q a a a a C6 Cc -0 O N O 0 nc co U a) € a) U ? U C_ • O. C f6 d _ NC ca E N C O c° co co t Q 2 °i o rn O a c$ ° d c ' o° o a ? a rn _ .n r E o E € E CL cm co n n 0) CL a 3 c ; Q : r U v _ o c3 U 0 m C7 a[ aC m ¢ ? ? w o w 0 0 0 ° ° ° c $ c m $ I 2 ? - is -f; o Q-) h co L° a cu L ca ° o 2 c c E c )6 ° ° 3 n ° m I . cc - Ca- 9 ai $ C - Q ?I 3.ia c a m °- > c o p'U 0 O_ «-. N' i D > co 0.2 d N D o c p -y O_ 0 d y . o cu '3 N c c N C O C U U (C m N d L J -9 _ d _ U (O O N C d_ O Q Q/ C d ° cts O . Q N L 7 >, € N 2 C 15 _ - d C E d ca C O)O " p_ -`O C y r)i y Q d m O c .G Q) 'p N _N Q c0 L FC ` o E 0 V 7 C -2 Y d Cpp cts U N C C `.' cC Q cm O cc c a) ? O ?? d j N C N , C O- Q O O ? ct, C U) CL no . C d .N.. 9 C d O 8 +L' 'p O c o c oa o m c c a?? ?' E ° ai c $ . v m E > C> C 7 c 3 l- ? Ct% i V1 > 0 a rn - ° c ° ca . m ?' C 0 o f y N ? ° O cpi, L C a N 'U v O O d L o o ? O N 7 U OyO ' O_ t` s ° o a`> N a ° a? c°a . (D (D a >, 75 c 0 o a_ E 0 o2 O . U cE -20 •'t-r '0 N OC -d C *7 I'S 'L'.' R! C c c = c p Q. O C C m E m > m e - N C O 7 '? >> O$ c d "C 'C H Q? 7$ Y > O j? co E C C Cj C O O C p O VJ : C N _N y fd L tt?? C H [ 7 ? C ? C? H_ ` _H C Q 10 N_ ? _y Q d. tC O O 0 0 ° a O- _ o o c CO o O d C O Q o can U) co a E E yam„ ° cLn r c m CIO s d o o` c o -- Cc w cc CO o c m v o p ?j cu y a c?i E v' c? °: a -Oal IS U a co a o -`v li m d o o o° rn 75 v N C. m .= CV Z Z CL CL a a N cp co a.. Ql _C O CL ? C 7 ? O O ? C a ° O?O L O p Q N N = C Pag15lafv b_179 to c a) E E 0 v V a) CL o E 0 U d d d d a C to c m ca c i- Ca LL co Co 0 a)o` E d c ` ?E Q a H O C to C n p (a N Co C n to C C 0 two C C 0 tti C C m as C C a) o Co a) U) p C p ¢ Co 0 cn p Co Q) E Co Co to cn E tit cn E ago o? ;a °o o oCCoo oCO o? o? °C v a ` ° ? CL U CL U ?7 CL ? a c n in c ia o o o c io c o cc a N n. n d n Cl. n o- y C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E a>i N aa)i N a>i o>i a>i °c E E a -9 a N a a a o o' o 0 o S i cc o CL a a a a a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U c U U a ? U a ? ? U U c t o E tco E as E C' E C' Cu C" to E C Cu E p N M n Co a) to 06 M a) to 4Z Co a) M CL p a) N n Co a`> fn n f d o N n CT O C C) O C C) O C CI O C O C CT O C O C7 o -° • o D o • . o-° c ? a _ a =3 a`L ? c a- . aL : =3 aL _ . _ am a € E € E E n a n n a n a n ti m Cn a o 0 o a v o a M m m m m m m I ¢ cc ¢ CC Lr Lx: 0 wp o wp wp pw wp wp a) Co L-. ? to CC5 CO a) Q c a) p_ C . ' M Fn ?cn C ? 9! o N G, w C 3 N o > N Q) :3 ?`) > i o00 a E L L "o Co° c o c - o U, - o N E a a c t» ip a o a E) d? N0 a c c a i Co a v n 3~jOUt Q k 1° or, =3 $ d ° ?o LL ??Q i C o a ?pyta 2 co > 3 c co .2 -j c c o a ° cco c J? o- o .E ?) o 0 0 c n d Lij O t a n o O n L O c n CL $ cc. aQ d C n ° o Cl c c .L .. q O ° N ll .c 0 L F, a L ) a ) E c C co ° to O N U) d co r o a toCooa.Lv °) to .. • . Ain too ° U . . 0a u)??)8 tco r ¢criu E@c - oao L 8 EC n> U) > 0 0 ' C EisCa Co vi0 L O L t)cn .- O 0 °' tri ° O A-! ycon m aME?°co lL- O L o iy Qm a n a)o 15 ai rt+ €c E - c: 0 € n° €cc €ca - M 0) N a O C n° C C ' o t0 C) O "O C (a U "" V O C7 8: a C (a 0 CL R1 • 0 O) C1 O N C) N. ? O. a).&? C r O (D coc v_- .2 0) y E ° p . ' . vc n a) = ° M o? E v aE OR c c2yUa) o i c$ L cc?ac c y o c ° ca c$a a ia 0 0 C _ co m 71- rL U to ''? C N co Mn E N d m n 0 Oc L.L cC $ 0 '? '-0 G. N - o E a) > o 3 N o 0 N• a o a) o° - m Co tf to $ o env aci 0 (0 0-a o r w m .O U C U o co a) 5; O 10 o n 0 ° -0 0 in 2 o Y to a -0 0 a) 2 io w ' Ca ° a) _ C fl C to a) O O LE in d'" E E td 0 7 0 L a a) • E C N 0 a i a) a a) cg U .> ? a) . t` td U E 0 m U c03 C o 0 _ d' o °) rn U to o n a to o ' D° N o$ o d `? E rn t aci on c ns Z y N y c o c $ co U) c a o r, u c o 0 $ co N c0 d N N p).U ° L O "00 A O cu 0 E . tN c p p o N N- cc <D y- n 0 y- a c° O O N 'j ' Q) N Q C UU O L N U -- 7 0 Cn 5T O L 0 y p 2 O N N .L-. tV O L N 4) O L m r p L [CO 0 rn O 7 C Y U "fA y O 0 c 0 n O r- p I °' L m a) n n C y C? Z5 O C L a n O 0 'C to d 0 C) O N w co n O) a) N O 0 C N Ca ' n 0 O 0 CR IL o 3. t7i n E a p a o 8 - a Q d o as a o¢ v) trf o o n . n d o o f n a a- ri v vi tp I? 00 tr a a a a a a M C N 0) O a` rn O CL N w yL. m 0 C O "L y O ca C a O 7 N L) C 22-5 7861180 _N E E O U al m W C. o E 0 U S pl cc CL c co co co co m N co d`o a a ¢ ¢ ¢ a c ° co cn co N O m C C C C C C a U CO U) U cn 4! r0 l O O O O O O Ga ' •" y' Z" > , co U U U U CU U U O eG m y Q 0 Gl 0 Gl 0 ca. 0 `m > > > 0 0 N d ? O > ? > ? > O C D a E ? " ' D d y y O 0 'O O •O •O •O .? (L d a a d d U co U C U m U c Cb U c Cd U ca C co 0 =3 cc M =3 0 co co = co Un co UU= V O N O O to 0 cA O N O O C O O)A OCD O ?O O O N c .? O O E O a E O ._ E _ O U E . (L _0 CL cu -0 CL 0) a C:?- L _N {per p p T p T ?O T ?O T U E •d d cd? C U n ,cC) C U D CD 0 U co N o _N C (G N U c0 CL _ . _ . = c w n n ,- n 00 U ? U U cJ O UO Gl OC oC o a cc cc N U n in o E C 0 O p co t C N S ° '2 w d m m O CV 15 co +L-'c0 c ) CK Cn ) L OL? w 4) ca c U) LM a) co ° 3 Cn C w rn U •C C co 'U CO « O ° y ... O u co .? ° U -0 :C 'ry. O U O C N EE O p O C d> "0 U C U N co C N C O a E°C2, Y U € N n C) M ° E 7 E C Q N d 0 L y Cc- ° c. N L L to n0) -C3 rn U = N ?2 o E N U ; O CL j N O c t m G) U n C3, Oc co i co (D ca > . 0 a) cn 75 3 ca > ' C=L U c .Q ? j N •CD Ca _ al y o) n 3 c al ? c D > •c n 0 is = ? ? 'c o Gl a 3 = c io U 3 N O O m Q = c ? m y 0 C's N •-' L ° N= O U.0 nd'N? O c` N C= v cUa n O OM E 8.o c O N c_o.5 E oL O S «l N v c Gl io N ca m>$ E c c Gl al x rn> c a `o E W °l G`> c rn v Ca E o Y °r J) -° n 3 ° o c c$ v o co n c o ° - c a o -D 7a tc?5 c v o CL o f al O p O ° c ° .D C0 3 N C O Ll L cc1 y Q N C N -p C L L C ° °-? O a i Un>°c c i a 8=cnai U0 > c ci U°L'°8 C5 '0 ° ?U S aoo - o CO In ° 8'cC- L? c0 O Q •L--• = > p 'p - co O H S N O N _ cC 2 O N n a) '.5 O N N _ C', 0 2 C C O O j N W C O O C 0: C RS C/) ' - ?N-l a i =3 c > c0 a m a`oi c > > n . ?-°' a as c 12 = --. p L N a>i ?c =3 o d 2 . N 0 c • d .1 - G>i U 2 3 -Z6 ca .2 -6 cn L O_ V d C CO U LO O' 2-8 N .2 p C LO L O U vl 0 O C C O E O O 0 co Q al OO C Q= C C O y R O O L O o 3 O C o d N O N d N O C O C _ c` U d O co X 0. d 0. Cn Q y N d o cn N p rn a 0_ U ¢ to d c x< 2 0 d d Q O E O C 1-- ? c? v cri ? . rD F C m O vl c_ O a (D C (0 cC L 7 O U (9 a 7 L U m O C O ?Ul) O O O N CD O ?. c Page 13 of 16 75B-181 y Y C m C C V {Q d p E O V c cts A fl_ C cc cu `° `° m m m 0 < Q Q CL O CI- O B w co ;a co ;a m a c o ecv co to cca N ' d 0 Co c o U ` CO 0 U o a yo w ? 0 2-1 Z? o 0 U U U U U a. a c O cO n n Q Q Q m 0 0 0 0 0 06 0 y m > > > > > y C - m "0 m m 70 m 10 m '0 m U C. E N N N N N N d O O O 'O O O O CC a a. a ? a`. a O ?j' O V O O V O O U cC U to U N U C Q m C m C C _ • C C1 ca 7 C CL cd 7 C ca E C cu a 03 E ca ? (=n U cn O co U CO O U)j 41 N Cl ai U M O N m h G y d y Cl O C C O C . YO CM O ccn It n c• aaQ c. a.0 d Q ca a on m am m E E E Cyj •E ?. m U C ?. _m U C Q d U Q Q Q d cm C cis rn C rL Q c? i..' c? :0 CL O 'O C b , UO UO oo U C7 V w Q a: S S S N Q D o LLI o D m ON mCn `0 as C 0" c , .v p C13 E , Q ) 2 C13 cn cn o [] o CD -o > a) o a o a o o c E 0 m c .r+ .o m ? o c o cn - n C vi iC m' '15 E c T; a E? c `c E° cO a .15 0 -0 0 - N 0) 'D _ ) b o o N V O L K m (? > N !O a ? m .. 'p fEO C i m . ? y a 'S U m [1 O E C m N '? [1 -- - •0 E y [1 >. « CD 0 O m T 7 ' p U a C _h U y U C2 ?. C C 0 m? of m m .-. L m U N S m U C cC O C CO Q) W U -E O- cC Q 3 N s E a m _ O m o N m E co 2 S a ' O c$ CL- v m 0 a m d a c. m fj E L a- r o Q =3 t` a o 0 0 0) O O C O ? C m a CO CO U C1 E o p ti m co .L] - eC d a y ° LO `° c a`>Q ° o CW c? '-c-5 cm £' _ U v (/3J? Q o-° c? O O m W aU c c- L y C ( p C m c0 cC d U o ao E? >. 'G a Q Q 2 N > if= .` ° ? E ' > FD C m ` c0 0) U) y v p]' a ca U) ?2 v o E rn • v i o a a t; U mom O ' - n o( '? - a i m ee 3 0 CO c` rn cn O -° C n c0 '.' 10 p d t C d p cn c0 > E 0 p .C. C m rn U c cC o E .C] L O y m 07U ca C t C) _ m & c y L9 U m a`? a p cti > eco c4 a > °-? c a m a`? U m m e •° o a W m 0) .1_••' C p O C C O 0 d p a) c0 Q O 'O 7 t` Ca- Cl) C p y m C p C - C y '0 > ; cu t c-m C/) y m U 2 3 cO > > 'a y m m C 2 ? co 0 $ m .C D Cl'? L O C ? m E y y L ? m y mL„ ca c m 0 '0 -0 in O C1 . 'O Co U O= o y Q p ` Q U D1 y > _cn .D •3 cc$ M) O d C cts H ° m $ ° L p •O ° O C C L 1 c c7 'O ° , cp fA ° N _o Q ° c c° o c m x a $¢- E .? o> j m ? °c > Q> o c"s E m Q c w o o ?i • c z c o Q y ai ` o a`? o a o a. Qo2 i a o oZ a E a . na i d o ag m a o cm H F- H 1- > N D1 OL a c r O Na LL C C O i 3 O O U co d i 7 S ca 2 C O O CD O N C 3 Page 14 of 16 75B-182 d E E 0 U d ?1 7a c. o E O U cm co co c O/p a o a? C d C m ¢ co ¢ c ° c 2 °v -°a v CD co c ° o o c n a m o ° o o d 2 2 U U a a d ? c CL a CL a Q a y c o 0 0 d 0 d 0 N E a>i m a>i a>i a>i c C v v v l v v CL E is - 0) 'o o Cl) aa) o m 0 a a a a a 0 0 0 6 0 Ol m U U) C (D U N C- a) U N c a) U M C a> U O C. C • E cu E ca E cu E cc E ? H fy d ' N n t_`n n N n H Q • O0) O O CI O m O m O O O O 0 O 5 d rn a m d rn a m . d rn •_ E E E E ? v E a n n n n Q a m cm m c1 0 0 C7 C7 0 m w cr w C ¢ E 0 Cl w 0 w 0 w Cl `? > O= U w a>ai m-? > oNO cSq O O D N mo :0 ( N ' ? 0 ca c 2 Z ii 7g N c O 0° `c4 n y O O v N c cci? co t i_i y t .'S p -6 (O N a ?i > •• - S p n Z .? ft7 O w v d 1 C" 2 On U __ ? d Q d° N N O ' C> C, yp.. p c > H co°? -Eo n norn`° °p 'c nE axio o O oc o`c_? E o °n c-_'gino? ° ona) o n c y obi 2 rn y pp a5 - y o a) a 'd a =3 C13 r _ m -cc o o m u FE ' O C "U C io 0 4 U c i c CJ c a? i E a? c E ri E t c n E ?' n E Q a) c 'p $ 3 o v c - E ??o?° v o co 05-0 .n - ?aoO° co o c r o €U?vi?a.-? ? y c co 5? ?8.r € i __ '° co a o (D € ccoCD io ` N p p y to CL 0-6-6 n aNi n ? ?..) C d- fN 5 w a O O O - (D ? c eo d H j? „y. O c a> Cn p C y 'O c Q1 Q p= p m, ft! p cl) fn € -U C j n a) a) c 9 .?-. p O fl! y 0 n a) O y p O7'Z. CD O E O. `O ' O 'O -L-- N 2 'O a) co L ° . •O in O w -O O •U N ns O 0 c u 3 c n pI ca 3 p y DI O ca 3 OL rn a m N CC A o o n rn ?` 0 -e n n ? ° c s r ° C K c p N t'i Ci a) C X> eo a) L rt' .t . ° c `? n c O o °- p a) - L m H 1 % X a 0 ° N a? _ O c p d r m . ' c) O Q c U N O •V DI c O .N U "0 d C 0 p m N O 5 > c U p 75 O N p a) d n N ? O -2 ? C N m E 0 Q1 1=0 N COM) pp p 7 8 L t? -. . c pp cts U .? '0 x N c E CD U, j d C p d '> . p y .. _a) ? a) a) y E $ N L - m a) co c :v o m -0 m - c H co v 'o r c N E cc Q coo o .o E Ei L aci E io o L E 3 > y o cn € -u H _ cn E d ' 0 f N ?, ` t u a a E 2 - O y c o co ° o c m a ! Z5 c eooEo ° - °CL(D a3a? 0 vi Z5 o? s ? W ? odc>c?E y y - t .Sa`»oEa>R d o o rn a o v «d in E ?c n w o d o c4 io cg a a o$ rn t°o rLi, C7 7 ui ca 1 :5 1 :5 1 :5 Co E m 0) O a rn C O Q. c c6 rn C 7 O N U c0 d 7 L U (0 2 O c O LO O ? O N m O Page 15 of 16 75B-183 a? E E 0 U 1•v o. D E 0 U T L CD co d 0 0 Z 0 0 o 02 o n co w 15 a) m o 0 d d c o ` a .. a > C Z5 a CD a o 0 E 0 0 o a` n 0 0 a? A ? co co E c 0 E 1- o o °' O) o ° `p CL a _ d rn 0 E E B .= Q Q E . a m Lo o? ' m (7 a? 2 oC O D t U _ C -p L N j y C U L co C N tm (C a) p D to ?O C ? c-p a? a) 3 p a? o c y C', i a C Q. CD n ai d 0) c CO N p. w cc O vi» 3 c cl, a ?? EO ?' m d? 0.00 E a> din n C: cu co q 4) - cl. cd a) °? a o U N c v? o - 0 E A - - ILI 4) 0 m u 8 - B 0= cC V en O C O C) -co L y U N a) 'o _ N 11-20- .a 7 ~ C 7 p p C Cl) a>D U V ` ?C) O-¢- N d C N p L C N a) G d ai (D a o 3 cc d a0 ai V N > j CC ti C cc 0 a rn C O CL a) C c9 C O L 7 O U co 7 L .i. 2 c O 2LO C O O C) N O)C Page 16 of 16 75B-184 ROH - 04/04/11 RESOLUTION NO. 2011- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING THE ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2004-02 AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-05 AS CONDITIONED; APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2011-04 AS CONDITIONED TO ALLOW TANDEM PARKING; AND, APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2011-01 AS CONDITIONED FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 100-140 EAST MACARTHUR BOULEVARD BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The Applicant is requesting approval of an addendum to a final environmental impact report, an amendment to a development agreement, a conditional use permit, a variance, and a site plan review to allow the construction of a new multi-family residential development at 100-140 East MacArthur Boulevard. B. The Planning Commission has, following a duly noticed public hearing, on March 14, 2011, recommended approval of the following items: 1. Adopt a resolution approving the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02 and approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2. Adopt an ordinance approving the fourth amendment to Development Agreement No. 2005-02. 3. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05 as conditioned. 4. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2011-04 as conditioned to allow tandem parking. 5. Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2011-01 as conditioned. C. On April 4, 2011 the City Council of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing and at that time considered all testimony, written and oral. Resolution No. 2011- 75B-1 85 Page 1 of 15 D. Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana seeking to allow the construction of a multi-family residential development at 100-140 East MacAuhur Boulevard. Pursuant to SD-76, sections 5 and 7, multi-family residential uses are permitted subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. 2. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the City Council to grant a conditional use permit upon making certain findings. i. Will the proposed use provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or community? The proposed multi-family residential project will provide a service to the community by providing high-quality residential housing stock that will enhance the property value of the surrounding neighborhoods. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure the quality and the attractiveness of the overall design which will contribute to the general well being of the community. Will the proposed use under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity? The proposed multi-family residential use in conjunction with the rest of the MacArthur Place South development will not be detrimental to persons residing and working in the area. The adverse impacts identified in Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02 as well as the addendum to the EIR will be mitigated through the adoption of mitigation measures. Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of properties surrounding the area? The proposed residential project will not adversely affect the economic stability within the MacArthur Place South development area. The multi-family residential component will provide customer base to the retail and restaurant uses, which will reinforce the economic viability of the project and will assist in identifying the Resolution No. 2011- 75B-1 86 Page 2 of 15 entire MacArthur Place South as a viable mixed-use community. iv. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 41 for such use? The project will be in compliance with all applicable provisions of Chapters 34 and 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code as well as the provisions of the SD-76 zoning district, except for the tandem parking requirement. A variance, with appropriate justification, has been submitted to deviate from the tandem parking standards. V. Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or any specific plan of the City? The proposed project will not adversely affect the General Plan as multi-family residential development is conditionally permitted within the Specific Development No. 76 (SD-76) zoning district. Further, Policy 1.3 of the General Plan Land Use Element encourages high- density residential development within the City's District Centers, and Policy 1.4 promotes the fostering of a variety of residential land uses in the city. E. Applicant has requested approval of Variance No. 2011-04 to allow tandem parking. Section 41-638.1(d) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code states that tandem parking is permitted only within an office development, while the applicant is requesting approval to allow 262 of the 660 total spaces (40 percent) be tandem parking. 2. The City Council determines that the following findings which must be established, pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638, in order to grant a variance, have been established: That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this Chapter. Resolution No. 2011- 75B-1 87 Page 3 of 15 The project site has a special circumstance related to its size, shape and location. The MacArthur Place South site is a contained site surrounded by existing commercial and residential developments. Tandem parking will only be used as assigned parking for the residents. The variance will allow the applicant the ability to use the property in a manner that is consistent with similar surrounding commercial, residential and professional uses. ii. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. The granting of the variance to allow tandem parking will preserve the property owner's ability to develop the property with a well-designed multi-family residential project that is consistent with the Specific Development No. 76 (SD-76) zoning district. Further, the proposed wrap-style design of the parking garage is superior as it allows shorter walking distances for residents, it allows for more mature and substantial landscaping that is planted in native soil as opposed to landscaping planted in raised planters; and, it allows for a better urban streetscape. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property as short-term and long-term impacts identified in Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02 have been addressed to mitigate any potential impacts to adjacent properties. Further, any additional mitigation measures identified in the addendum to the EIR will be incorporated as conditions of approval for the project. iv. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City since the proposed multi-family Resolution No. 2011- 75B-188 Page 4 of 15 residential project has been designed in conformance with City Zoning and General Plan requirements. Further, the project is in compliance with Policy 1.3 of the General Plan Land Use Element, which encourages high-density residential development within the City's District Centers and Policy 1.4, which promotes the fostering of a variety of residential land uses in the City. F. Applicant has requested approval of Site Plan Review No. 2011-01 as conditioned. Section 41-593.5(c) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires a review by the Planning Commission of all plans within a specific development plan area to ensure the project is in conformity with the Specific Plan. 2. The project is in compliance with all applicable development standards outlined within the Hutton Centre Mixed-Use Specific Development District (SD-76). Section 2. On June 20, 2005 the City Council approved and adopted Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02 and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program was prepared for this project. Based upon the studies, the City Council determines that there are no new significant impacts or any increases in the severity of the impacts previously identified in the original Environmental Impact Report. The City Council hereby approves the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02 and approves the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated as though fully set forth herein. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana after conducting the public hearing hereby approves: A. Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05 as conditioned in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein for the multi-family residential development located at 100-140 East MacArthur Boulevard. B. Variance No. 2011-04 as conditioned in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein to allow tandem parking for the property located at 100- 140 East MacArthur Boulevard. C. Site Plan Review No. 2011-01 as conditioned in Exhibit "D" attached hereto and incorporated herein. 75B-189 Resolution No. 2011- Page 5 of 15 These decisions are based upon the evidence submitted at the abovesaid hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Council Action dated April 4, 2011, and exhibits attached thereto; the public testimony, written and oral; and, the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations that was approved and adopted by resolution by the City Council on June 20, 2005, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. This Resolution shall not be effective unless and until Ordinance No. NS- becomes effective. If said ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise does not go into effect for any reason, then this resolution shall be null and void and have no further force and effect. Section 5. Applicant has requested the approval of the above entitlements which are incompatible with previously granted entitlements. As such, any and all previously approved inconsistent entitlements are hereby null and void and of no further force and effect. Section 6. This decision rendered by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana is final and is subject to judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. The Clerk of the Council shall give direct notice to the applicant of the Council's decision and these findings. ADOPTED this day of April, 2011. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph Straka, City Attorney By: Ryan O. Hodge Assistant City Attorney Resolution No. 2011- 758-190 Page 6 of 15 AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2011-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 75B-191 Resolution No. 2011- Page 7 of 15 75B-192 To view Exhibit A, "Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02," referenced in the resolution, please see Exhibit 8 identified in the Planning Commission Staff Report of item 75B. 7513-193 75B-194 Conditions for Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05 Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code, and all other applicable regulations. In addition, it shall meet the following conditions of approval: The applicant must comply with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this conditional use permit. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the development project. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the conditional use permit approval. A. Planning Division 1. All proposed site improvements must conform with the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 2010-44 and the staff report exhibits. 2. Any amendment to this conditional use permit must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the conditional use permit must be amended. 3. A Parking Management Plan documenting how the tandem parking stalls will function must be submitted prior to submittal into building plan check. 4. The project shall incorporate on-site professional property management for the residential component. 5. Balconies for the project shall maintain a minimum dimension of not less than six feet in any direction, except for units fronting on MacArthur Boulevard. 6. Balconies for the project shall incorporate the use of stainless steel railings, or equivalent as approved by the Planning Division. 7. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be provided for the project. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall include provisions pertaining to owner occupancy, restrictions on home-based businesses, the prohibition of storage on balconies, and a restriction on truck delivery hours to non-peak periods shall be submitted prior to building plan check. EXHIBIT B Resolution No. 2011- Page 8 of 15 75B-195 April 4, 2011 Page 2 of 6 8. Prior to submittal into building plan check, detailed elevations shall be submitted to include exterior finishes, materials, and colors subject to approval of the Planning Division. 9. All parking for the project shall be made available free of charge. Two parking spaces per dwelling unit shall be provided as a part of the deed for each dwelling unit. 10. A Public Art Plan which proposes a specific work(s) of art for a specific location(s) shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval. All public art approved by the Planning Commission shall be completely installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project. 11. A detailed landscape plan must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any building permits. In addition to the landscaping palette, the plan shall include details on the hardscape design, lighting concepts and outdoor furniture. At a minimum, the project shall incorporate the amount and size of landscaping as shown on the preliminary landscape plan. The exact specifications for these items are subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. 12. After project occupancy, landscaping is to be maintained to include the minimum level of plant materials installed at the time of occupancy as required by the approved plans. 13. A detailed amenity deck plan must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any building permits. The plan shall include details on the hardscape design, lighting concepts and outdoor furniture for the amenity deck as well as an installation plan. The exact specifications for these items are subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. The amenity deck shall be maintained in the same condition as installed at the time of occupancy. 14. A detailed water feature plan must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any building permits. The plan shall include a minimum of one water feature within the motor court, elevations, hardscape design, lighting concepts and an installation plan. The exact specifications for these items are subject to review Resolution No. 2011- Page 9 of 15 75B-196 April 4, 2011 Page 3 of 6 and approval of the Planning Division. The water feature(s) shall be maintained in the same condition as installed at the time of occupancy. 15. At a minimum, the following items must be included as exterior amenities for the development: bike racks, enhanced paving on the walkways, an outdoor fireplace, barbeque and a pool on the amenity deck. The exact specifications for these items are subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. 16. An interior building amenity plan of the Recreation Room must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any building permits. The plan shall include details on the various finishes and equipment to be provided in these rooms. The exact specifications for these items are subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. 17. The following items must be included as interior amenities within the common areas: granite counter tops, hardwood flooring or equivalent, and gas fireplaces. The exact specifications for these items are subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. 18. The following items must be included as interior amenities within each unit: granite counter tops or equivalent, hardwood flooring or equivalent, General Electric Monogram appliances or equivalent, tiled bathroom and shower walls, stain grade hard wood cabinets and individual laundry hook-ups. The exact specifications for these items are subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. 19. An elevator lobby plan of each lobby must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any building permits. The plan shall include details on the finishes and flooring to be provided. The exact specifications for these items are subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. 20. Pedestrian walkways shall be provided through the project. The amenities to be provided along this pathway shall include decorative concrete and paving, accent lighting, and landscape planters. The materials and design of the walkway is subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. 21. A Resident Storage Plan shall be provided for the project. Storage shall be available at no cost to the residents. Resolution No. 2011- Page 10 of 15 75B-197 April 4, 2011 Page 4of6 22. Cast iron drain pipes shall be provided for the project. 23. Smart wiring, including cable television and high-speed cable for computers, shall be provided for each unit and within the project's common areas. 24. Signage to direct customers and guests to the adjacent parking structure shall be provided. A directional sign plan needs to be submitted and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 25. Construction workers for the project shall be prohibited from parking in the Sandpointe neighborhoods. 26. Prior to issuance of building permits, a Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. The plans shall include information on items such as pick-up, delivery, and types of bins required. 27. Prior to occupancy of any units, a rental housing execution plan must be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. At a minimum, the plan shall identify the location of employee and visitor parking, the location of the rental office, hours of operation for the rental office, and signage affiliated with the Rental Housing Operational Plan. In addition, the rental plan must clearly note that the parking and project amenities must be provided free of charge to the residence. 28. Prior to submittal into building plan check, the design for the courtyard gates shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. The fences/gates shall be decorative and ornamental in nature as they are the entries to the interior courtyards. 29. The following best management practices (BMPs) need to be incorporated into the project construction and operation to minimize green house gas impacts: a. Install energy efficient lighting, appliances, heating, and cooling systems. b. Install efficient lighting for street and other outdoor lighting. c. Reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting. d. Provide education on energy efficiency to residents and/or tenants. e. Install water-efficient irrigations systems and devices. Resolution No. 2011- Page 11 of 15 75B-198 April 4, 2011 Page 5 of 6 f. Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances. g. Provide education about water conservation. h. Provide easy and convenient recycling opportunities for residents and tenants. i. Provide education on recycling waste. B. Police Department A security plan must be submitted to the Police Department at the plan check stage for approval. The plan must cover all aspects of the projects security including security personnel, surveillance/camera equipment (on each floor of parking structure, stairwells, and elevator lobby/cab) with internet viewing capability for the tenants of the project, and access control hardware. The project will be required to have a minimum of two state licensed uniformed security personnel. One security officer will be required for the residential buildings and one for the parking garage. Entrances/exits to the parking structure must be equipped with rolling overhead gates. Redesign Elevator lobby by removing the elevator alcove and provide a secure lobby enclosed with fire rated glass partitions. A minimum 12-inch shatterproof convex mirror shall be installed at each stair landing. All doors leading into stairwells shall be equipped with a minimum 5-inch by 20-inch fire rated window. The last flight of stairs shall be fully enclosed at its base. Duress alarms allowing voice communication with security personnel shall be placed in strategic locations, approved by the Police Department, throughout the parking garage. The elevator/stairwells serving the parking structure of the project shall be equipped with card readers at the garage levels to restrict unauthorized access into the residential areas. The elevator lobby shall be designed and constructed of material that allows maximum visibility of the interior of the lobby from the parking decks. Glazing material will be used to its maximum extent. Alternate means and methods can be proposed that mitigate the concerns specified above with Police Department approval. 2. The City of Santa Ana parking structure design standards shall be followed in its entirety. Resolution No. 2011- Page 12 of 15 75B-199 April 4, 2011 Page 6 of 6 3. All project walkways shall be illuminated to a minimum maintained 1 footcandle of light. 4. A repeater may be required for the project to insure adequate Police and Fire Communications from within the structures. 5. This Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed at six months, at one year and then annually thereafter by the Police Department for any modification to the conditions of approval. Resolution No. 2011- 75B-200 Page 13 of 15 Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2011-04 Variance No. 2011-04 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code, and all other applicable regulations. In addition, it shall meet the following conditions of approval: The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this variance. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the variance. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of this variance. A. Planning Division All proposed improvements must conform to the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 2010-44 and the staff report exhibits. 2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the variance must be amended. 3. Landscaping, once installed, shall be maintained per the approved landscape plan. After project occupancy, landscaping is to be maintained to include the minimum level of plant materials installed at the time of occupancy and per the approved plan. 4. A Parking Management Plan documenting how the tandem parking stalls will function must be submitted prior to submittal into building plan check. 5. Signage to direct overflow customers and guests to the adjacent parking structure shall be provided. A directional sign plan needs to be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. B. Police Department 1. The existing building and parking lot must conform with the provisions of Chapter 8, Article II, Division 3 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (Building Security Ordinance). These code conditions will require that the existing projects lighting, door/window locking devices and addressing be upgraded to current code standards. Lighting standards cannot be located in required landscape planters. EXHIBIT C Resolution No. 2011- 75B-201 Page 14 of 15 75B-202 Conditions of Approval for Site Plan Review No 2011-01 Site Plan Review No. 2011-01 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code, and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this site plan review approval. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the site plan review approval. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the site plan review approval. A. Planning Division 1. The applicant must comply with all conditions and requirements of the Development Review Committee for the development project (DP 2010-44). 2. Any amendment to this site plan review approval must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or if the site plan review approval must be amended. EXHIBIT D Resolution No. 2011- 75B_203 Page 15 of 15 75B-204 (ROH 03/14/11) ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND GRAND PLAN 2, LLC AND LYON INTEGRAL MACARTHUR PLACE, LLC THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The City is authorized pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 to enter into development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the purpose of establishing certainty for both City and owner in the development process. B. The City enters into this Amendment to Development Agreement pursuant to the provisions of the Government Code and applicable City policies. C. The Planning Commission has, following a duly noticed public hearing, on March 14, 2011, recommended approval of this Amendment to Development Agreement. D. Entering into this Amendment to Development Agreement would provide the City with extraordinary and significant benefits that are of regional significance, relate to existing deficiencies in public facilities, require the owner of MacArthur Place South to contribute a greater percentage of benefits than would otherwise be required, and represent benefits which would not otherwise be required as part of the development process. E. The City Council has held a noticed public hearing on this Ordinance and has considered all testimony presented thereto. F. The previously adopted and certified Final Environmental Impact Report EIR for the Nexus Project, No. ER 2004-02, and its Addendum, have been approved and certified by this Council by resolution simultaneously with the introduction of this ordinance. Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 1 of 3 75B-205 G. The proposed project will not adversely affect the General Plan, as is expressly set forth in the Request for Council Action dated April 4, 2011, together with all supporting documents, including but not limited to, proposed resolutions, which are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. The Amendment to Development Agreement, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, is hereby approved, and the City Manager and Clerk of the Council are authorized to execute it on behalf of the City with such non- substantive changes as may be authorized by the City Manager and City Attorney. The Clerk of the Council is hereby authorized and directed to cause this Development Agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder's Office. Section 3. This ordinance shall not be effective unless and until Resolution No. 2011- is adopted and becomes effective. If said resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise does not go into effect for any reason, then this ordinance shall be null and void and have no further force and effect. Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. ADOPTED this day of , 2011. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph Straka, City Attorney By: Ryan O. Hodge Assistant City Attorney Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 2 of 3 75B-206 AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify that the attached Ordinance No. NS-XXX to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on , and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 3 of 3 75B-207 75B-208 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza M-30 P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, California 92702 FREE RECORDING GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT by and between THE CITY OF SANTA ANA and THE GRAND PLAN 2, LLC and LYON INTEGRAL MACARTHUR PLACE, LLC Dated: 12011 Ordinance No. NS-xxxx Exhibit 1 75B-209 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, and THE GRAND PLAN 2, LLC, and LYON INTEGRAL MACARTHUR PLACE, LLC This FOURTH AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Fourth Amendment") is entered into between THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, a charter city and municipal corporation duly authorized under the Constitution and laws of the State of California ("City"), THE GRAND PLAN 2, LLC, a California limited liability company ("GP2"), and LYON INTEGRAL MACARTHUR PLACE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Lyon/Integral"). following facts: Reference to Facts. This Fourth Amendment is entered into with reference to the 1.1 Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Development Agreement. 1.2 The Grand Plan 1, LLC, a California limited liability company ("GP I") and The Grand Plan 2, LLC, a California limited liability company ("GP2"), on the one hand, and City, on the other hand, entered into that certain Development Agreement dated August 4, 2005 and recorded in the Orange County Official Records on July 21, 2005 as Instrument No. 2005000565108 (as amended, the "Development Agreement") pursuant to which, among other things, Owner (as defined in the Development Agreement) was granted the vested right to develop a mixed use Project with residential condominiums and office/commercial/retail uses, as more particularly described therein. GP2's current rights and obligations under the Development Agreement include the Residential Condominium Units Element of the Project, which is the subject of this Fourth Amendment. The Residential Condominium Units Element of the Project was initially referenced as the "Integral Project" in the original Development Agreement, but shall be amended by this agreement to be referenced as the "Lyon/Integral Project." 1.3 A First Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between the City, GP2, NDC Skyline Associates, LLC and Integral Communities I, Inc. (the latter two being assignees of GP 1 and GP2 as applicable) was executed on or about July 7, 2008 and recorded in the Orange County Official Records on July 22, 2008 as Instrument No. 2008000349227. A Second Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between the City, NDC Skyline Associates, LLC, and Integral Communities I, Inc. was adopted by Ordinance Nos. NS-2782 and NS-2783 on or about May 18, 2009, and recorded in the Orange County Official Records as Instrument No. 2009000447820. A Third Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between the City and The Grand Plan 2, LLC was adopted by Ordinance No. NS-2786 on or about June 1, 2009, and recorded in the Orange County Official Records as Instrument No. 2009000447821. 1.4 Lyon/Integral is an assignee of Integral Communities I, Inc. under the Development Agreement. 1.5 The original Development Agreement and Entitlements (i) described the Residential Condominium Units ("Lyon/Integral Project") Element of the Project as consisting of a 4th amendment to development agreement 002 (2)2 2 3/10/2011 335 PM 75B-210 five (5) or six (6) story building containing two-hundred seventy-six (276) for-sale residential condominium units. 1.6 GP2 seeks approval of an amendment to the Residential Condominium Units ("Lyon/Integral Project") Element of the Project. For purposes of this Fourth Amendment, the "Lyon/Integral Project" shall be amended to consist of three-hundred (300) for-sale residential condominium units. 1.7 In connection with the foregoing, GP2, Lyon/Integral and the City now desire to amend the Development Agreement to provide GP2 with approval of the "Lyon/Integral Project" subject to the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement, as amended. 2. Lyon/Integral Project. GP2 and the City hereby acknowledge and agree that GP2 has the right under this Fourth Amendment to construct and operate the "Lyon/Integral Project", as hereinafter defined. 3. Modification of Certain Provisions. The Development Agreement is hereby amended and supplemented in the following particulars: 3.1 Section 2.21. This section is hereby supplemented by adding the following after the third sentence appearing therein, as added by the Third Amendment to Development Agreement: "The new entitlements for the Lyon/Integral Project shall include Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05, Variance No. 2011-04, and Site Plan Review No. 2011-01, as approved by the City. 3.2 Section 2.24. The term "Integral" shall be replaced with the term "Lyon/Integral." follows: 3.3 Section 2.43(3). The entire section shall be amended to read as "(3) A five (5) or six (6) story building containing three-hundred (300) for- sale residential condominium units or for-rent residential units along with a 2,100 square foot commercial space (the "Lyon/Integral Project"); and" 3.4 Section 2.43. In the final sentence of this section, as added by the Third Amendment to Development Agreement, the term "Integral Project" shall be replaced with the term "Lyon/Integral Project." 3.5 Section 2.50. As added to this section by the Second Amendment to Development Agreement, the term "Integral Project" shall be replaced with the term "Lyon/Integral Project." 3.6 Section 4.1. As added to this section by the Second Amendment to Development Agreement, the term "Integral Project" shall be replaced with the term "Lyon/Integral Project." 4th amendment to development agreement 002 (2)2 3 3/10/2011 335 PM 75B-211 3.7 Section 4.2. The term "Integral Project" shall be replaced with the term "Lyon/Integral Project." In addition, "Lyon" shall also be included in any reference to "Integral." 3.8 Section 4.2.1. As added to this contract by the Second Amendment to Development Agreement, the term "Integral Project" shall be replaced with the term "Lyon/Integral Project." In addition, "Lyon" shall also be included in any reference to "Integral." 3.9 Section 4.3(d). The term "Integral Project" shall be replaced with the term "Lyon/Integral Project." In addition, "Lyon" shall also be included in any reference to "Integral." 3.10 Section 4.3(fl. As added to this section by the Second Amendment to Development Agreement, the term "Integral Project" shall be replaced with the term "Lyon/Integral Project." 3.11 Section 5.1.3. The term "Integral Project" shall be replaced with the term "Lyon/Integral Project." 3.12 Exhibit B, Section 2. As added to this section by the First Amendment to Development Agreement, the term "Integral Project" shall be replaced with the term "Lyon/Integral Project." Full Force and Effect; Counterparts. Except as amended herein, the Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. This Fourth Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Fourth Amendment has been executed by the City of Santa Ana and The Grand Plan 2, LLC. Dated this day of , 2011. "CITY" THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, a charter city and municipal corporation duly authorized under the Constitution and laws of the State of California By DAVID N. REAM City Manager 3/10/20113:35 PM 4th amendment to development agreement 002 (2)2 4 75B-212 ATTEST: MARIA D. HUIZAR Clerk of the Council Approved as to Form: JOSEPH STRAKA Interim City Attorney By Ryan O. Hodge Assistant City Attorney 3/10/2011 3:35 PM 4th amendment to development agreement 002 (2)2 "GP2" THE GRAND PLAN 2, LLC, a California limited liability company By _ Name Its "Lyon/Integral" LYON INTEGRAL MACARTHUR PLACE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By _ Name Its 75B-213 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ss. On before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal SIGNATURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ss. On before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal SIGNATURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 3/10/2011 3:35 PM 4th amendment to development agreement 002 (2)2 6 75B-214