Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout31A - CUP - 516 S SANTA FE STREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2011 TITLE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-21 TO ALLOW A CEMENT MANUFACTURING FACILITY AT 516 SOUTH SANTA FE STREET - BENDER READY MIX, APPLICANT CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ? As Recommended ? As Amended ? Ordinance on 1" Reading ? Ordinance on 2nd Reading ? Implementing Resolution ? Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Receive and file the staff report approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-21 as conditioned. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On October 10, 2011, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-21 as conditioned by a vote of 6:0 (Alderete absent) to allow a concrete manufacturing facility at 516 South Santa Fe Street located in the Heavy Industrial (M-2) zoning district. The Planning Commission made no changes to the recommended conditions of approval outlined in the attached staff report (Exhibit A). FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. 1 Ja . Trevino Executive Director Planning & Building Agency VF:rb vf\reports\CUP\CUP11-21 Bender Ready Mix.cc Exhibit: A. Planning Commission Staff Report 31A-1 31A-2 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2011 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - FILED BY BENDER READY MIX FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-21 TO ALLOW A CEMENT MANUFACTURING FACILITY AT 516 SOUTH SANTA FE STREET Prepared by Vince Fregoso Executive Dii ctor RECOMMENDED ACTION PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED ? As Recommended ? As Amended ? Set Public Hearing For DENIED ? Applicant's Request ? Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO 614.? "71_? Planning M ager 1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2009-86. 2. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-21 as conditioned. Request of Applicant Maria Kao, representing Bender Ready Mix, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a cement manufacturing facility at 516 South Santa Fe Street. Cement manufacturing operations require a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 41-489.5(c) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC). Proiect Location and Site Description The subject site is a 0.97-acre site consisting of two irregularly shaped parcels located at 516 South Santa Fe Street, between Chestnut Avenue and Hathaway Street. The site is currently improved with a 7,000 square foot, single-story office/industrial building that is occupied by Bender Ready Mix. Also on the site is an open yard that contains a concrete batch processing facility, storage areas, truck staging area and an area for truck and employee parking. A total of eight parking spaces are provided on-site. Surrounding land uses include various industrial and warehouse uses to the north, east and west, and an active railroad line and multi-family residential to the south (Exhibits 1 and 2). Proiect Description Bender Ready Mix is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to operate a concrete manufacturing facility on the premises. In conjunction with the approvals, Bender will be making numerous site improvements to bring the site into compliance with code. An existing chain link fence Exhibit A 1 31A-3 Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-21 October 10, 2011 Page 2 will be replaced with a 10-foot high block wall. Additionally, signage will be brought into compliance with the sign code, roof equipment will be screened from public view, and landscaping will be added to the site. Finally, the site will be improved to comply with water quality statutes, including the installation of clarifiers, biofilters and a detention/desilting basin on the site (Exhibits 3, 4 and 5). Project Background In July 2006, Bender Ready Mix was issued a certificate of occupancy to operate a warehouse use on the subject site. In April 2007, the City received a complaint regarding the unpermitted operation of a cement facility at the site. In response, the Community Preservation Division met with the business owner and notified them of the corrections required to legalize the facility. In February 2008, the City filed a criminal complaint against the business owners for failure to comply with outstanding violations, including failure to possess a conditional use permit for a cement manufacture business in the Heavy Industrial (M-2) zoning district. Since that time, the complaint has been on hold in the court system as the applicant has been working with staff to obtain the necessary approvals to operate the facility at this location. General Plan and Zoning Consistency The General Plan land use designation for the site is Industrial (IND), which allows manufacturing and industrial facilities such as the proposed use. The designation applies to areas of the City which are predominantly industrial in character such as this area of the City. Further, Industrial land use designated areas are vital to the economic health of the City as they provide employment opportunities for local residents and generate municipal revenues for continued economic development. The project site is consistent with this General Plan land use designation. The zoning for the site is Heavy Industrial (M-2). The M-2 zone is intended to accommodate heavier, more intense industrial uses such as cement manufacturing facilities. Therefore, the proposed use is also consistent with the zoning designation. Project Analvsis 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. • 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. 31A-4 Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-21 October 10, 2011 Page 3 • 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. 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 facility is a cement manufacturing facility that will provide needed construction materials and supplies to development sites in the area. Further, the business will provide needed employment opportunities for residents that live in the City. The proposed cement manufacturing facility will not be detrimental to persons residing or working in the area as the facility is located within an area of the City that is predominantly industrial in nature. Further, improvements will be made to the site, including the installation of water clarifiers and biofilters, which will bring the site into compliance with local and regional water quality statutes. Additionally, enhancements such as the construction of new block walls and the planting of additional landscaping will be made to the site that will provide visual and aesthetic upgrades to the site. Finally, conditions have been placed on the project that will mitigate any negative or adverse impacts created by the use that could otherwise affect the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. • The proposed use will not adversely affect the economic stability of the area but will instead identify the site as a viable site to conduct business. The site was previously vacant and has since been occupied by a use that is consistent with the zoning for the property. The reuse of the site, in conjunction with the improvements that will be made to the site, will enhance the economic viability of the area. • The use will be in compliance with all regulations and provisions of Chapter 41 (Zoning Code) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. Site improvements are proposed that will bring the site into compliance with the Zoning Code. A new 10-foot high block wall will be built along the perimeter of the property to mitigate any visual blight, noise and/or dust related concerns. In addition, improvements to the signage, landscaping and roof mounted equipment will be made to bring the site into compliance with code. Finally, on-site improvements will be made that will ensure the facility complies with local, regional and federal water quality standards. 31A-5 Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-21 October 10, 2011 Page 4 The proposed use will not adversely affect the General Plan. Goal 1 of the Land Use Element encourages uses that promote a balance of land uses that address basic community needs. Goal 2 encourages uses that enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability. Goal 5 ensures that the impacts of development are mitigated. Bender Ready Mix will be located in an area of the City that is appropriate for the cement manufacturing use. The M-2 zoning encourages heavier, more intense industrial uses such as cement manufacturing facilities. Additionally, improvements will be made to the site that will bring it into compliance with the Zoning Code. Finally, conditions have been placed on the business that will assist in mitigating any potential adverse impacts. Public Notification The project site is not located within the boundaries of a neighborhood association but is adjacent to the Cornerstone Village and Lyon Street Neighborhood Associations. The presidents of these Associations were notified by mail 10 days prior to this public hearing. In addition, staff contacted the presidents to ensure that they were notified of the project and to see if there were any areas of concern. No areas of concern were identified by the Neighborhood Associations, nor was there a request that the applicant present the project to a meeting of their members. The project site was posted with a notice advertising this public hearing, a notice was published in the Orange County Reporter and notices were sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site. At the time of this printing, no correspondence, either written or electronic, had been received from any members of the public. CEQA Compliance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, ER No. 2009-86 has been prepared for this project (Exhibit 6). Conclusion Based on the analysis provided within this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-21 as conditioned. Vince Fregoso, ICP Principal Plann VF:jm vAreports\CUP\CUP11-21 Bender Ready Mix. 101011.pc 31A-6 Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-21 October 10, 2011 Page 5 Attachments: Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 - Land Use Map Exhibit 3 - Site Plan Exhibit 4 - Landscape Plan Exhibit 5 - Drainage/BMP Plan Exhibit 6 - Mitigated Negative Declaration 31A-7 FIRST c2- c2- a c2• c2- < Ml 3s? O?r?D? R2 fl) R7 R2i ''tII [+ R3 R3 R3 R3 J SM * FB : R3 R3 ? R3 R3 O O R3 R3 Ml H PH Rl fl3 R3 R3 ,; R3 R3 a R3 R3 P3 Ml to R3 R3 R3 P3 R3 fl3 R3 R3 0 R3 7, R3 R3 , SM ° R2 R* s 7 RI pI F R1 R1 Ell Rl O sM RB R2 q2 R7 Rl R1.w 1 c- J yM R2 n1 Rt R11 Rt A Rl PRONE - ?-? F R1 ° RI RI R1 RI c! ]H SMY P2 Rt Rl ` " R1 Rl R2 R1 s"s RT W^?R1HA ? ,•? Ri ^V 1 R1 R1 R1 3 J I „? Rl R1 Rl 1 R1 R1 RI R2 J C- SM g p2 fl1 R1 RI R1 R1 R1 RI RI I c- 0 R7 sM R R1 R1 a? u R3 P ? ? sM p" I a2 Ri JRl R, I I 13-o l I- I __ I I ?1 T HOBART Z Q t Al G94EFALAGROLULF4Lt (R COMMEUALRESDBNTIAL RI SNGLEFAMILYREIDBNTIAL -B PARONGMODIFICATION GC 30103 MENTCE14rE R m TIAOFAMILYFEEIMM Gad C0MMBaALSXITHMAIN Mt LIGKrINDUSfRAL RT MULTIREDENERYMU-TIRE Cl 00MMUNITYCOMMMAL M2 FlEAVYINDUSTRAL FAMILYFESDENCE Ct-MD 0cmm. 00MMBbAUMLG3JM DISfRCT MO MIUTARYOPEPATIONS FA fiJH1R3ANAFARFM9NTS C2 GENEPAL.OOMMEUAL O OPEN314CE FE FESDEPOAL ESTATE C3 CENTRAL WSNESS P MCFESEIGNAL 19D gEORCDENS-OFMBNT C3.A CENTRAL EWNETARTISfMLLACE POD RAPNED OCMMLNITYDEIwaCRMBNT S' SMFICFlAN 04 RAENN13D SiOPPINGCBNTH2 PFU RANNEO RERDBCLAL DB41CWE3NT C5 ARTEiALCOMMUML CUP 2011-21 BENDER READY MIX SY4 516 SOUTH SANTA FE STREET - - =500 FEET _ ,000 FF£f 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 ST. ?.ir a Lv M2 ? M1 's 74 31A-8 9 MANUFAC URING 2 z Project "Site O MAN U FA'( 0 z O V I [-] IMPOUND M A N U AC TURIN Q INDUSTRIAL = HUNTER AVENUE INDUSTRIAL T G f? 'URING STORAGE STORAGE P ,cOQ INDUSTRIAL w Z) Z w Q PLUMBING q ? OTC MANUFACTURING } MANUFACTURIN G Q CAR I-,) Z Q cc kD CUP 2011-21 BENDER READY MIX 516 SOUTH SANTA FE STREET` 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 31A-9 t\. i r A 3 A ` A •?'' A 4 ?e ., A r e A, 2 \?.p B z ,\ i t B 3 GATE \ \\ A 4 A 4 - I •?? A C % A 1 EXI"NG PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED A I \ \ \ F \ ` (EXCLUEXNG GUTTER) 117'-1'vv j RAIL ROAD \ A IC V I A ARCEL A , /j .:•24'-s., n I J (PER PROPOSED LOT. RGER) afitl1 I} ? A t ??" ;, ? ? ?? eeeBeeBeeaoeeeB ?"?a`3i"esa?ESS•i a m R m n z e v n D 3 m z v ? e 1 O 7_ I ? ? gg ? y j 3 w ? a g 6 ? s B EXHIBIT 3 n O Q O O F gs SITE PLAN 516 S. SANT A FE STS BENDER READY MIX AM' 110 £.P. LOA GV? 3! 3[>3 Broadw®y 6t. Sta.209 TA A A CA N/A 9 pFn-v 9q9 T15.9HBO YmC 9a9_ b.'ABl ° q 49'-5" 15 0 _16E, i OZ ?{ _ ... / B 3 I.. ` \1 A 4 EA? m O N 17 GATE --3 F l 0? i. s A A , 10 d HAIL ROAO j \ I_ \ '\ [ r- / PARCEL I \ ! ?- 24'-6" (PER PROPOSED LOT MERGER) '?? A EXHIBIT 4 i O - 1 v r Z m Cl ? 4 n m Z O f F I m a ? ! [ ? - ? ' mQ =z e oo $ LANDSCAPING PLAN 516 S. SANTA FE ST. BENDER READY MIX` ;'g~ I t 3 .IICHRELT YELOPFJE _ I?/gCwN nON: cc N/A IL SA iA ANA ? T? F r 03 Browa?vav S[. St®_209 Laouris ©aacn, Ca. B26s2 {Yrr 9n9-?T 5.8880 1m<- B?Afd.Tl S-6881... -..I J IA-1 I / ? \ R P b36 `9b ? r/ \ \ f o z? L_F ? L,B ? ?z ? ?' \ ? R?'?N \ :u UV \ ?- / LLFf? d O M i - j i? i1xJB F E v ?0 N?.? ? 41IBJ ,R I - 1 I \ `G \'°' EC a PL E f a ?sr I y y SNP FIVE 1 16' \ \ \ F%IS'IND GAR MENI TO K \\ ? RWOVED AND REPLACED ? , / CL f,'x \ (FMCLUUINC GU1 fi R) //mar i \ 2 '1 , -' j Ep, ft ?? ?f ° 4. 03 fr bi;lgi o;: se @? 3 ` 1 I IN :e gr( Tit R ?eqge 1= ' mQ =? o s °s DRAINAGE/ BMP PLAN 516 S. SANTA FE ST. IV BENDER READY MIX CT: LAEY£LQ°fl: LOG N/A 5 TA ANA CA O 8 O nt k 4?n O ?>q Ex o ??P {'yH ~OZ Ym i vz ? x ?Xz ? a r R 7 0 ag ? ?" z b ? A g?C? m ? n sm ?q 4 EXHIBIT 5 3rr-g est eraser-1 ?o[_r? Broadway 5[. Sta.209 ..,a Boaon. ca. as©s2 :51A-1 i I I . =1 AV I ?uirloii I i PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Bender Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing Project LEAD AGENCY: City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 Contact. Mr. Vince Fregoso, AICP 714.667.2700 PREPARED BY: RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 Contact: Mr. Glenn Lajoie, AICP Mr. Alan Ashimine 949.472.3505 July 2011 JN 10-107084 31A-14 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ...................................... 1 1.1 Statutory Authority and Requirements ...........................................................................................1-1 1.2 Purpose ..........................................................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Consultation ...................................................................................................................................1-2 ' 1.4 Incorporation by Reference ............................................................................................................1-2 2.0 Project Description .....................................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Project Location .............................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................................2-1 2.2.1 Existing Land Uses ............................................................................................................2-1 2.2.2 Surrounding Land Uses ..................................................................................................... 2-3 ' 2.3 2.4 Existing Zoning and General Plan .................................................................................................. Project Background ........................................................................................................................ 2-3 2-3 2.5 Project Characteristics ................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.6 2.5.1 Phasing ................................................... Permits and Approvals .................................................................................................................... 2-6 3.0 Initial Study Checklist ................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................. 3-2 ' 4.0 Environmental Analysis ..........................................................................................................................4.1-1 4.1 4.2 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................4.1-1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................................................4.2-1 4.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................................4.3-1 4.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................4.4-1 ' 4.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................4.5-1 4.6 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................4.6-1 4.7 Greenhouse Gases .....................................................................................................................4.7-1 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..............................................................................................4.8-1 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................................4.9-1 4.10 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................................................4.10-1 4.11 Mineral Resources ....................................................................................................................4.11-1 ' 4.12 Noise .........................................................................................................................................4.12-1 4.13 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................4.13-1 ' 4.14 4.15 Public Services ..........................................................................................................................4.14-1 Recreation .................................................................................................................................4.15-1 4.16 Transportation/Traffic ....................................... .................4.16-1 ........................................................ 4.17 4.18 Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................................................4.17-1 Mandatory Findings of Significance ..........................................................................................4.18-1 4.19 References ................................................................................................................................4.19-1 4.20 Report Preparation Personnel ...................................................................................................4.20-1 JULY 2011 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 31 A-15 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 5.0 Inventory of Mitigation Measures ....................... 5-1 ............................................................................................ 6.0 Consultant Recommendation .........................................................................................................................6-1 7.0 Lead Agency Determination ...........................................................................................................................7-1 APPENDICES (provided on CD at the end of the Table of Contents) A. Air Quality/Greenhouse Gases Data B. Water Quality Management Plan C. Hydrology Study ' D. Noise Data t t I'] i JULY 2011 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 31 A-16 LIST OF EXHIBITS 2-1 Regional Vicinity ...........................................................................................................................................2-2 2-2 Local Vicinity .................................................................................................................................................2-4 2-3 Proposed Improvements ............................. .... ....... ...................................................................................... 2-7 t fl i JULY 2011 iii 31 A-17 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES 4.3-1 Construction Air Emissions ........................................................................................................................4.3-4 4.3-2 Operational Air Emissions .........................................................................................................................4.3-5 4.3-3 Localized Significance of Emissions ..........................................................................................................4.3-7 4.6-1 Principal Faults Affecting the Project Site ..................................................................................................4.6-2 4.7-1 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions .....................................................................................................4.7-3 4.12-1 General Plan Noise Standards ................................................................................................................4.12-2 4.12-2 Municipal Code Noise Standards ............................................................................................................4.12-2 4.12-3 Noise Measurements ...............................................................................................................................4.12-3 4.12-4 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment ..............................................................4.12-4 4.12-5 Average Construction Noise Levels ........................................................................................................4.12-5 4.12-6 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ..............................................................................4.12-6 E 1 r JULY 2011 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 31 A-18 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration r 1.0 INTRODUCTION The proposed Bender Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing Project (herein referenced as the "project") involves various aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and safety improvements at an existing concrete manufacturing facility located at 516 South Santa Fe Street, within the eastern portion of the City of Santa Ana. Following a preliminary review of the proposed project, the City of Santa Ana has determined that it is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Initial Study addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the project, as proposed. 1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS In accordance with Sections 15051 and 15367 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the City of Santa Ana (City) is identified as the Lead Agency for the proposed project. Under the CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000-21177) and pursuant to Section 15063 of the CCR, the City is required to undertake the preparation of an Initial Study to determine if the proposed project would have a significant environmental impact. If, as a result of the Initial Study, the Lead Agency finds that there is evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall further find that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is warranted to analyze project-related and cumulative environmental impacts. Altematively, if the Lead Agency finds that there is no evidence that the project, either as proposed or as modified to include the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, may cause a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall find that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and shall prepare a Negative Declaration. Such determination can be made only if "there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency" that such impacts may occur (Section 21080(c), Public Resources Code). The environmental documentation, which is ultimately selected by the City in accordance with CEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions upon the project. The resulting documentation is not, however, a policy document and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits and other discretionary approvals would be required. The environmental documentation and supporting analysis is subject to a public review period. During this review, public agency comments on the document relative to environmental issues should be addressed to the City. Following review of any comments received, the City will consider these comments as a part of the project's environmental review and include them with the Initial Study documentation for consideration by the City. 1.2 PURPOSE r Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines identifies specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in an Initial Study. Pursuant to those requirements, an Initial Study shall include: • A description of the project, including the location of the project; • Identification of the environmental setting; • Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries; JULY 2011 1-1 INTRODUCTION 31 A-19 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT ' Initial StudylMiti ated Negative Declaration • Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any; • Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls; and • The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study. 1.3 CONSULTATION As soon as the Lead Agency (in this case, the City) has determined that an Initial Study would be required for the project, the Lead Agency is directed to consult informally with all Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies that are responsible for resources affected by the project, in order to obtain the recommendations of those agencies as to whether an EIR or Negative Declaration should be prepared ' for the project. Following receipt of any written comments from those agencies, the Lead Agency considers any recommendations of those agencies in the formulation of the preliminary findings. Following completion of this Initial Study, the Lead Agency initiates formal consultation with these and , other governmental agencies as required under CEQA and its implementing guidelines. 1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE i The following documents were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study, and are incorporated into this document by reference. These documents are available for review at the City of Santa Ana's Planning and Building Agency located at 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. • City of Santa Ana General Plan (adopted various dates but reformatted in January 2010). The City of Santa Ana General Plan (General Plan) is the long-range guide for land use and development within the City. The General Plan includes a total of 16 different elements that incorporate specific goals and policies to guide growth and preserve the qualities within the , City that define the natural and built environment. These 16 elements consist of: • Airport Environs; • Circulation; • Conservation; • Economic Development; • Education; • Energy; • Growth Management; • Housing; • Land Use; • Noise; • Open Space, Parks and Recreation; , • Public Facilities; • Public Safety; • Seismic Safety; • Scenic Corridors; and • Urban Design. , Various elements of the General Plan have been updated and adopted intermittently since the document was originally created in 1982; however, the entire General Plan was reformatted in January 2010. JULY 2011 1-2 INTRODUCTION 31A-20 r BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT u?'.. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration r City of Santa Ana Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance. The City of Santa Ana Municipal Code provides regulations for govemmental operations, development, infrastructure, public safety, and business operations within the City. Chapter 41, Zoning, of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code represents the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance is intended to promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare within the City. rj I a L l e JULY 2011 1-3 INTRODUCTION 31A-21 rv BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT I (9) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. r t JULY 2011 1-4 INTRODUCTION 31A-22 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION Regionally, the project site is located in the City of Santa Ana (City), within the County of Orange; refer to Exhibit 2-1, Regional Vicinity. Locally, the project site is located at 516 South Santa Fe Street, within the eastern portion of the City. The site is approximately % -mile west of Grand Avenue, Y<-mile south of First Street, and'/,-mile southwest of Interstate 5 (1-5). 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.2.1 EXISTING LAND USES The 0.97-acre project site is currently occupied by the Bender Ready-Mix concrete manufacturing facility. The facility produces and sells large quantities of concrete through the processing of aggregate and other raw materials. The concrete is prepared, loaded into truck-mounted rotating drum mixers, and hauled away for use at construction sites. Generally, concrete is sold to independent truck contractors; however, Bender Ready-Mix also delivers concrete directly to customers through its own fleet of trucks. The facility is composed of the following primary components: • Maintenance/Office Structure: A 7,001 square-foot single-story structure exists on the northern portion of the site. The structure is utilized for material/equipment storage, vehicle maintenance, and office space. The building is equipped with several large roll-up doors allowing for the entrance of heavy trucks. The western portion of the structure (fronting South Santa Fe Street) is utilized for office purposes while the eastern portion is utilized for storage and maintenance activities. • Aggregate Storage Area: The southeastern portion of the site is utilized for the storage of raw materials necessary for concrete manufacturing. These materials consist primarily of sand and gravel products, and are stored outdoors in piles separated by block walls. These aggregates are delivered to the site by truck and transported from area to area within the site by bulldozer. • Concrete Batch Processing Equipment: The concrete batch processing machinery is located along the southern side of the maintenance/office structure. Raw materials are inserted, mixed, and processed within this equipment and prepared for loading. This equipment is electrically-powered. • Truck Staging Area: The truck staging area is located along the western side of the maintenance/office structure. This area consists of a ramp that allows concrete trucks to back down into an area abutting the concrete batch processing equipment. Concrete is then loaded from the batch processing equipment to trucks. • Debris Storage Basin: An earthen basin constructed within the southeastern comer of the site is utilized for storage of by-products of the concrete manufacturing process. These by- products include wash water and excess/older concrete cleared from trucks prior to loading new concrete. This basin is periodically cleared when it reaches capacity. Wash water is recycled and reused in the concrete manufacturing process. Solids are hauled off-site to a I landfill every one to two days, depending on demand and operations JULY 2011 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 31A-23 Palmdale I 1 L O S A N G E L. E S COUNTY San ' rnando , i B b k lr / ur an „-„ Azusa Glendora ' r Pasadena Rancho 101 Cucamonga West omona r Monlclalr Gntari ?? Covina Los _ Chino Angeles Whi ti er t ? f p V;C+ Yorba ` Linda N _ orcol ® Rk © Fullerton Torrance Cypress Garden Grove f -,y onQ n' Ana Beath * %? Irvine Costa Hu o`` Mesa Cep ' - E ' F f n /. ixxy A. O L ' r * - Project Site ORANGE I \ COUNTY S/ an Joan i? r \ Capistrano Temecula ref ? NOT TO SCALE ¦ CONSULTING I INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION BENDER READY MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Regional Vicinity 1 • JN 104070& Exhibit 2-1 31A -24 (2) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration • Parking and Truck Storage: A total of eight striped parking spaces are located along the northern boundary of the site. In addition, concrete trucks are stored and parked in other areas of the site (primarily along site's southern perimeter). The facility is located on the western side of South Santa Fe Street on two parcels (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 011-311-09 and 011-311-10). The site's frontage includes ornamental landscaping, chain-link fencing, the office/maintenance structure, and a small length of block wall within the northern portion of the site. The site provides three points of access from South Santa Fe Street (one at the northern boundary of the site and two within the southern portion of the site, via gates in the chain-link fence). Truck ingress occurs via the two southern access points, while egress occurs from the northern point. The northern, western, and southern boundaries of the site are improved with cinder block walls, chain- link fencing, and/or wrought-iron fencing. The majority of the site is paved, with the exception of the aggregate storage area. The site is void of improved drainage or water quality enhancements, and runoff generally drains via sheet flow to South Santa Fe Street or ponds on-site. Truck loading activities at the site occur from approximately 6:00 AM through 3:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. On average, the facility processes 15 to 20 truck loads per day. The facility employs approximately 12 full time workers, which includes truck drivers and on-site staff. 2.2.2 SURROUNDING LAND USES The project site is immediately surrounded by a sheet metal fabrication facility to the north, a steel manufacturing facility to the south, South Santa Fe Street to the east, and the Union Pacific (UP) ' railroad alignment to the west; refer to Exhibit 2-2, Local VicinThe site is further surrounded by industrial uses to the north, south and east. Multi-family residential uses abut the UP railroad alignment, approximately 25 feet west of the project site. 2.3 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN The project site is designated "Heavy Industrial" (M2) by the City of Santa Ana Zoning Code (Zoning Code) and "Industrial" (IND) by the City of Santa Ana General Plan (General Plan). 2.4 PROJECT BACKGROUND The existing Bender Ready-Mix concrete manufacturing facility opened in 2006. Prior to 2006, the site was utilized as a portable restroom rental and distribution facility. Originally, the project applicant intended to have a concrete trucking/delivery operations only (i.e., distribution of concrete manufactured by others, and no concrete would be manufactured on-site); however, portable concrete manufacturing equipment was added to the site shortly after it opened. The 7,001 square-foot structure (constructed in 1965) was reutilized by Bender Ready-Mix in support of its operations. r Upon review of current activities at the site, the City has determined that the Bender Ready-Mix concrete manufacturing facility has been operating without a valid Conditional Use Permit (CUP). As stated above, the zoning designation for the site is "Heavy Industrial" (M2). The Zoning Code allows for the following conditionally-permitted uses within the M2 zone: "In addition to uses permitted subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit pursuant to sections 41-489 and 41-472.5, the following uses may be permitted in the M2 district subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: JULY 2011 2-3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 31A-25 0 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (a) Acid manufacturing. ' (b) Junkyards, automobile wrecking yards and salvage yards, and impound yards. (c) Cement, lime, gypsum or plaster of paris manufacture. (d) Fertilizer manufacture...." Under the conditionally-permitted use for "(c) Cement, lime, gypsum or plaster of pans manufacture," the project is allowable within the M2 zone but is subject to a CUP. In addition, the City has determined that a lot merger would be required to consolidate the two separate parcels underlying the site for compliance with City and CUP regulations. Thus, this Initial Study is intended to address impacts related to operation of the existing Bender Ready-Mix facility in addition to any improvements that would be required by the City for issuance of a CUP. The City anticipates that several improvements will be required in order for the project to meet the requirements of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code (Municipal Code). These new improvements are described below within Section 2,5, Proiect Characteristics. 2.5 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Existing conditions and operations at the Bender Ready-Mix facility are described in Section 2.2, Environmental Setting. It is important to note that the project applicant does not propose to alter operations or facilities at the site beyond what is required by the City to meet CUP and Municipal Code requirements. These improvements focus on aesthetics, drainage/water quality and safety at and surrounding the project site; refer to Exhibit 2-3, Proposed Improvements. As stated above, this Initial Study analyzes impacts related to current concrete manufacturing operations at the site, in addition to the following improvements: Aesthetics • Existing landscaped areas along the South Santa Fe Street frontage would be enhanced to include clinging vines along the maintenance/office structure in addition to grass ground cover. • Two existing Queen Palm trees along the street frontage would remain, while two of the three existing Mexican Fan Palms would be removed. • Three new landscaped areas along the western site boundary would be implemented. The three areas would include clinging vines along adjacent walls, grass ground cover, shrubs, and umbrella trees. • The total amount of landscaped area on-site would be 2,323 square feet, which would slightly exceed the City's requirement of 2,320 square feet. ' • The site would be improved to include a 10-foot high solid block wall on all sides. In several areas this would require the removal of existing chain-link or wrought-iron fencing, or raising the height of the existing 7-foot high block walls by 3 feet. • Aesthetic screening (stucco over metal lath) would be implemented to hide roof-mounted equipment (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning components) from surrounding uses. • Existing signage facing South Santa Fe Street would be redesigned to meet City standards. JULY 2011 2-5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 31A-27 (9) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Drainage and Water Quality , • A detention/desilting basin would be constructed in the southeastern portion of the site. This ' basin would be approximately 400 square feet in size and would improve water quality by detaining stormwater on-site. • Three segments of 24-inch bottomless trench (with 4-inch perforated overflow pipe) would be installed along the South Santa Fe Street frontage. The segments would be installed across the three vehicle access points, and would drain into landscaped areas or the proposed detention/desilting basin. Safety • One existing chain-link access gate along South Santa Fe Street swings open towards the roadway. This gate would be replaced by a rolling gate to eliminate any encroachment or safety hazard for vehicles passing by the site. • South Santa Fe Street would be repaved from its centerline to the Bender Ready-Mix property line frontage. 2.5,1 PHASING The proposed improvements at the project site would occur in a single phase. Construction is anticipated to begin in late 2011 and would last approximately three months. 2.6 PERMITS AND APPROVALS The City approvals required for implementation of the project will include the following, among others: • California Environmental Quality Act clearance • Conditional Use Permit • Lot Merger • Site Plan Review • Grading/Building Permits JULY 2011 2-6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 31A-28 f. BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 3.1 BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Bender Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mr. Vince Fregoso, AICP Principal Planner 714.667.2700 4. Project Location: The project site is located within the eastern portion of the City of Santa Ana, at 561 South Santa Fe Street. The site is approximately '/. -mile west of Grand Avenue, '/.-mile south of First Street, and'/,-mile southwest of Interstate 5 (1-5). 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Bender Ready-Mix, Inc. 516 South Santa Fe Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 6. General Plan Designation: The City of Santa Ana General Plan designation for the project site is "Industrial" (IND). 7. Zoning: The City of Santa Ana Zoning Ordinance designation for the site is "Heavy Industrial" (M2). 8. Description of the Project: The proposed project would include a range of aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and safety improvements at the existing Bender Ready-Mix concrete manufacturing facility. It is important to note that the project applicant does not propose to alter operations or facilities at the site beyond what is required by the City to meet CUP and Municipal Code requirements. Aesthetic improvements would include landscaping, a new block wall, aesthetic screening, and signage. Drainage/water quality improvements would consist of a detention/desilting basin and on-site drainage conveyance facilities. Safety improvements would include fencing and the repaving of South Santa Fe Street along the project frontage. Additional details regarding the project are provided in Section 2.5, Project Characteristics. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is immediately surrounded by a sheet metal fabrication facility to the north, a steel manufacturing facility to the south, South Santa Fe Street to the east, and the Union Pacific (UP) railroad alignment to the west. The site is further surrounded by industrial uses to the north, south and east. Multi- family residential uses abut the UP railroad alignment, approximately 25 feet west of the project site. JULY 2011 3-1 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 31A-29 (9) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement). As shown in Section 2.6, Permits and Approvals, it is anticipated that the approvals from the City of Santa Ana would be required. These approvals are anticipated to include California Environmental Quality Act clearance, Conditional Use Permit, Lot Merger, Site Plan Review, and Grading/Building Permits. Additional approvals may be required as the project entitlement process moves forward. 3.2 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Land Use and Planning Agriculture and Forestry Resources Mineral Resources Air Quality Noise Biological Resources Population and Housing ? Cultural Resources Public Services ? Geology and Soils Recreation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Transportation/Traffic Hazards & Hazardous Materials Utilities & Service Systems ? Hydrology & Water Quality ? Mandatory Findings of Significance EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include: • Aesthetics • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation/Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the CEQA Guidelines and used by the City of Santa Ana in its environmental review process. For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study's preparation, a determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the development's impacts and to identify mitigation. JULY 2011 3-2 31A-30 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST I n' BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question, there are four possible responses: • No Impact. The development will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment. • Less Than Significant Impact. The development will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below established thresholds that are considered to be significant. • Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The development will have the potential to generate impacts which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the development's physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant. • Potentially Significant Impact. The development will have impacts which are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, so that impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels. I I I JULY 2011 3-3 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 31A-31 (9) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. t t t JULY 2011 3-4 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 31A-32 t BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS As stated within Section 2.0, Proiect Description, upon review of current activities at the site, the City has determined that the Bender Ready-Mix concrete manufacturing facility has been operating without a valid Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The Project Applicant would be required to acquire a CUP from the City to continue long-term operations. Since environmental review for existing on-site concrete manufacturing operations was not previously conducted, this analysis is intended to address impacts related to operation of the existing Bender Ready-Mix facility in addition to any improvements that would be required by the City for issuance of a CUP. The City anticipates that several improvements will be required in order for the project to meet the requirements of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code (Municipal Code). These new improvements are described within Section 2.5, Proiect Characteristics. The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. Explanations are provided for each item. 4.1 AESTHETICS L [l Less Than Would the project: potentially Significant ' Less Than No .: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation impact Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? I/ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings ./ within a state scenic 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? I a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The City of Santa Ana's (City) General Plan identifies street corridors, watercourse corridors, inter-city corridors, City entries, and selected/screened views from a highway that consideration in terms of development within the City. The project site is not located in close proximity near any identified corridors, City entries, or selected/screened views from a highway. The nearest identified features consist of First Street (a "Primary Street Corridor" approximately 0.5-mile north of the site) and a "Major City Entry" situated approximately 0.75-mile northeast of the site along the City's border with Tustin. Existing concrete manufacturing operations at the project site do not currently affect any City-identified visual resources. Moreover, the various aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and safety enhancements included in the project would not affect City-identified resources and would result in beneficial aesthetic impacts. Since the project area is void of a scenic vista, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. I JULY 2011 4.1-1 AESTHETICS 31A-33 (9) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. There are no officially-designated State scenic highways within proximity to the project site.' Thus, current operations do not affect scenic resources within a state scenic highway, nor would the identified on-site improvements associated with the project. For a discussion of potential impacts to identified scenic corridors within the City, refer to Response 4.1(a), above. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. ' Short-Term Impacts , Short-term construction activities associated with the proposed project would temporarily impact the character/quality of the project site. Although the scope of construction activities associated with the project would be relatively minor, exposed surfaces, construction debris, equipment, and truck traffic would temporarily impact views from surrounding uses. However, the construction process would be short-term (approximately three months) and impacts would cease upon project completion. Although construction activities would occur in proximity to residential uses to the west, impacts are not expected to be significant due to intervening uses (Union Pack railroad alignment), structures (block walls), and current operations at the site that utilize heavy machinery and trucks. Thus, short-term impacts would be less than significant. Long-Term Impacts The Bender Ready-Mix facility occurs within a fully developed, industrialized area. As stated above in Response 4.1(a), no City-identified view corridors, City entries, or selected/screened views from a highway are located in the site vicinity. No unique aesthetic resources or views exist in the site vicinity. Given the range of heavy industrial uses in the area and lack of identified visual resources, the existing Bender Ready-Mix facility does not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The proposed project would involve various aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and safety , enhancements. Aesthetic improvements would include landscaping, a new block wall, aesthetic screening, and signage. Drainage/water quality improvements would consist of a detention/desilting basin and on-site drainage conveyance facilities. Safety improvements would include fencing and the repaving of South Santa Fe Street along the project frontage. None of the improvements associated with the project would have an adverse impact on the visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. Rather, the project is expected to result in a beneficial impact in regards to aesthetics. Additional landscaping would be incorporated along the South Santa Fe Street frontage and western site boundary, a 10-foot high block wall would surround the entire site, shielding operations from surrounding uses, aesthetic screening for roof-mounted equipment would be installed, and new signage would be implemented along the project frontage. Thus, no impact would occur in this regard. ' California Department of Transportation website, hftp://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic-highways/index.htm, accessed , January 28, 2011. JULY 2011 4.1-2 AESTHETICS I 31A-34 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT h Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. Short-Term Impacts Short-term light and glare impacts are anticipated to be minimal, since no nighttime construction would be required for project implementation. Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard. Long-Term Impacts Security lighting currently exists at the Bender Ready-Mix facility. Light/glare also occurs as a result of existing vehicle headlights on roadways surrounding the site. Given the developed and industrialized nature of the project area, operations at the Bender Ready-Mix facility do not result in impacts that adversely affect nighttime views in the area. The proposed project would not result in any new lighting on-site. In addition, the project would not result in any expansion of long-term operations that would result in an increased number of vehicle trips to and from the site. Thus, impacts in this regard would not occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. a JULY 2011 4.1-3 AESTHETICS 31A-35 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. w r JULY 2011 4.1-4 AESTHETICS 31A-36 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES t e I In determining whether impacts"to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to, the, Caiifornia ?Agricuitural;,-Land "6 iuation:=and "Site`; µAssessment Model (1997)` prepared " by: the California. ..`Department of Conservation as an optional model; to use in assessing Impacts on agriculture and ._ farmland In Less Than determining whether impacts to forest resources, including Potentially Significant Less Than " timberland, ' are significant environmental effects, lead Significant Impact With Significant No Impact agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Impact - Mitigation Impact Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding 'the Incorporated state's inventory of "forest land, 'lncluding the Foresi;and Range Assessment Project and the' Forest Legacy Assessment .-project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air ResourcesBoard.,Wquid the pro'ectr 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 Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code ? section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production as defined b Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to ? non-forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of ? Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 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? No Impact The proposed project site and surrounding areas are developed with urbanized uses. No farmland exists within the site vicinity. In addition, based on the Orange County Important Farmland 2008 Map prepared by the California Department of Conservation, the proposed project site does not occur upon any area designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. I Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Orange County Important Farmland 2008 Map, published August 2009. JULY 2011 4.2-1 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 31A-37 C PPI ARU BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. As stated above, the project area is developed and urbanized, and no agricultural land exists within the site vicinity. The site is designated "Heavy Industrial" (M2) by the City of Santa Ana Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance). Thus, the project does not currently affect any land zoned for agricultural use under the City's Zoning Code and would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. Likewise, proposed improvements at the site would not result in any zoning or Williamson Act contracts. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. C) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The project site is completely developed and urbanized. As discussed above, the site is designated "Heavy Industrial" (M2). The project does not currently conflict with any areas zoned for forest or timberland, and neither would any of the proposed on-site improvements. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact Refer to Response 4.2(c), above. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? No Impact. As stated above in Responses 4.2(a) through 4.2(c), the project site is completely developed and is void of agricultural or forest resources. Thus, there is no potential for the conversion of these resources and no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. I I JULY 2011 4.2-2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 31A-38 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.3 AIR QUALITY t PA Where available, the significance criteria established by the Less Than applicable air quality management or air pollution control otentially P Significant Less Than No dlstrcf may be relied upon to make the following Significant Impact ImpactWith:_ :Mitigation Significant Impact Impact determinations. Would the project: Incorporated a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected 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 emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, in order to determine consistency with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) two main criteria must be addressed. Criterion 1: With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis for a project include forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations and delay of attainment. a) Would the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air qualify violations? Since the consistency criteria identified under the first criterion pertain to pollutant concentrations, rather than to total regional emissions, an analysis of the project's pollutant emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations is used as the basis for evaluating project consistency. As discussed in Response 4.3(d), below, localized concentrations of CO, NOx, PM,o, and PM2.5 would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. Because ROGs are not a criteria pollutant, there is no ambient standard or localized threshold for ROGs. Due to the role ROG plays in ozone formation, it is classified as a precursor pollutant and only a regional emissions threshold has been established. JULY 2011 4.3-1 AIR QUALITY 31A-39 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Would the project cause or contribute to new air quality violations? The proposed project would result in emissions that would be below the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to cause or affect a violation of- the ambient air quality standards. c) Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP? The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to localized concentrations during project construction and operations. As such, the proposed project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or AQMP emissions reductions. Criterion 2: With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) air quality policies, it is important to recognize that air quality planning within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD's second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether or not the proposed project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the AQMP. Determining whether or not a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the AQMP involves the evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of each of these criteria. a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP? A project is consistent with the AQMP in part if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment assumptions that were used in the development of the AQMP. In the case of the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin (2007 AQMP), three sources of data form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions: the City of Santa Ana General Plan (General Plan), SCAG's Growth Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG), and SCAG's 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTP also provides socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population growth. The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the project area as "Industrial" (IND). The General Plan establishes goals and policies that are intended to guide development throughout the City. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with City-wide plans for population growth at the project site. The proposed project is consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the site vicinity in the RCPG. The population, housing, and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the City; these are used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. Additionally, as the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2007 AQMP, it can be concluded that the proposed project would be consistent with the projections. b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures? The proposed project would result in less than significant air quality impacts. Compliance with emission reduction measures identified by the SCAQMD would be required as identified in Response 4.3(b) and 4.3(c). As such, the proposed project meets this AQMP consistency criterion. JULY 2011 4.3-2 AIR QUALITY 31A-40 t 11 t F BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT 4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration I c) Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the AQMP? The proposed project involves minor construction improvements at the project site as well as continued existing facility operations. The project would not conflict with City and SCAG policies. In conclusion, the determination of AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the long-term influence of a project on air quality in the Basin. The proposed project would not result in a long-term impact on the region's ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards, as the project would only generate construction emissions. Also, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the AQMP for control of fugitive dust. As discussed above, the proposed project would not conflict with the goals and policies of the AQMP and is, therefore, considered consistent with the SCAQMD's 2007 AQMP. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ' Less Than Si_onificant Impact. SHORT-TERM (CONSTRUCTION) EMISSIONS Construction Emissions The project involves site improvements with regards to aesthetics, drainage/water quality, and safety at and surrounding the project site. Construction activities would involve demolition, earthwork, trenching, paving, and building construction. Construction would occur over approximately three months in mid- 2011. Construction activities would require the export of approximately 1,576 cubic yards of soil, and the paving of approximately 0.33 acres. Table 4.3-1, Construction Air Emissions, depicts the construction emissions associated with the project. Emitted pollutants would include ROG, CO, NOx, PM,o, and PM2.5. The largest amount of ROG, CO, and NOx emissions would occur during the earthwork phase of construction from off-road diesel emissions. PM,o and PM2.5 emissions would occur from fugitive dust (due to earthwork and excavation) and from construction equipment exhaust. The majority of PM,o and PM2,5 emissions would be generated by fugitive dust from earthwork activities. Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, emissions produced on-site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to and from the site. 1 As depicted in Table 4.3-1, construction-related emissions would not exceed the established SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants. However, the proposed project would be required to adhere to standard SCAQMD regulations, such as implementing SCAQMD Rule 403 which would further reduce construction emissions. With adherence to SCAQMD standard regulations, impacts would be less than significant. JULY 2011 4.3-3 AIR QUALITY 31A-41 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT (9) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 4.3.1 Construction Air Emissions t Ei l -r? C t sl rti S ?? F.oltutant " undslda ons n ruc top s ons c rce ROG NOx CO ". ' 1:402. i PMio PCVIzs Unmitigated Emissions 3.19 27,70 14.55 0.01 2.05 1.24 Mitigated Emissions2 3.19 27.70 14.55 0.01 1.79 1.24 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; S02= sulfur dioxide; PMio = particulate matter up to 10 microns; PM2.5 =particulate matter up to 2.5 microns Notes: 1. Emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS 2007 version 9.2.4 Computer Model, as recommended by the SCAQMD. 2. Mitigated emissions refer to the inclusion of SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), which requires exposed soils to be watered twice daily. Refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gases Data, for model output sheets. Naturally Occurring Asbestos Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are a human health hazard when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types such as tremolite and actinolite are also found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by State, Federal, and international agencies and was identified as a toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board in 1986. Asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading for development projects, and at quarry operations. All of these activities may have the effect of releasing potentially harmful asbestos into the air. Natural weathering and erosion processes can act on asbestos bearing rock and make it easier for asbestos fibers to become airborne if such rock is disturbed. According to the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultrarnafrc Rocks in California - Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report (August 2000), serpentinite and ultramafic rocks are not known to occur within the project area. Thus, there would be no impact in this regard. OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Mobile Source Long-term air quality impacts consist of mobile source emissions generated from project-related traffic and from stationary source emissions. The project would result in on-site aesthetics, drainage/water quality, and safety improvements required for CUP compliance. These improvements would not alter or expand existing concrete manufacturing operations at the facility. Although there would be no new or increased long-term operational emissions, existing operational emissions have been quantified. Project operations generate approximately 88 daily trips (accounting for 12 employees and assuming 20 truck loads per day). u t J r] JULY 2011 4.3-4 31A-42 AIR QUALITY I BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 Area Source Emissions t PI 11 LJ Area source emissions are generated from electrical energy and natural gas consumption. The primary use of natural gas by the facility is for combustion to produce space heating, water heating, and other miscellaneous heating or air conditioning sources. It is noted that the facility has obtained the required permits from the SCAQMD for on-site cement storage tanks, concrete batch equipment, and a dry filter. The project would not result in any new stationary sources and would not generate any new trips. As indicated in Table 4.3-2, Operational Air Emissions, emissions generated by vehicle traffic and area source emissions do not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds for SOx, ROG, CO, NOx, PM1o, and PM2.5. As the total operational (mobile and area sources) emissions for the proposed project do not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, air quality impacts from operations are less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Table 4.3-2 Operational Air Emissions p ions S e Pollutant ' undslda '_, ss ourc :- r W ` . ROG. NOx ; GO : S PM1o : PMZs Area Source Emissions2 0.22 0.83 2.23 0.00 0.01 0.01 Vehicle Emissions 0.59 4.69 7.46 0.02 1.78 0.45 Total Emissions 0.81 5.52 9.69 0.02 1.79 0.46 SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No No No Notes; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; S02 = sulfur dioxide; PM1o = particulate matter; up to 10 microns; PMz,s = particulate matter; up to 2.5 microns 1. Based on URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.4) modeling results, worst-case seasonal emissions for area and mobi le emissions have been modeled. 2. Area Source emissions exclude the use of fireplaces and wood burning stoves. Refer to Appendix A, Air uali lGreenhouse Gases Data. 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 emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. CUMULATIVE CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS With respect to the proposed projects construction-period air quality emissions and cumulative Basin- wide conditions, the SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the 2007 AQMP pursuant to Federal Clean Air Act mandates. As such, the proposed project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements, and implement all feasible mitigation measures. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures in order to reduce dust so that it does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would comply with adopted 2007 AQMP emissions control measures. Per SCAQMD rules and mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements (i.e., Rule 403 compliance, the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, and compliance with adopted Air Quality Management Plan emissions control measures) would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the Basin, which would include related projects. I JULY 2011 4.3-5 31A-43 AIR QUALITY BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would reduce the proposed project's construction- ' related impacts to a less than significant level. Thus, it can be reasonably inferred that the project- related construction emissions, in combination with those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate the local air quality. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. CUMULATIVE OPERATIONAL IMPACTS As discussed previously, the existing facility operations do not exceed SCAQMD emission thresholds and do contribute to air quality impacts. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis. Emission reduction technology, strategies, and plans are constantly being developed, As a result, the facility does not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant. Therefore, cumulative operational impacts associated with the project are less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ' Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. Sensitive receptors near the project site include multi-family residences to the west of the project site. In order to identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the'SCAQMD recommends addressing localized significance thresholds for construction and operations impacts (area sources only). Carbon monoxide hot-spot analyses are generally performed for the analysis of localized mobile source impacts. LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS (LST) Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (1-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with project-specific level proposed projects. The SCAQMD provides the LST lookup tables for one, two, and five acre projects emitting CO, NOx, PM2.5, or Mo. The LST methodology and associated mass rates are not designed to evaluate localized impacts from mobile sources traveling over the roadways. The SCAQMD recommends that any project over five acres should perform air quality dispersion modeling to assess impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The project is located within Sensitive Receptor Area (SRA) 17, Central Orange County. The project site is approximately 0.97 acre in size; therefore, the LST thresholds for a one-acre project were utilized for the LST analysis. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are multi-family residential units to the west of the project site. These sensitive land uses may be potentially affected by air pollutant emissions generated during on-site construction activities. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. As the nearest sensitive use is approximately 50 meters away, the LST value for 50 meters was utilized. JULY 2011 4.3-6 AIR QUALITY I 31A-44 I (a BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 4.3-3, Localized Significance of Emissions, shows the construction- and operational-related emissions for NOx, CO, PM,o, and PM2.5 compared to the LSTs for SRA 17, Central Orange County. As shown in Table 4.3-3, emissions would not exceed the LSTs for SRA 17. Therefore, localized significance impacts are less than significant. Table 4.3-3 Localized Significance of Emissions Pollutant (poundslday) o-y?OUfCe #. _ l t t` NOx CO PM?o PM2 Construction 2011 Total Mitigated Emissions 27.70 14.55 1.79 1.24 Localized Significance Threshold 83 753 12 4 Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No Operations Area Source Emissions 0.83 2.23 0.01 0.01 Localized Significance Threshold 83 753 3 1 Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No Note: 1. The Localized Significance Threshold was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology guidance document for pollutants NOx, CO, PM,o, and PM2.5. The Localized Significance Threshold was based on the project site's acreage (0.97), the distance to sensitive receptors 50 meters), and the source receptor area SRA 17). CARBON MONOXIDE HOTSPOTS The SCAQMD requires a quantified assessment of CO hotspot when a project increases the volume to capacity ratio (also called the intersection capacity utilization) by 0.02 (two percent) for any intersection with an existing level of service (LOS) D or worse. Because traffic congestion is highest at intersections where vehicles queue and are subject to reduced speeds, these hotspots are typically produced at intersection locations. However, as the proposed project would not result in any new trips following completion of construction activities, a CO hotspot analysis is not required. No impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Sfgnifrcantlmpact. ' According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. Construction activities associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. Construction-related odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon project completion. Any impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short-term and are less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. JULY 2011 4.3-7 AIR QUALITY 31A-45 ` BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. t F_j 1 JULY 2011 4.3-8 AIR QUALITY 31A-46 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES t r Less Than Would the project: Potentially Signfficant - Less Than No Significant ImpactWith Significant Impact' Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect, 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 Service? j b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California ? Department . of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) ? through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially 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 nurse sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a 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? a) Have a substantial adverse effect, 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 Service? No Impact The project area has historically been impacted by heavy industrial uses. The proposed project site was fully impacted and developed prior to Bender Ready-Mix assuming operations at the site in 2006. No habitat capable of supporting candidate, sensitive, or special status species occurs on- site. Thus, no impacts in this regard would occur. Miti_oation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact As stated above within Response 4.4(a), the proposed project site is completely developed and no sensitive biological resources or habitats (including riparian habitat) exists. No impacts would occur in this regard. JULY 2011 4.4-1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 31A-47 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. , C) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of , the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact Refer to Responses 4.4(a) and 4.4(b) above. The project site has been previously ' disturbed and is void of sensitive plants, wildlife, and habitats (including wetlands). Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. d) Interfere substantially 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? No Impact. The project would not have the capability to interfere with wildlife movement, nor would it impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. The project area has historically been impacted by heavy industrial uses. The proposed project site was fully impacted and developed prior to Bender Ready-Mix assuming operations at the site in 2006. No sensitive biological habitat exists in the project area, and the area does not support the existence of resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Thus no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No impact As discussed above in Responses 4.4(a) and 4.4(b), above, the proposed project would not result in impacts to sensitive biological resources. The site is currently being utilized for heavy industrial purposes. A minimal amount of landscaping exists along the South Santa Fe Street frontage. ' The only policies applicable to the project are from Chapter 33, Article VII, Regulation of the Planting, Maintenance, and Removal of Trees of the City's Municipal Code. The proposed project would be ' consistent with the City s Municipal Code in relation to the addition or removal of trees, No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, orstate habitat conservation plan? ' No Impact According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's HCP/NCCP Planning Areas in Southern California Map, the proposed project is not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural ' Community Conservation Plan. No other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans apply to the site. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. I fl 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, HCP/NCCP Planning Areas in Southern California, October 2008. JULY 2011 4.4-2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 31A-48 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES I 11, I I J LessThan Would the project- Potentially Significant Less Than No ' Significant Impact With Significant impact Impact mitigation fmpact Incorporated, a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ? historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines ( ? 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource ? or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ? formal cemeteries? a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? No Impact. The proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. No known historical resources exist on-site. As stated within Section 2.0, Project Description, the project includes aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and safety improvements, none of which would result in the demolition or substantial alteration of any existing on-site structures. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? Less Than Slanificant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. No known archaeological resources exist within the boundaries of the project site. The site has been completely disturbed through the development of existing heavy industrial uses. However, minor amounts of grading and excavation would be required as part of proposed project improvements. Although it is not expected that archaeological resources would be encountered during the grading/excavation process, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is provided in the unlikely event such resources are discovered. Upon implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure: CUL-1 In the event buried cultural resources are discovered during construction activities, an Orange County-certified archaeologist shall be retained to evaluate the discovery prior to resuming construction in the immediate vicinity of the find. if warranted, the archaeologist shall collect the resource, and prepare a technical report describing the results of the investigation. The certified archaeologist shall prepare excavated materials to the point of identification, and shall offer excavated finds for curatorial purposes to the County of Orange, or its designee, on a first refusal basis. The Project Applicant shall also be responsible for the payment of County of Orange curatorial fees, if applicable. JULY 2011 4.5-1 CULTURAL RESOURCES 31A-49 (9) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? o ' Less Than Significant Impact., The pr ject site and surrounding area has been completely disturbed by grading and excavation associated with existing development. Paleontological resources are not expected to occur on-site given previous levels of disturbance in the vicinity. Impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant. Miti_ation Measures: No mitigation is required. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Given the developed and disturbed nature of the project site, no known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, are expected to be encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities. 1 In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Califomia Health and Safety Code, in the unlikely event human remains are found during construction, the County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are or believed to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to determine the appropriate Native American representative for consultation on the disposition of the human remains (refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-3). Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: CUL-2 In the event human remains are found during construction, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined, within two working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human ' remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are or believed to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento within 48 hours. In accordance with Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendents shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains. I JULY 2011 4.5-2 CULTURAL RESOURCES I 31A-50 I (g) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS J t Less Than Potentially Would the project:` Significant Less Than No Significant With Impact Significant Impact' Impact Midgatlon Impact incorporated a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involvin : 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based ? on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2) Strong seismic round shaking? ? 3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ? 4) Landslides? ? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ? c. Be located 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? 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? 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 waste water? a) Expose people or stnrctures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 4Z No Impact. Southern California, including the project area, is subject to the effects of seismic activity due to the active faults that traverse the area. Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or are in a State- designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. According to the Seismic Safety Element of the City's General Plan, no faults (active, potentially active, or inactive) are known to exist within the City. Since no known faults exist in the site vicinity and the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, impacts would not occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. JULY 2011 4.6-1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 31A-51 (9) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Southern California has numerous active seismic faults subjecting residents to potential earthquake and seismic-related hazards. Seismic activity poses two types of potential hazards for residents and structures, categorized either as primary or secondary hazards. Primary hazards include ground rupture, ground shaking, ground displacement, subsidence, and uplift from earth movement. Primary hazards can also induce secondary hazards such as ground failure (lurch cracking, lateral spreading, and slope failure), liquefaction, water waves (seiches), movement on nearby faults (sympathetic fault movement), dam failure, and fires. As stated above in Response 4.6(a), no faults (active, potentially active, or inactive) are known to exist within the City. However, the City is in close proximity to two major faults: the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and the Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone. The San Andreas and Raymond Faults are also proximate to the City. Of these faults, the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is considered the most likely source for future earthquakes. These faults are listed in Table 4.6-1, Principal Faults Affecting the Proiect Site. Table 4.6-1 Principal Faults Affecting the Project Site APPROXIMATE FAULT NAME DISTANCE RIGHTER MAGNITUDE OF MAXIMUM CREDIBLE FROM SITE MILES HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKE RICHTER MAGNITUDE Newport- Inlewood 8 6.3 1993 7.1 Whittier-Elsinore 12.5 5.5 (1938) 71 6.0 1910 Raymond 30 NIA 6.8 San Andreas 40 6.5 (1948) 8 25 8.0 1957 . Source: C' of Santa Ana General Plan, Seismic Safety Element, reformatted January 2010. Given the proximity of these earthquake faults to the site, the proposed project could be subjected to seismic shaking. However, the proposed project would not include the development of any new structures or other facilities that could expose people to potential substantial adverse effects from seismic shaking. Moreover, the existing structures on-site have not sustained substantial damage due to seismic shaking since their construction in 1965. As stated within Section 2.0, Proiect Description, the project would involve minor aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and safety improvements. None of these improvements would substantially alter the existing structures on-site. The construction of proposed components such as a 10-foot high block wall and aesthetic screening on the existing rooftop would comply with the existing construction ordinances and the California Building Code, (CBC) in order to minimize hazards during a seismic event. Adherence to these building requirements would minimize risks related to seismic shaking to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure: t 1 GEO-1 The Project Applicant shall ensure that the proposed project meets the design parameters identified in the latest version of the California Building Code. JULY 2011 4.6-2 31A-52 GEOLOGY AND SOILS I (g) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 1 Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Liquefaction is characterized by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layers, thereby causing the soils to behave as a viscous liquid. Susceptibility to liquefaction is based on geologic and geotechnical data. River channels and floodplains are considered most susceptible to liquefaction, while alluvial fans have a lower susceptibility. Depth to groundwater is another important element in the susceptibility to liquefaction. Groundwater shallower than 30 feet results in high to very high susceptibility to liquefaction, while deeper water results in low and very low susceptibility. Based upon the Seismic Hazard Element of the City's General Plan, the project site is subject to the potential for liquefaction. Given the minor nature of improvements associated with the project, it is not expected that any liquefaction-related hazards would occur. Moreover, the existing structures on-site have not sustained damage due to liquefaction since their construction in 1965. In addition, as stated above, the improvements associated with the project would be designed and constructed in accordance with CBC requirements to minimize any impacts related to seismically- induced liquefaction (refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1). Thus, impacts in this regard are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1. No additional mitigation is required. 4) Landslides? No Impact Landslides are a serious geologic hazard, with some moving slowly and causing damage gradually, and others moving rapidly and causing unexpected damage. Gravity is the force driving landslide movement. Factors that commonly allow the force of gravity to overcome the resistance of earth material to landslide movement include saturation by water, steepening of slopes by erosion or construction, alternate freezing or thawing, and seismic shaking. The proposed project site and surrounding areas are fully developed and topography is generally flat. There are no landforms within the vicinity capable of producing a landslide. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. ' Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Grading and excavation activities associated with the proposed project would expose soils to potential short-term erosion by wind and water. Since the project impact area would be below one acre, the proposed project would not be subject to the requirements of the Construction General Permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). However, project construction would be required to comply with Chapter 18, Article VII, Water Pollution, of the City's Municipal Code. The Municipal Code includes numerous measures for the control of erosion and urban runoff for both new development and redevelopment. Upon adherence to these requirements, impacts in this regard would be less than significant (refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-2). ri JULY 2011 4.6-3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 31A-53 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil is not expected to occur during long-term operations. The proposed project would implement drainage and water quality features on-site that would result in a beneficial long-term impact related to water quality. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: GEO-2 The construction contractor shall ensure that the project complies with Chapter 18, Article VII, Water Pollution, of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code. Water quality features intended to reduce construction-related erosion impacts shall be clearly denoted on the grading plans for implementation by the construction contractor. C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in an on-site or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Based on analysis provided in Response 4.6(a)(4), the project would not result in impacts related to on-site or off-site landslides. In addition, Response 4.6(a)(3) provides that Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would mitigate impacts related to liquefaction to a less than significant level. Project impacts related to lateral spreading, subsidence, and collapse are not expected to be significant upon implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1. The project site has historically been developed with heavy industrial uses and has not experienced impacts related to unstable soils. Given the minor nature of improvements associated with the project, it is not expected that any hazards would occur. However, as stated above, the improvements associated with the project would be designed and constructed in accordance with CBC requirements to minimize any impacts related to lateral spreading, subsidence, and collapse. Thus, impacts in this regard are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1. No additional mitigation is required. 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? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is underlain by San Emigdio fine sandy loam.' San Emigdio fine sandy loam is a well- drained soil with moderately rapid permeability. As stated above in Response 4.6(c), the project site has historically been developed with heavy industrial uses and has not experienced hazards related to expansive soils. Given the minor nature of improvements associated with the project, it is not expected that any hazards would occur. However, as stated above, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with CBC requirements to minimize any impacts related to expansive soils. Thus, impacts in this regard are considered less than significant upon implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1. No additional mitigation is required. 1 U.S, Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Riverside County, September 1978. JULY 2011 4.6-4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 31A-54 I r? fl ' (9) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 1 1 1 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 waste water? No Impact No septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems would be constructed as part of the project, and no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. JULY 2011 4.6-5 31A-55 GEOLOGY AND SOILS (9) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT ' Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. ' JULY 2011 4.6-6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ' 31A-56 ?s* ' BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ' 4.7 GREENHOUSE GASES I Legs Than Would the project:' Potentially `Significant ' Less Than No Significant, Impact With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated 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? ? a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases (GHGs), emitting over 400 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year.' Climate studies indicate that California is likely to see an increase of three to four degrees Fahrenheit (°F) over the next century. Methane is also an important GHG that potentially contributes to global climate change. GHGs are global in their effect, which is to increase the earth's ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. As primary GHGs have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well-mixed, their impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission. The impact of anthropogenic activities on global climate change is apparent in the observational record. Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to determine the global atmospheric variation of C02, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20) from before the start of industrialization (approximately 1750), to over 650,000 years ago. For that period, it was found that C02 concentrations ranged from 180 parts per million (ppm) to 300 ppm. For the period from approximately 1750 to the present, global C02 concentrations increased from a pre-industrialization ' period concentration of 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the upper end of the pre-industrial period range. REGULATIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. It concluded that a ' stabilization of GHGs at 400 to 450 ppm carbon dioxide-equivalent (C02eq) concentration is required to keep global mean warming below two degrees Celsius (°C), which in turn is assumed to be necessary to avoid dangerous climate change. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-05 in June 2005, which established the following GHG emission reduction targets: 1 California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004, 2006. t JULY 2011 4.7-1 GREENHOUSE GASES 31A-57 (9) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT ' Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2010: Reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; ' • 2020: Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and • 2050: Reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 requires that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) determine what the statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990, and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit that is equivalent to that level, to be achieved by 2020. CARB has approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 million metric tons of C02 equivalent. Due to the nature of global climate change, it is not anticipated that any single development project ' would have a substantial effect on global climate change. In actuality, GHG emissions from the proposed project would combine with emissions emitted across California, the United States, and the world to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. In June 2008, the California Govemor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published a Technical ' Advisory, which provides informal guidance for public agencies as they address the issue of climate change in CEQA documents.2 This is assessed by determining whether a proposed project is consistent with or obstructs the 39 Recommended Actions identified by CARB in its Climate Change Scoping Plan which includes nine Early Action Measures (qualitative approach). The Attorney ' General's Mitigation Measures identify areas were GHG emissions reductions can be achieved in order to achieve the goals of AB 32. As set forth in the OPR Technical Advisory and in the proposed amendments to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4; this analysis examines whether the project's ' GHG emissions are significant based on a qualitative and performance based standard (Proposed CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a)(1) and (2)). T ' he SCAQMD does not currently have a quantitative threshold of significance for GHG emissions. In the absence of such a threshold, this analysis utilizes a threshold of 1,100 metric tons of C02 equivalent3 per year (MTC02eq/yr), which has recently been adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality ' Management District (BAAQMD) in June 2010. This "gap-based" threshold approach is intended to attribute an approximate share of GHG emission reductions necessary to reach AB 32 goals to new land use development projects that are evaluated pursuant to CEQA. The 1,100 MTCO2eq/yr threshold would result in approximately 59 percent of all projects being above the significance threshold. A 1,100 ' MTC02eq/yr threshold would achieve the necessary amount of GHG emissions reductions to meet the reduction goals of AB 32 (1990 levels by 2020). ' PROJECT-RELATED SOURCES OF GREENHOUSE GASES Project-related GHG emissions would include emissions from direct and indirect sources. The i proposed project would result in direct and indirect emissions of C02, N20, and CH4, and would not result in other GHGs that would facilitate a meaningful analysis. Therefore, this analysis focuses on these three forms of GHG emissions. The project involves site improvements with regards to ' aesthetics, drainage/water quality, and safety at and surrounding the project site, which constitute the construction GHG emissions. Direct and indirect operational GHG emissions are a result of existing facility operations, as no new uses are proposed. 2 Governor's Office of Planning and Research, CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review, 2008. 3 Carbon dioxide equivalent is a quantity that describes, for a given mixture and amount of GHG, the amount of C02 that would have the same global warming potential, when measured over a specified timescale (generally 100 years). ' JULY 2011 4.7-2 GREENHOUSE GASES ' 31A-58 ' BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases w I Direct project-related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources. Table 4.7-1, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, presents the estimated C02, N20, and CH4 emissions of the proposed project. GHG emissions from construction are typically amortized over the lifetime of the project (30 years) and added to the operational emissions.4 As seen in Table 4.7-1, the proposed project would result in a total of 7.25 MTC02eq/yr from construction activities. Following construction, no other GHG emissions would result with project implementation, as no new vehicle trips would result and no new stationary sources are proposed. However, GHG emissions associated with the existing facility operations have been quantified and are presented in Table 4.7-1. GHGs associated with area sources and mobile sources are 160.00 MTC02eq/yr and 295.80 MTC02eq/yr, respectively. Total project-related direct operational emissions equate to 456.22 MTC02eq/yr. Table 4.7-1 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions a?,.'?a' ?N .p?CVz.? ;Y # 4+t?jQ yK r?7.G.r t C1 F{ elrlc Eric ->>Tons,:, c lNf?c?Tons tonsryr of, py/yrzt 5 tijnalyr efC rz a^CO:edtyr.- DIRECT EMISSIONS Construction Emissions' 2011 6.50 0,00 0.01 0.00 0.74 7.25 Total Amortized Construction Emissions (30 years) 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.42 Area Source Emissions 160.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 160.00 Mobile Source Emissions' 273.0 0.07 22.49 0.01 0.31 295.80 INDIRECT EMISSIONS Electricity Consumption 8.85 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 8.89 Water Supply 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 Total Project-Related GHG Emissions 465.47 MTCOseq/yr GHG Threshold of Significance 1,100 MTCO:eq/yr Significance of Impact Less Than Significant Notes: 1. Emissions calculated using CARB's Construction Equipment Emissions Table and the URBEMIS 2007 computer model. 2. C02 Equivalent values calculated using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Website, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Cakulator, htt _ p:/hvww.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/gkulator.html, accessed January 2011. r Refer to Appendix A, Air QualitylGreenhouse Gases Data, for detailed model imut(outout data. Indirect Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases Electricity Consumption Energy Consumption emissions were calculated using the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook,5 the U.S. Energy Information Administration ,6 and project-specific land use data. The emission factors for electricity use (771.62 pounds of C02 per megawatt hour [MWh], 0.00659 pounds of N20 per MWh, and 0.4037 pounds of CH4 per MWh) were 4 The project lifetime is based on the standard 30 year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (http:/hvww.agmd.gov/hb/2008/December/081231 a.htm). 5 SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-11, November 1993. 6 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Domestic Electricity Emissions Factors 1999-2002. JULY 2011 4,7-3 GREENHOUSE GASES 31A-59 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT , Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration obtained from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The facility indirectly results in 8.89 MTC02eglyr due to electricity usage; refer to Table 4.7-1. Water Suvnly Water demand for the existing facility is approximately 455 gallons per day, based on typical water ti consump on rates for industrial uses. Based on energy usage factors for water conveyance from the California Energy Commission, water transport from the State Water Project consumes approximately 1,666 kilowatt hours [kWh] per acre-foot.? Emissions from indirect energy impacts due to water supply would result in 0.36 MTC02eq/yr. CONCLUSION The ro e t i l it i ' p j c nvo ves s e mprovements with regards to aesthetics, drainage/water quality, and safety at and surrounding the project site. As shown in Table 4.7-1, the proposed project would result 465.47 MTC02eq/yr of operational-related emissions. Therefore, the proposed project's operational GHG emissions would not exceed the 1,000 MTC02eq/yr GHG significance threshold. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. ' b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ' No Impact. The City does not currently have any applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an ' adopted plan, policy, or regulation pertaining to GHGs. No impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. ' 7 California Energy Commission, Water Energy Use in California, Accessed June 2010. I hftp://www.energy.ca.gov/researchAawrindustry/Water.html JULY 2011 4.7-4 GREENHOUSE GASES ' 31A-60 ' BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ' 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS I i Less Than Would the project: Potentially 81gnfficant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation . Impact Incorporated 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, substances, or waste within one-quarter ? mile of an existing or proposed school? 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? 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? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working ? in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ? Ian? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are ? intermixed with wildlands? I a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ' Less Than Si_onificant Impact The ,existing Bender Ready-Mix facility includes machinery and equipment that processes aggregate materials (e.g., sand and gravel) to produce concrete. The concrete is prepared, loaded into truck-mounted rotating drum mixers, and hauled away for use at construction sites. Generally, concrete is sold to independent truck contractors; however, Bender Ready-Mix also delivers concrete directly to customers through its own fleet of trucks. None of the aggregate or other raw materials utilized in the concrete production process are acutely ' hazardous. The primary concern related to the existing facility is the use of cleaners, lubricants, and other chemicals required for maintenance of concrete processing equipment and on-site vehicle maintenance activities. However, given the relatively small quantities of chemicals and lubricants ' utilized on-site and Federal, State, and local requirements regarding their safe transport, use, and disposal, the existing Bender Ready-Mix facility does not result in significant hazardous materials impacts. ' JULY 2011 4.8-1 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 31A-61 _a" BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration , The proposed project proposes minor aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and safety improvements at an ' existing heavy industrial facility. Implementation of these improvements would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. The improvements ' associated with the project would not affect the existing operations of the Bender Ready-Mix facility or alter conditions related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. With the exception of utilizing gasoline and diesel fuels for construction equipment, no other hazardous ' materials would be transported to or from the project site, or used in the construction process. Fuels and solvents for construction would be stored and utilized pursuant to existing regulatory requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. ' Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 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? ' Less Than Significant Impact Short-Term Impacts ' During the short-term period of project construction, there is a possibility of accidental release of ' hazardous substances such as petroleum-based fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials utilized during construction. The construction contractor would be required to use standard construction ' controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and ' Federal law. The proposed project would involve a minor amount of grading and excavation required primarily for ' drainage and water quality improvements. No structures would be demolished as part of the proposed project, thus minimizing the potential for encountering asbestos-containing materials or lead-based paints. Construction activities associated with the project are not of the scope or nature to result in a ' significant impact related to foreseeable upset or accident related to hazardous materials. Long-Term Operational Impacts Refer to Response 4.8(a), above, for a description of impacts related to existing and proposed operations at the site. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or ' waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact Three schools exist within one-quarter mile of the project site: 1) ' Adeline C Walker Elementary School (approximately 0.15-mile west); 2) Roosevelt Elementary School (approximately 0.25-mile west); and 3) Raymond A. Villa Fundamental Intermediate School (approximately 0.25-mile northeast). As stated above, construction activities associated with the project ' are not expected to be significant upon adherence to existing local, State, and Federal requirements JULY 2011 4.8-2 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ' 31A-62 ' - - BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 related to hazardous materials safety. In addition, existing and proposed operations associated with the project would not result in significant impacts to surrounding uses in regards to hazardous ' emissions or acutely hazardous materials. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 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 signirrcant hazard to the ' public or the environment? No Impact. The project site is not on a list of known hazardous materials sites.' No known corrective action, restoration, or remediation has been planned, is currently taking place, or has been completed ' on the project site. As stated above in Responses 4.8(a) through 4.8(c), the project is not expected to result in a significant hazard to the public during construction or long-term operations. Thus, no impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. ' e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles 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 Im act. The nearest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport, located approximately four miles to the south. In addition, the project site is located outside of the John Wayne Airport Influence t Area.2 Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ' No Impact No private airstrips exist in the project vicinity. Thus, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. ' g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact Asa concrete manufacturing plant, the Bender Ready-Mix facility does not currently impair or physically interfere with emergency plans in the site vicinity. The proposed ' project would implement minor aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and safety improvements on-site. Safety improvements would include the repaving of South Santa Fe Street along the project frontage. Repaving of South Santa Fe Street would be limited to the southbound lane (i.e., from the roadway centerline to the project frontage). Thus, South Santa Fe Street would remain open and accessible during emergency operations. The repaving process would comply with City requirements related to California Department of Toxic Substances Control, http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/publictsearch.asp?cmd=search&city= &zip=92705&county=&federal_superfun d=True&state_response=True&voluntary_cleanup=True&school_cleanup=True&permitte d=True&pc-permitted=True&hist_nonoperating=True&correcbve_action =True&tiered_permit=True&displ ay_results=Report&pub ' =True, accessed January 29, 2011. 2 Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, AELUP Height Restriction Zone forJWA, January 8, 2004. ' JULY 2011 4.8-3 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 31A-63 C•r BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT , Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration temporary lane closure/rerouting signage during the brief period when repaving activities occur. Thus, , impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. I h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intennixed ' with wildlands? No Impact The proposed project site is located within a completely urbanized area that is void of any ' wildland areas. In addition, based on the Public Safety Element of the City's General Plan, the project site is located outside of a designated fire hazard area. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to wildland fires. Thus, no impact would occur in this regard. ' Mitioation Measures: No mitigation is required. 1 JULY 2011 4.8-4 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS t 31A-64 ' BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ' 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY I Left-Than Would the project: Potentially- Significant Less Than No - Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impad :. Incorporated . a. Violate any 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 (e.g., the production rate of ? pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of ? stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 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 runoff? 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 Ma 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? ? a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As stated within Response 4.6(b), the ' primary water quality concern related to the proposed project would be potential erosion impacts during construction activities. Grading and excavation activities associated with construction of the project would expose soils to potential short-term erosion by wind and water. Since the project impact area ' would be below one acre, the proposed project would not be subject to the requirements of the Construction General Permit under the NPDES program administered by the Santa Ana RWQCB. However, project construction would be required to comply with Chapter 18, Article VII, Water Pollution, of the City's Municipal Code. The Municipal Code includes numerous measures for the control of erosion and urban runoff for both new development and redevelopment. Upon adherence to these requirements, impacts in this regard would be less than significant (refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-2). JULY 2011 4.9-1 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 31A-65 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT , Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (9) - The proposed project would result in a beneficial impact in regards to water quality during long-term , project operations. The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the proposed project includes water quality features that would further minimize the potential for violation of water quality , standards. The site (which is currently void of water quality enhancements) is proposed to include a detention/desilting basin in the southeastern portion of the site. This basin would be approximately 400 square feet in size and would improve water quality by detaining stormwater on-site. In addition, three , segments of 24-inch bottomless trench (with 4-inch perforated overflow pipe) would be installed along the South Santa Fe Street frontage.' The segments would be installed across the three vehicle access points, and would drain into landscaped areas or the proposed detention/desilting basin. These Best ' Management Practices (BMPs) would lessen potential long-term operational water quality impacts to a less than significant level. Moreover, the percent of pervious area on-site would increase as part of the proposed project, due to the addition of landscaping and water quality features. Pervious area would increase from 19 percent (pre-project) to 23 percent (post-project), resulting in additional infiltration and , further reduction of potential water quality impacts? In addition, water quality measures being implemented as part of concrete manufacturing operations ' would continue to occur. For instance, tire washing is required for every concrete truck prior to leaving the site to ensure that "track-out" does not occur. In addition, wash water utilized on-site is recycled in order to preclude water quality impacts to the storm drain. Thus, impacts in this regard will be less than significant. ' Mltioation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-2. No additional mitigation is required. ' 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 t bl l l a e eve (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which ' would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project site exists within a completely developed, ' industrialized area. The facility does not currently directly affect groundwater (through pumping, wells, or injection), nor does the proposed project include any components that would directly affect groundwater. Given the developed nature of the project area, the facility is not currently depleting , groundwater supplies or substantially interfering with groundwater recharge. The proposed project would result in a beneficial impact in relation to the local groundwater table, since ' it would result in an increase in pervious area on-site. According to the Preliminary WQMP, the total pervious area at the project site would increase from 0.19 acre to 0.21 acre due to the addition of additional landscaping and water quality features.3 Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than , significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 1 CalCoast Engineering & Design Group, Water Quality Management Plan for Bender Ready-Mix, revised May 30, 2010. 2 Ibid. , 3 Ibid. JULY 2011 4.9-2 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ' 31A-66 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion ' or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project site is generally ' flat and has been disturbed by existing development. As stated in Responses 4.6(b) and 4.9(a), construction-related erosion and siltation impacts would be less than significant upon implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2. ' As stated above, the proposed project area is fully developed and industrialized. The site lacks permanent on-site stormwater conveyance facilities, and drainage currently either sheet flows towards South Santa Fe Street, ponds on-site, or is recycled along with wash water utilize during operations. ' Drainage that sheet flows off-site is conveyed by an existing gutter along South Santa Fe Street to an existing concrete drainage channel located approximately 500 feet southeast of the project site .4 ' None of the improvements associated with the project would substantially alter drainage patterns at the site. The proposed project would implement three segments of 24-inch bottomless trench that would drain into landscaped areas or the proposed detention/desilting basin. These water quality ' improvements would result in a beneficial impact in relation to erosion and siltation on- and off-site. Thus, long-term operational impacts would be less than significant. ' Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-2. No additional mitigation is required. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem 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 Impact The proposed project site has been historically developed with industrial uses and has not ' been subject to substantial flooding due to the alteration of drainage patterns in the site vicinity. Aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and.safety improvements associated with the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Rather, beneficial impacts would occur since the amount of pervious area would be increased due to proposed landscaping and water quality features on-site. No impacts would occur in this regard. ' Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned ' stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Responses 4.6(b) and 4.9(a), 4.9(c), and 4.9(d). Construction-related erosion and siltation impacts would be less than significant ' upon implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2. The project would result in beneficial impacts related to long-term operations since drainage/water quality features would be implemented on-site, and the amount of pervious area would be increased. Thus, impacts would be less than significant ' upon implementation of the recommended mitigation measure. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-2. No additional mitigation is required. a CalCoast Engineering & Design Group, Hydrology Study, Bender Ready Mix, May 30, 2011. JULY 2011 4.9-3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 31A-67 SENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT ' Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ' Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in water quality impacts other than the potential short-term construction and long-term operational impacts identified ' above in Responses 4.9(a), 4.9(c), and 4.9(e). Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. ' g) Place housing within a 100-year Hood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ' No Impact According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is situated within Zone X, which is outside of the 100-year flood hazard area.5 In addition, no housing ' would be constructed as part of the proposed project. No impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. ' h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ' No Impact As stated above in Response 4.9(g), the project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard areas The proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows, and no impact would occur. ' Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. i E t ) xpose 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? Less Than Significant Impact Based upon the Public Safety Element of the City's General Plan, the inundation area for Prado Dam affects portions of the City. Prado Dam is situated approximately 15 miles northeast of the project site. The Public Safety Element indicates that the project site is situated outside of the identified dam inundation area. In addition, no levees are situated in the vicinity of the ' project site. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ' Less Than Significant Impact A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi- enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank. A tsunami is a great sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, produced by a significant undersea disturbance such as tectonic , displacement of a sea floor associated with large, shallow earthquakes. Mudflows result from the downslope movement of soil and/or rock under the influence of gravity. 5 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map #06059C0276J, Panel 276 of 539, revised December 3, 2009. ' s Ibid. JULY 2011 4.9-4 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY , 31A-68 ' BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ' No enclosed bodies of water exist in proximity to the project site. The nearest semi-enclosed body of water near the site is the Santa Ana River, located approximately three miles to the west. Given the ' distance of the project site from the Santa Ana River and any other enclosed or semi-enclosed bodies of water, impacts related to seiches would be less than significant. t The project site is located approximately 10 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. Given its distance from the coast and intervening topography and features, the risk of inundation due to tsunami is also considered less than significant. As discussed within Response 4.6(a)(4), the proposed project site and surrounding areas are fully developed and topography is generally flat. There are no landforms within the vicinity capable of producing mudflow. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. r ' JULY 2011 4.9-5 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 31A-69 -BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT ' Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. 1 JULY 2011 4.9-6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY t 31A-70 4w . BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ' 4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING Less Than _ Would the project:. Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated . 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? ? ' a) Physically divide an established community? ' No Im act. The project site is currently occupied by a concrete manufacturing facility, and is located within a heavy industrial area. Given the developed nature of the site and the industrialized nature of the project area, the existing facility does not currently divide an established community. In addition, none of the proposed aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and safety improvements would result in a ' division of an established community. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 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? ' Less Than Si_anifrcant Impact. The project site is designated "Heavy Industrial" (M2) by the City's Zoning Code and "Industrial" (IND) by the City's General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the site. ' As stated within Section 2.0, Project Description, the City has determined that the existing Bender Ready-Mix facility is not currently in compliance with the Zoning Code. Upon review of current activities at the site, the City has determined that the facility has been operating without a valid Conditional Use ' Permit (CUP). The Zoning Code allows for the following conditionally-permitted uses within the M2 zone: ' "In addition to uses permitted subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit pursuant to sections 41-489 and 41-472.5, the following uses may be permitted in the M2 district subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: (a) Acid manufacturing. (b) Junkyards, automobile wrecking yards and salvage yards, and impound yards. ' (c) Cement, lime, gypsum or plaster of pans manufacture. (d) Fertilizer manufacture...." ' JULY 2011 4.10-1 LAND USE AND PLANNING 31A-71 (9) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT I Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Under the conditionally-permitted use for "(c) Cement, lime, gypsum or plaster of pads manufacture," , the project is allowable within the M2 zone but is subject to a CUP. In addition, the City has determined that a lot merger would be required to consolidate the two separate parcels underlying the site for compliance with City and CUP regulations. The City's issuance of a CUP is included as part of the proposed project. As part of the CUP approval , process, the City has required various on-site improvements that would be necessary to achieve compliance with the City's Municipal Code. These aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and safety improvements are described in detail in Section 2.0, Proiect Description. Implementation of these improvements would allow for the issuance of a CUP for continued operation of the existing concrete ' manufacturing facility; as such, impacts in this regard are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. ' C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact As stated in Response 4.4(f), the proposed project is note located within a Habitat , Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.' No other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans apply to the site. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. ' Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, HCP/NCCP Planning Areas in Southem California, October , 2008. JULY 2011 4.10-2 LAND USE AND PLANNING 1 31A-72 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES r 71-esoThan Would the project: Potentially SlgniNcant Less Than No Significant lmpad With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation , _Impact Incorporated a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the ? state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, ? j specific plan or other land use plan? a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region ' and the residents of the state? Less Than Sipniricant Impact The existing facility at the project site operates as a concrete ' manufacturing plant. The facility produces and sells large quantities of concrete through the processing of aggregate and other raw materials. The concrete is prepared, loaded into truck-mounted rotating drum mixers, and hauled away for use at construction sites. The existing facility does not involve the direct mining or extraction of aggregrate (e.g., sand and gravel) or other materials used in the concrete manufacturing process. Rather, these materials are recovered ' or recycled elsewhere and delivered to the site. Mining activities in other locations are regulated under the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) administered by the California , Department of Conservation, in order to ensure that mineral resources are not substantially depleted. ' Moreover, proposed aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and safety improvements associated with the project would not result in any increaseln capacity at the existing Bender Ready-Mix facility and the amount of aggregate materials utilized would not increase. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less ' than significant. Mithration Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Less Than Si_aniricant Impact Refer to Response 4.11(a), above. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. JULY 2011 4.11-1 31A-73 MINERAL RESOURCES BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT , Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. t ?I it 1 JULY 2011 4.11-2 MINERAL RESOURCES ' 31A-74 I (g) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 4.12 NOISE Ll J Less Than Would the project: Potentially Significant Less Than Na Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 the ? project? 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? Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air, and is characterized by both its amplitude and frequency (or pitch). The human ear does not hear all frequencies equally. In particular, the ear deemphasizes low and very high frequencies. To better approximate the sensitivity of human hearing, the A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) has been developed. On this scale, the human range of hearing extends from approximately three dBA to around 140 dBA. ' Noise is generally defined as unwanted or excessive sound, which can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing; therefore, a logarithmic scale, known as the decibel scale (dB), is used to quantify sound intensity. Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. Noise generated by mobile sources typically attenuates (is reduced) at a rate between three dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. The rate depends on the ground surface and the number or type of objects between the noise source and the receiver. Hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation rate of three dBA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces, such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate between six dBA and about 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance. There are a number of metrics used to characterize community noise exposure, which fluctuate constantly over time. ' One such metric, the equivalent sound level (L q), represents a constant sound that, over the specified period, has the same sound energy as the time-varying sound. Noise exposure over a longer period of time is often evaluated based on the Day-Night Sound Level (Ld,), This is a measure of 24-hour noise levels that incorporates a 10-dBA ' penalty for sounds occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM The penalty is intended to reflect the increased human sensitivity to noises occurring during nighttime hours, particularly at times when people are sleeping and there are lower ambient noise conditions. Typical Ld, noise levels for light and medium density residential areas range from 55 dBA to 65 dBA. JULY 2011 4.12-1 NOISE 31A-75 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Two of the primary factors that reduce levels of environmental sounds are increasing the distance between the sound source to the receiver and having intervening obstacles such as walls, buildings, or terrain features between the sound source and the receiver. Factors that act to increase the loudness of environmental sounds include moving the sound source closer to the receiver, sound enhancements caused by reflections, and focusing caused by various meteorological conditions. STATE OF CALIFORNIA The State Office of Planning and Research Noise Element Guidelines include recommended exterior and interior noise level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. The Noise Element Guidelines contain a land use compatibility table that describes the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), CITY OF SANTA ANA The Noise Element of the City's General Plan quantifies the community noise environment in terms of noise exposure for both near- and long-term levels of growth and traffic activity; refer to Table 4.12-1, General Plan Noise Standards. The standards are intended to be used as one of the many factors used in the land use planning process. Table 4.12-1 General Plan Noise Standards . i _. J'._- - .,.. - - Allnuiahld htmn nrnvnle"1AC16t>;_ -- Lategones - Uses - - - Interlar °-° EkferilJr Residential Single-family, duplex, multi-family 45 65 Institutional Hospital, school classroom) la rounds 45 65 Church, library 45 - Open Space Parks - 65 Source: City of Santa Ana, City of Santa Ana General Plan Noise Element. SeDtember 20. 1982 The City's standards for governing environmental noise are set forth in Chapter 18, Article VI (Noise Control) of the City's Municipal Code. The City has also adopted community noise control standards within Chapter 18, Article VI (Noise Control) of the City's Municipal Code in order to limit unnecessary, excessive and annoying noise in the City; refer to Table 4.12-2, Municipal Code Noise Standards. Table 4.12.2 Municipal Code Noise Standards lnterr6r Exterior - - Categor[es s ?laes lnteriorNolse Interior Noise Exterior Noise Exterior Noise , ?z. f?-1l .ifi t ., Level (Leq) L.evei'(Leq) Level (Leq) _ LeVe1 (Leq) . Tara to 1O PM tp m to lam lam to 1Q 10 m o lam EZone 1 Entire City 55 45 55 50 Louwce. yny of oama Hna municipal Gone. Section 18-314, Special Provisions, of the Municipal Code specifies the following construction-related noise standards: The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this article: JULY 2011 4.12-2 NOISE 31A-76 fl I 1 1 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration u LJ' (e) Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m, and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. NOISE MEASUREMENTS In order to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area, RBF Consulting conducted noise measurements on September 14, 2010; refer to Table 4.12-3, Noise Measurements. The noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise exposure on-site and immediately adjacent to the project site. The first measurement was taken in the center of the project site, south of the maintenance/office building and concrete batch processing equipment. The second measurement was taken within the apartment complex to the west. Ten-minute measurements were taken at each site. Meteorological conditions were clear skies, warm, with light wind speeds (one to three miles per hour), and low humidity. Table 4.12.3 Noise Measurements 11 Site L'ocafian. L f-Peak Time > Center of the project site (south of the 1 maintenance/office building and concrete batch 66.8 46.9 85.8 102.9 10:02 AM equipment) 2 Apartment complex at the terminus of East Camile j 52.4 43 1 70 8 88 5 10:25 AM Street, ad acent to the west of the site . . . Source: RBF Consulting September 14, 2010 Noise monitoring equipment used for the ambient noise survey consisted of a Briiel & Kjaer handheld Analyzer Type 2250 equipped with a 4189 pre-polarized microphone. The monitoring equipment complies with applicable requirements of the American National Standards Institute for Type I (precision) sound level meters. The results of the field measurements are indicated in Appendix E, Noise Data. EXISTING STATIONARY SOURCES The project area is highly urbanized, consisting of a mix of industrial/manufacturing and residential uses. The primary sources of stationary noise in the project vicinity are industrial/manufacturing-related activities. The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence, short-term, or long-term/continuous noise. EXISTING MOBILE SOURCES Existing mobile source noise in the project area is generated from mobile sources along Santa Fe Street and the Union Pacific railroad. Mobile source noise along Santa Fe Street is primarily from trucks accessing the nearby industrial and manufacturing facilities. The Santa Fe railroad adjoins the project site to the west, which represents the single loudest source of mobile source noise. ' a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than &nificant Impact. It is difficult to specify noise levels that are generally acceptable to everyone; what is annoying to one person may be unnoticed by another. Standards may be based on documented complaints in response to documented noise levels, or based on studies of the ability of people to sleep, talk, or work under various noise conditions. However, all such studies recognize that JULY 2011 4.12-3 NOISE 31A-77 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration individual responses vary considerably. Standards usually address the needs of the majority of the general population. SHORT-TERM NOISE IMPACTS Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately three months. Construction activities would include minor demolition, grading, trenching, paving, and building construction. Ground-bome noise and other types of construction-related noise impacts would typically occur during the initial site preparation. This phase of construction has the potential to create the highest levels of noise; however, it is generally the shortest of all construction phases. Typical noise levels generated by construction equipment are shown in Table 4.124, Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment. Operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be due to random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Table 4.12-4 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment - of E C4 m t ' .-AWitical OK.Fictorl, ` 1;?at'S0 Feet BA Concrete Saw 20 90 Concrete Mixer Truck 40 79 Backhoe 40 78 Dozer 40 82 Excavator 40 81 Forklift 40 78 Paver 50 77 Roller 20 80 Tractor 40 84 Water Truck 40 80 Grader 40 85 General Industrial Equipment 50 85 Note: 1 - Acoustical Use Factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is o ratin at full power i.e., its loudest condition during a construction operation, Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05- 054 , January 2006. Chapter 10.28.040 of the City's Municipal Code states that construction activities are permitted during the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays and Saturdays, and are not permitted on Sundays or Federal holidays. The City does not have noise limits during the allowed construction hours. As such, the Speech Interference Criteria is used to evaluate construction noise levels. For construction noise, a "substantial" noise increase can be defined as interference with activities during the day and night. One indicator that construction noise could interfere with daytime activities would be speech interference. As the City does not have quantitative guidelines for construction noise, the following criteria is utilized in the analysis to define relative construction-related noise impacts: Speech Interference Criteria. Speech Interference Level was designed as a simplified substitute for the Articulation Index.' It was originally defined as the average of the now I Articulation index takes into account that some frequencies are more effective in masking speech than others. The frequency range from 250 to 7000 Hz is divided into 20 bands. The difference between file average speech peak level in each of these bands is calculated and the resulting numbers combined to give a single index. JULY 2011 4.12-4 31A-78 L71 11' NOISE `" ' BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT L-4 W Initial'Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration J obsolete octave-band sound pressure levels in the 600-1200, 1200-2400, and 2400-4800 Hz octaves. At the present time, Speech Interference Level, based upon the octave band levels at the preferred frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz, is considered to provide a better estimate of the masking ability of a noise. As Speech Interference Level does not take the actual speech level into account, the associated masking effect depends upon vocal effort and speaker-to-listener distance. Speech spoken with slightly more vocal effort can be understood well, when the noise level is 65 dBA. A typical building can reduce noise levels by 20 dBA with the windows closed.2 This noise reduction could be maintained only on a temporary basis in some cases, since it assumes windows would remain closed at all times. Therefore, this analysis utilizes an interior level of 65 dBA as a criterion level for determining significance for construction related activities, in the absence of an adopted specific construction noise related threshold by the City. The project involves the construction of aesthetic, drainage/water quality, and safety improvements at the project site. Table 4.12-5, Average Construction Noise Levels, provides the anticipated construction noise levels during specific construction stages. The average noise levels presented in Table 4.12-5 are based on the quantity, type, and acoustical use factor for each type of equipment that would be used during each construction phase. Table 4.12-5 Average Construction Noise Levels i t 41 2 ? d trl f Q? > `'cSpe8 t Y ntla?iy. sty . r ?o ?on op ; ' + ?lnt ere cep 'S tfieant, l r Phase 1 Demolition North 600 64.0 44.0 65 dBA No West 40 87.5 67.5 65 dBA Yes Phase 2 North Site Gradin 600 64,2 44.2 65 dBA No g West 235 72.3 52.3 65 dBA No Phase 3 Trenchin North 600 61.5 41,5 65 dBA No g West 235 69.7 49.7 65 dBA No Phase 4 Pavin North 600 57.3 37.3 65 dBA No g West 235 71.4 51.4 65 dBA No Phase 5 Building North 600 58.7 38.7 65 dBA No West 40 82.2 62.2 65 dBA No Notes: 1 - Sensitive uses to the east include residential uses; sensitive uses to the west include institutional uses. To the north and south are commercial buildings and are not considered sensitive uses. 2 - Distance is from the nearest receptor to the construction activity area of the project site, in feet. 3 - Derived from the Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2006; refer to Appendix E, Noise Date. 4 - A typical building can reduce noise levels by 20 dBA with the windows closed. This assumes all windows and doors are closed, thereby attenuating the exterior noise levels by 20 dBA. (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Noise Guidebook undated, page 14). Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2006; refer to Appendix E, Noise Data. 2 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Noise Guidebook, undated, page 14. JULY 2011 4.12-5 NOISE 31A-79 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Sensitive uses surrounding the project site include multi-family residential uses immediately to the west and single-family uses approximately 600 feet to the north. Uses to the east and south include industrial/manufacturing uses, which are not considered to be sensitive. As noted in Table 4.12-5, construction noise associated with the proposed project would not expose surrounding sensitive uses to construction noise levels in excess of the Speech Interference Criteria (65 dBA) during construction, with the exception of demolition activities. However, demolition would only occur for one day, between the allowable construction hours, and would not be considered a significant impact. It should be noted that construction noise levels perceived by residences to the east would typically be lower than the levels presented in Table 4.12-5, as the model does not account for attenuation due to the grade difference between the residences and the project site. Additionally, construction activities conducted within the allowable hours are exempt from the City's noise standards. Therefore, with adherence to the noise standards of the Municipal Code, construction noise impacts would be less than significant. Miapadon Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Si_anifrcant Impact Project construction can generate varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground-bome vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.20 inch/second) appears to be conservative. The types of construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Typical vibration produced by construction equipment is illustrated in Table 4.12-6, Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment. Table 4.12-6 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment pptoxtttt ?t a v? oc ttkat PProxtrnate,,peak particle velocifat at e ?t? eslecbr[tf mow' '' ''? 25 x,5 fee ! (incF?esfeconc{ zL _ lc Loaded trucks 0.076 0.015 Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001 Notes: 1. Peak particle ground velocity measured at 25 feet unless noted otherwise. 2. Root mean square amplitude ground velocity in decibels (VdB) referenced to 1 micro-inch/second. Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006. 1 n 1 JULY 2011 4.12-6 31A-80 NOISE I BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Ground-bome vibration decreases rapidly with distance. The proposed protect would involve soldier piles; however, piles would not be driven and would not require pile driving equipment. As indicated in Table 4.12-61 based on the FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during project construction range from 0.003 to 0.076 inch-per-second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the source of activity. The bulk of the construction activities would occur at least 40 feet from the nearest adjacent building. Therefore, vibration from construction activities experienced at the nearest adjacent building and sensitive residential uses would be expected to be below the 0.20 inch-per-second PPV significance threshold. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. ' c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. If the ambient noise environment is quiet and the new noise source increases the noise exposure, an impact may occur even though a criterion level might not be exceeded. OPERATIONAL MOBILE NOISE IMPACTS The proposed project consists of site improvements that would not generate additional traffic on adjacent roadways following completion of construction. Approximately 88 trips are currently generated by the existing facility (accounting for 12 full-time employees and assuming 20 concrete truck loads per day). Exhibit 5 (Transportation Noise Sources) of the City's General Plan Noise Element identifies average daily traffic (ADT) along 11t Street, Grand Avenue, and Main Street (to the north, east, and west of the project site, respectively) to be between 20,000 and 30,000 vehicles per day. Noise levels ' associated with the ADTs along these roadways are 65 dBA at 50 to 100 feet from the roadway. Exhibit 5 of the City's General Plan Noise Element indicates ADTs along McFadden Avenue to be between 10,000 and 15,000, with an associated noise level of 65 dBA at zero to 25 feet from the roadway. The project's 88 trips account for 0.29 to 0.44 percent of ADTs along 111 Street, Grand Avenue, and Main Street, and 0.44 to 0.88 percent of ADTs along McFadden Street (assuming the worst case that all 88 trips occur along each roadway). Therefore, as the project-related traffic constitutes a nominal amount of ADTs along nearby roadway segments, the noise associated with this amount of traffic is also nominal. Traffic generated by current operations at the facility does not create a significant noise impact, and vehicular noise in the vicinity of the project site would not increase as a result of proposed aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and safety improvements associated with the ' project. Impacts are less than significant in this regard. OPERATIONAL STATIONARY NOISE IMPACTS Stationary noise sources associated with the existing facility include concrete batch processing equipment, idling trucks, truck washing equipment, and the on-site parking area. Operations at the Bender Ready-Mix facility occur within a heavily industrialized area with a similar range of uses. Intervening uses between the project site and the nearest sensitive receptor (multi-family residential uses to the west) include concrete block walls and the Union Pacific railroad alignment. Moreover, existing operations at the facility comply with Chapter 18, Article VI (Noise Control) of the City's Municipal Code. Thus, existing operations at the facility do not result in significant stationary operational noise impacts. I JULY 2011 4.12-7 NOISE 31A-81 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT ' Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration U i l i f , pon mp ementat on o aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and safety improvements associated with the project, noise in the project area would not increase. The project site would continue operations as a concrete manufacturing facility and no new stationary noise sources would be introduced. These operational activities would continue with project implementation, and no additional stationary noise sources are proposed. Impacts in this regard are less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. , d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above the levels existing without the project? ' Less Than Si_anificant Refer to Responses 4.12(a) and 4.12(b), above. ' Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport, located approximately ' four miles to the south. Therefore, no impact would occur. Miti_ation Measures: No mitigation is required. 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? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.12(e). , Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. JULY 2011 4.12-8 NOISE 31A-82 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING Ir- ?I Less Than would the ect. A roj = Potentialty Sigcant Less Tha n No Significant ' Impact With Significant mpact Impact Mitigation - Impact Incorporated a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and ? businesses) 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? i ? a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? Less Than Significant Impact The existing Bender Ready-Mix facility employs approximately 12 full- time workers. Even under the conservative assumption that all 12 employees and their families have relocated to the project area, any increase in population growth would not be substantial given the limited number of employees. The proposed project would implement a range of aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and safety improvements at the project site. These improvements would not increase the capacity of the existing ' concrete manufacturing facility nor would they increase the number of employees. Thus, impacts in regards to population growth would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact The Bender Ready-Mix facility exists within a fully developed, industrialized area. No housing or people have been displaced by the operation of the concrete manufacturing facility. In ' addition, none of the aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and safety improvements associated with the project would result in the displacement of any housing or people. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact Refer to Response 4.12(b). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. JULY 2011 4.13-1 POPULATION AND HOUSING 31A-83 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. 1 t I . 1 JULY 2011 4.13-2 POPULATION AND HOUSING 31A-84 I (E) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES t 1 LeTIan Would theprojecf: Potentially 7 Less Than No Significant m Significant . Impact I pact g Impact Incorporated 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 ratios, response times or other performance objectives for an of the public services: 1) Fire protection? ? 2) Police protection? ? 3) Schools? ? 4) Parks? ? 5) Other public facilities? ? 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 ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1) Fire protection? Less Than Significant impact The Santa Ana Fire Department (SAFD) provides fine protection within the City. The nearest station to the project site is Fire Station #2 (located at 1668 East 4th Street), approximately 0.75-mile to the northeast. Existing project operations do not currently result in substantial demand for fire protection or emergency medical services. The project would implement minor aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and safety improvements on-site. None of these improvements would alter the capacity or nature of operations at the facility, Thus, no additional SAFD fire protection services would be required. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 2) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD) provides police protection within the City. The SAPD operates out of a central police station located at 60 Civic Center Plaza, approximately 1.30 miles northwest of the site. Existing operations at the facility do not currently result in substantial demand for police protection. Proposed improvements associated with the project would not alter the capacity of nature of operations at the facility. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 1 JULY 2011 4.14-1 PUBLIC SERVICES 31A-85 •, j ': BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3) Schools? Less Than Significant Impact The existing Bender Ready-Mix facility generates approximately 12 full-time staff. Proposed improvements associated with the project would not result in any expansion of , long-term operations or requirements for additional staff. Given the limited number of employees generated by the facility, it is not expected that the project would result in a population increase that would significantly impact schools in the.project area. Thus, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4) Parks? L Th ess an Significant Impact. The City operates a range of parks within the City. The nearest park to the project site is Prentice Park, located along South Elk Lane, approximately 0.60 miles east of the project site. As stated above, the existing facility generates approximately 12 full-time jobs, and proposed improvements would not result in any increase in employment. Given the limited number of employees generated by the facility, it is not expected that the project would result in a population increase that would significantly impact parks in the project area. Impacts in regards to parks and other recreational facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 5) Other public facilities? No Impact. As shown above in Responses 4.14(a)(1) through 4.14(a)(4), the proposed project would , not result in significant impacts on public services or facilities. No other public facilities are anticipated to be affected by the project. No impacts would occur in this regard. i M tigation Measures: No mitigation is required. ii JULY 2011 4.14-2 PUBLIC SERVICES 31A-86 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 4.15 RECREATION Less,Than `. Would the project: Potentially. Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 ? mi ht have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 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? Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in Response 4.14(a)(4), the proposed project would not result in an increase in demand on parks or other recreational facilities, and would not result physical deterioration of these facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact As stated in Response 4.14(a)(4), the proposed project would not result in an increase in demand on parks or other recreational facilities, and would not result in an adverse physical effect on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. ' Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. e JULY 2011 4.15-1 RECREATION 31A-87 (9) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. P 1 I s JULY 2011 4.15-2 RECREATION , 31 A-88 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT t Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.16 TRANSPORTATIONMRAFFIC I l? Less Than Would the project: Potentially Significant Less Than N o Significant Impact With Significant o Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and ? non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other ? standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that ? results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or ? incompatible uses e.., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such ? facilities? a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would generate traffic trips during short-term construction activities. One truck trip would be required for the hauling of demolished materials (total of approximately 185 cubic feet) to the disposal site, and approximately eight truck trips would be required for soil hauling (148 cubic yards). The remainder of construction trips would be construction worker trips to and from the project site each day of construction. Santa Fe Street would be partially blocked during construction activities (primarily during the one day required to pave Santa Fe Street); however, it would remain accessible with standard traffic control devices. Therefore, short-term construction impacts to the circulation system would be less than significant. The facility would continue to process 15 to 20 truck loads per day and maintain 12 full-time employees (including truck drivers and on-site staff), resulting in a total of approximately 88 daily trips. Heavy truck trips to and from the site would occur throughout the day, with the majority occurring outside of the AM and PM peak hours. In addition, given the relatively limited on-site employment at the existing facility, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Moreover, the minor aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and safety improvements associated with the project would not expand operations or JULY 2011 4.16-1 TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC 31A-89 0 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration employment beyond existing conditions. Therefore, long-term operational impacts on the circulation system would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county ' congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact The CMP is intended to reduce traffic congestion and provide a mechanism for ' coordinating land use and development decisions throughout Orange County. The CMP states that if a project generating 1,600 or more trips/day will directly access, or is in close proximity to, a CMP Highway System link, a CMP traffic impact analysis is required. As the facility currently has a daily total of approximately 88 trips and would not result in additional trips (following completion of construction), no CMP traffic impact analysis is required for the proposed project, and no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact The nearest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport, located approximately four miles to the south. Due to distance and nature of the project, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any change in air traffic patterns or levels. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. The existing Bender Ready-Mix facility is located in a heavy industrial area, frequently utilized by heavy trucks. The existing facility generates approximately 15 to 20 truck loads per day for concrete manufacturing operations. Given the industrialized nature of the project area, existing operations do not result in a hazard or incompatible use. The proposed project consists of on-site aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and safety improvements. The project would not result in any alteration or expansion of on-site operations. Moreover, the project would include the repaving of South Santa Fe Street along the project frontage, which would result in ' beneficial impacts in regards to safety. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. , e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Sianificant Impact As a concrete manufacturing plant, the Bender Ready-Mix facility does ' not currently impact emergency access in the site vicinity. The proposed project would implement minor aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and safety improvements on-site. Safety improvements would include the repaving of South Santa Fe Street along the project frontage. Repaving of South Santa Fe Street would be limited to the southbound lane (i.e., from the roadway centerline to the project frontage). Thus, South Santa Fe Street would remain open and accessible during emergency operations. The repaving process would comply with City requirements related to temporary lane ' JULY 2011 4.16-2 31A-90 TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC I BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration closure/rerouting signage during the brief period when repaving activities occur. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. t) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No Impact As stated above in Response 4.16(a), the existing facility occurs within a heavy industrial area. The existing facility does not currently conflict with any policies, plans, or programs related to public or altemative transportation. Improvements associated with the project would not alter or expand existing operations at the site. The facility does not include any components that would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and it would not otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Thus, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 1? I JULY 2011 4.16-3 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 31A-91 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. , I? I L? JULY 2011 4.16-4 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 31A-92 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 E 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS [ Less Than Would the project: Potentially Significant ' LessTha`n No Significant Impact With Significant ImPaM Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ' 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 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 rovider'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? ? a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Significant Impact The existing Bender Ready-Mix facility does not currently exceed wastewater treatment requirements, since it employs only 12 full-time staff. In addition, wash water utilized in the concrete manufacturing process is recycled on-site. Improvements associated with the proposed project would not result in any alteration or expansion of existing operations on-site. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental ' effects? No Impact. Existing operations at the Bender Ready-Mix facility are adequately served by existing infrastructure in the site vicinity. The minor aesthetic, drainage, water quality, and safety improvements associated with the project would not result in any additional need for water or wastewater service. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. JULY 2011 4.17-1 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 31A-93 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The project area has historically been developed with heavy industrial r uses. Given the developed nature of the project area and project site, the existing Bender Ready-Mix facility does not currently result in any significant effects related to storm water drainage. The proposed project would result in a beneficial impact in regards storm water drainage during long- term operations. The drainage improvements associated with the proposed project would implement three segments of 24-inch bottomless trench and a 400 square-foot detention/desifting basin, which ' would assist in storm water capacity on-site. Thus, impacts in this regard are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and , resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact Refer to Response 4.17(b), above. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. e) 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? L ess Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.17(a) and 4.17(b), above. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? , Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would generate a negligible amount of solid waste during construction activities, primarily due to excavated soils. Project operations would not result in an increase in solid waste generation beyond existing conditions, as existing operations would continue and no new development is proposed. Solid waste in the City is taken to a transfer station, then to the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill or the Alpha Olinda Landfill. Construction debris would be minimal and would be sufficiently served by an existing landfill. Impacts in this regard are less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. ' g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. The proposed project would comply with all Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including the California Integrated Waste Management Act and City recycling programs. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. JULY 2011 4.17-2 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 31A-94 I (g) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Less Than Would the project: Potentially Signlficant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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, the 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? 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 rrsh 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? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitipadon Incorporated. As shown within Section 4.4, Biolo ical Resources, the proposed project does not have the potential to result in impacts to plant or animal species due to the developed and urbanized nature of the project area. As described within Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, there are no known cultural resources existing at the project site. However, Mitigation Measures CULA and CUL-2 would be required in the event unexpected resources are uncovered during the grading the excavation process. With implementation 1 of recommended mitigation, the project is not anticipated to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. 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 future projects)? Less Than Sioniticant Impact With Mitioadon Incorporated. The proposed project would not result in the construction of any new housing or other uses that would result in population growth. There ' would be no impact that would be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable for the environmental issues analyzed within this Initial Study. As indicated throughout Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, impacts as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant with implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts in this regard. JULY 2011 4.18-1 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 31A-95 (9) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration cJ Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Previous sections of this Initial Study ' reviewed the proposed project's potential impacts related to aesthetics, air pollution, noise, hazards and hazardous materials, traffic, and other issues. As concluded in these previous discussions, the proposed project would result in less than significant environmental impacts with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in environmental impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. i 1 JULY 2011 4.18-2 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 31A-96 'BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.19 REFERENCES The following references were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. These documents are available for review at the City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency located at 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. 1 . CalCoast Engineering & Design Group, Inc., Hydrology Study, Bender Ready.Mix, May 30, 2011. 2 CalC a t E i & D i i G I W . o s ng neer ng es gn roup, nc., ater Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for Bender Ready Mix, revised May 30, 2011. 3. Califomia Air Resources Board, Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, October 2008, hftp:/Iwww.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplanldocument/scopingplandocument. htm. 4. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Orange County Important Farmland 2008 Map, published August 2009. 5: California Department of Transportation website, hftp://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/ scenic_highways/index.htm, accessed January 2011. 6. California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2006, 2006, hftp://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publicatons/CEC 600 2006 013/CEC 600 2006 013 SF.PDF. 7. California Environmental Quality Act, 1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21178, hftp://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/. 8. California State Office of Planning and Research, Noise Element Guidelines, October 2003, hftp:/Iwww.opr.ca.gov/planning/publications/General_Plan_Guidelines_2003. pdf. 9. City of Santa Ana, City of Santa Ana General Plan, Element dates vary from 1982 to 2009. 10. City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Codified through Ordinance No. 2801, adopted December 23, 2009. 11. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map #06059C0276J revised 1 , December 3, 2009. 12. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006, hftp://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_ Manual.pdf. 13. Google Earth Maps, hftp://maps.google.com, accessed January 2011. 14. Governor's Office of Planning and Research, CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act Review, 2008. 15. South California Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin, 2007, hftp://www.agmd.gov/agmp/07agmp/07AQMP.html. JULY 2011 4.19-1 REFERENCES 31A-97 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (9) 16. South Qoast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993, hftp:/twww.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html. 17. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold t. Methodology, Appendix C,' June 2003 (revised 2009), hftp://www.agmd.gov/ CEQA/handbook/LST/LST.htmi. 18. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Riverside County, California, September 1978. 19. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Noise Guidebook, undated. 20. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Noise Effects Handbook - A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise, October 1979, revised July 1981, hftp://www.nonoise.orgAibrary/handbook/handbook.htm. t 1 JULY 2011 4.19-2 REFERENCES 31A-98 (9) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration i 4.20 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL City of Santa Ana (Lead Agency) 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714) 667-2700 Vince Fregoso, AICP, Principal Planner RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 949,472.3505 Glenn Lajoie, AICP, Vice President, Environmental Services Alan Ashimine, Senior Environmental Analyst Eddie Torres, INCE, Air Quality and Noise Manager Rebecca Kinney, RE, Hydrology Specialist Kelly Chiene, Environmental Analyst Linda Bo, Graphic Artist Gary Gick, Document Editor JULY 2011 4.20-1 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL 31A-99 (9) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. [1 i J JULY 2011 4.20-2 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL 31 A-100 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES Cultural Resources CUL-1 In the event buried cultural resources are discovered during construction activities, an Orange County-certified archaeologist shall be retained to evaluate the discovery prior to resuming construction in the immediate vicinity of the find. If warranted, the archaeologist shall collect the resource, and prepare a technical report describing the results of the investigation. The certified archaeologist shall prepare excavated materials to the point of identification, and shall offer excavated finds for curatorial purposes to the County of Orange, or its designee, on a first refusal basis. The Project Applicant shall also be ' responsible for the payment of County of Orange curatorial fees, if applicable. CUL-2 In the event human remains are found during construction, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined, within two working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are or believed to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento within 48 hours. In accordance with Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendents shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains. Geology and Soils ' GEO-1 The Project Applicant shall ensure that the proposed project meets the design parameters identified in the latest version of the California Building Code. i GEO-2 The construction contractor shall ensure that the project complies with Chapter 18, Article VII, Water Pollution, of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code. Water quality features intended to reduce construction-related erosion impacts shall be clearly denoted on the grading plans for implementation by the construction contractor. I JULY 2011 5-1 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES 31A-101 (9) BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. ' F-i 11 JULY 2011 5-2 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES 31 A-102 I (g) .BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 6.0 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION Based on the information and environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist, we recommend that the City prepare a mitigated negative declaration for the Bender Ready- Mix Concrete Manufacturing Project. We find that the proposed project could have a significant effect on a number of environmental issues, but that mitigation measures have been identified that reduce such impacts to a less than significant level. We recommend that the second category be selected for the City's determination (See Section 7.0, Lead Apency Determination). r June 2011 iv_? - Date Glenn Lajoie, AICP, Pro ect Manager K RBF Consulting n L JULY 2011 6-1 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION 31 A-103 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. 1 i 1 JULY 2011 6-2 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION 31 A-104 ?F BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 7.0 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed use COULD NOT have a significant effect on the _ environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposal could have a significant effect on the - environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the V/ mitigation measures described in Section 5.0 have been added. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an _ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation _ measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. F_ LJ i Signature: (:a= Title: Principal Planne Printed Name: Vince Fregoso, AICP Agency: City of Santa Ana Date: July 2011 I r JULY 2011 7-1 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION 31 A-105 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT , Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. I 11 JULY 2011 7-2 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION 31 A-106 BENDER READY-MIX CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CEQA requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring plan. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring plan must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for the proposed Bender Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing Project. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is intended to provide verification that all applicable Conditions of Approval relative to significant environmental impacts are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include 1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation; and 3) retention of records in the project file. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program delineates responsibilities for monitoring the project, but also allows the City of Santa Ana flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented. Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented, and generally involves the following steps: ¦ The City of Santa Ana distributes reporting forms to the appropriate entities for verification of compliance. ¦ Departments/agencies with reporting responsibilities will review the Initial Study, which provides general background information on the reasons for including specified mitigation measures. ¦ Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to the City of Santa Ana as appropriate. ¦ Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of mitigation measures. ¦ Responsible parties provide the City of Santa Ana with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. Monitoring compliance may be documented through existing review and approval programs such as field inspection reports and plan review. ¦ The City of Santa Ana prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an annual report summarizing all project mitigation monitoring efforts. ¦ Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or conditions of permits/approvals. Minor changes to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, if required, would be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City of Santa Ana. Such changes could include reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibilities, plan redesign to make any appropriate improvements, and/or modification, substitution or deletion of mitigation measures subject to conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. No change will be permitted unless the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. OCTOBER 2011 1 MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM 31 A-107 O _UO N C m C ?y ?t T f W V Z oc 0 CL Z /Q V Z i 0 Z 0 2 z 0 I? ??- •? ?0) boo'>-?>z p , +°oN0 :°F5UZ??a ca C a) i m p C a) 2 O o? ac 15 0 U oU d" U U U oil ? m c c c 'co -p j - y UJ = > E C W ? a) U- li w cis d co ca ? _ O C U 7 O U C O O) U C ? cn 0 C U 3 me v,=a?rnpp o v cO ? C R C N ? O N p -"--: N ` -E? >Z'° ay) ) w !A ca N cCC U N 'C ld C - 4) a) (1) O a) X O ca C c6 E dU >> o o ° a) o ` Oo•=-+cp N CL-- -25 2 0 z a) .> .....? y ° O O) `> y C X y to C 5 y N ? 'rm O .C 'LM a) c p -j ca ° 0=0 .O c 8 La? -5 Gi N?> d c j a) co .o a) cu C O a) U) (D T 0- c c? m_ y •c is Y a) £ :2 ' a aU ?`? o ° =o c n.o - 4 y v w. o m ? U o .o ? co 'o 0 0 $ ac) U) Cl) tm OL a- .q, Sx -a tvi c_D :d c 0 m E a) _m ,aCc) a) O-i5o 00 ca r= o W w O) a) 'CN N; N C? y y N co- C U r... N c c 3 =°v co > 0 j 0 3 616 E Z •?-, O U N U y y C 'O c y cr O o o o o E c) c C N O y O y U cc 2 Y cis O E G) G) IL > c "COD (D E C .n C t °° O f O E 4) O :C a) V L O U C.0 o m U s ° CD U a) N A (b O C a) , Q = co a) j o o U p a`? z m o v w E$ Ea = o > > c U s m= c° O c 'O ? a CO 'a) rn Q N 9 c o o cm= .? aEi ° o 03 Z a) > o y p U cR E 'i a) Gj Y 2 C I-- C) O C a) 3' N U t O a C O E C C o py Y m 3 ca co as C cn - ° a) E iU a) ccVpp ??O C U O N O L?s?Zfnfn(°) a) N T T^r ?V W m O U O 31 A-108 0 c Cli d a' 0 C5 z Ig 5 cd z rn Q r M UJ 70 W cc c Z ...e O 5 V K 0 u? oc c G z W m G co ¢? co d ca cC Cn C!J O o U U (C CO C O ftS N Rig t C O co Q L CL .It z N CL O •0 O •? Oa- Oa a O _ CL O N d d y d N O CO O CU 3 a 3 a m a? a> a) oC Q CD C a) v CD d`. -Zi a) _C d m as DO p .L. aS -8 O . 3 3 oa E.° ie3U ?i- rn ca Q) CD CM. c _ C 'w3 y CD a) cO E co ix a) d O N a N V =3 N N L-. O C +L•+ cn tm N in U:3 pC a U • G a) E C O a) `N d d C C cC CO C C .U O > tj •- L co d' N C i z N 'CS c? w V O (A O O O E 3 - E cn O }O„ C C O • E S < y 9 N C .? - z Q L C° d ?j c 0-0 E 4) CD a°i ° •c E o f76 C O ' • a) y a) c c n C Q ? 1= =3 L C d E J_ CL L t5 -p o $ N as y d N O (> co o 0 U) O ° a? 5 ? Q?ao ° o 16 C nC D Q } O N s w W W 0 cs 31 A-109 Q O GC a C7 z O a W w ca C7 Z O Z O Z O H Q O E 2 M T O N W m O U O ROH - 10/10/11 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-21 TO ALLOW A CEMENT MANUFACTURING FACILITY ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 516 SOUTH SANTA FE STREET BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-21 came before the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana for a duly noticed public hearing on October 10, 2011. B. Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-21 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana seeking to allow the operation of a cement manufacturing facility at 516 South Santa Fe Street. C. Pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-489.5(c), a Conditional Use Permit is required for cement manufacturing operations in the M2 District in the City of Santa Ana. D. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a conditional use permit upon making certain findings. 1. Will the proposed use provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community? The project will provide a service or facility which will contribute to the community. The facility is a cement manufacturing facility that will provide needed construction materials and supplies to development sites in the area. Further, the business will provide needed employment opportunities for residents that live in the City. Resolution No. 2011-15 Page 1 of 5 31A-110 2. 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 cement manufacturing facility will not be detrimental to persons residing or working in the area as the facility is located within an area of the City that is predominantly industrial in nature. Further, improvements will be made to the site, including the installation of water clarifiers and biofilters, which will bring the site into compliance with local and regional water quality statutes. Additionally, enhancements such as the construction of new block walls and the planting of additional landscaping will be made to the site that will provide visual and aesthetic upgrades to the site. Finally, conditions have been placed on the project that will mitigate any negative or adverse impacts created by the use that could otherwise affect the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. 3. Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of properties surrounding the area? The proposed use will not adversely affect the economic stability of the area but will instead identify the site as a viable site to conduct business. The site was previously vacant and has since been occupied by a use that is consistent with the zoning for the property. The reuse of the site, in conjunction with the improvements that will be made to the site, will enhance the economic viability of the area. 4. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 41 for such use? The use will be in compliance with all regulations and provisions of Chapter 41 (Zoning Code) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. Site improvements are proposed that will bring the site into compliance with the Zoning Code. A new 10-foot high block wall will be built along the perimeter of the property to mitigate any visual blight, noise and/or dust related concerns. In addition, improvements to the signage, landscaping and roof mounted equipment will be made to bring the site into compliance with code. Finally, on-site improvements will be made that will ensure the facility complies with local, regional and federal water quality standards. Resolution No. 2011-15 Page 2 of 5 31A-111 5. Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or any specific plan of the City? The proposed use will not adversely affect the General Plan. Goal 1 of the Land Use Element encourages uses that promote a balance of land uses that address basic community needs. Goal 2 encourages uses that enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability. Goal 5 ensures that the impacts of development are mitigated. E. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2009-86, has been prepared for this project. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2009-86, prepared with respect to this project, and has determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program adequately addresses the expected environmental impacts of the project. On the basis of this review, the Planning Commission finds that there is no evidence from which it can be fairly argued that the project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Thus, the Planning Commission hereby certifies and approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2009-86. Section 2. The Planning Commission, after conducting the public hearing, hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-21 as conditioned in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes but is not limited to: the Request for Planning Commission Action dated October 10, 2011, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this 10th day of October , 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Acosta, Gartner, Mill, Nalle, Turner, Yrarrazaval(6) NOES: Commissioners: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners: Alderete (1) ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: None (0) Resolution No. 2011-15 Page 3 of 5 31A-112 James Gartner Vice Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph A. Straka, City Attorney Bv: Ryan O. Hodge Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Martha Ramirez, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2011-15 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on October 10, 2011. Date: Resolution No. 2011-15 Page 4 of 5 Planning Commission Secretary City of Santa Ana 31A-113 Conditions for Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-21 Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-21 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. The applicant must comply in full 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 conditional use permit. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the conditional use permit. A. Planning Division 1. All proposed site improvements must conform to the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 2009-35. 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. The existing chain link fencing along the project perimeter shall be removed and be replaced by a block wall no less than 10 feet in height. 4. A final landscaping plan, including a detailed irrigation plan, shall be submitted to staff for review and approval. Exhibit A Resolution No. 2011-15 Page 5 of 5 31A-114