HomeMy WebLinkAbout75A - PH - RESO SA-GG FIXED GUIDEWAYREQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
JANUARY 20, 2015
TITLE:
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE REA/FEIR
FOR THE SANTA ANA - GARDEN GROVE
FIXED GUIDEWAY PROJECT AND
APPROVING THE PROJECT
STRATEGIC -PLAN NOS. 6, ;G; 3,2,C; &
3,4,B}
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
1. Adopt a resolution certifying the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REA /FEIR
SCH #2010051060);
2. Adopt the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Santa Ana - Garden
Grove Fixed Guideway Project;
3. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed
Guideway Project; and
4. Approve the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project;
BACKGROUND
This action will complete the environmental phase of the Santa Ana /Garden Grove Fixed
Guideway Project in preparation for transferring project oversight to the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) for the implementation, operation, and maintenance phases of
the project. While OCTA will assume primary responsibility, the City will remain a participant in the
design, construction, and eventual streetcar operations.
The OCTA Go Local Program was initiated in 2006 to identify projects that would provide last -mile
transit connectivity to the Metrolink backbone commuter rail system in Orange County. The focus
of the program was to conceive these transportation options at the local level. The program
helped to identify the best projects for funding consideration through a competitive process that
ultimately led to partnerships between OCTA and the local agency awardees.
In 2007, a collaborative effort between the cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove led to a project
concept which was one of two projects selected by OCTA to continue through the Go Local 4 -step
process. In Step 1, a feasibility study was completed in 2007 that explored a fixed rail connection
to Metrolink. Step 2 was initiated in 2008 and involves the subject environmental analysis. The
75A -1
Resolution Certifying the REA/FEIR
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
January 20, 2015
Page 2
remaining Go Local Steps 3 and 4 (Preliminary Engineering /Final Design, and Construction) will be
led by OCTA.
Santa Ana and Garden Grove have collaborated with OCTA on the environmental analysis of the
Fixed Guideway Project. Santa Ana took the lead role for the California Environmental Quality Act
review and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was the lead agency for the National
Environmental Policy Act review. A draft of the Environmental Assessment /Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EA /DEIR) was completed on May 22, 2014. Following public circulation of the
EA /DEIR, public comments were received and addressed in the Revised Environmental
Assessment/Final Environmental Impact Report (REA /FEIR).
Concurrent with the environmental analysis, an Alternatives Analysis (AA) was also prepared.
The AA established three build alternatives to be analyzed in the EA /DEIR: Streetcar Alternative
1, Streetcar Alternative 2, and a Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative.
Throughout the process, staff worked closely with OCTA and FTA to ensure that the EA /DEIR met
all federal eligibility requirements for grant funding through the FTA Section 5309 New
Starts /Small Starts Program. The draft AA was also completed on May 22, 2014 and the Locally
Preferred Alternative (LPA) was identified by Council on August 5, 2014.
Staff and the consultant team recommend certifying the REA /FEIR; adopting the LPA with
Streetcar Alternative 1 (Operations & Maintenance Facility Site B [west of Raitt Street] and 4th
Street Parking Scenario A [parallel parking]) as the Santa Ana /Garden Grove Fixed Guideway
Project; and approving the project by adopting this proposed resolution (Exhibit 1). Upon
certification, OCTA will submit a draft Finding of No Significant Impact ( FONSI) to FTA for
approval. Once the FONSI is approved by FTA, the environmental phase of the project will be
complete. City staff and the consultant team will then transfer all project documentation to OCTA
for implementation.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this item supports the City's efforts to meet Goal #6 Community Facilities &
Infrastructure, Objective #1 (establish and maintain a Community Investment Plan for all City
assets), Strategy G (develop and implement the City's Capital Improvement Program in
coordination with the Community Investment and Deferred Maintenance Plans).
Approval of this item also supports Goal #3 Economic Development, Objective #2 (create new
opportunities for business /job growth and encourage private development through new General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance policies), Strategy C (support business development and job growth
along transit corridors through the completion of critical transit plans /projects including: The Fixed
Guideway Project, Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center Master Plan, Complete Streets and
General Plan Circulation Element update).
Approval of this item also supports Goal #3 Economic Development, Objective #4 (continue to
pursue objectives that shape downtown Santa Ana into a thriving, culturally diverse, shopping,
75A -2
Resolution Certifying the REA/FEIR
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
January 20, 2015
Page 3
dining, and entertainment destination), Strategy B (create a comprehensive program to manage
parking that includes innovative strategies to provide parking, create revenue and enhance
accessibility in the downtown).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The REA /FEIR represents an informational document that is intended to advise public decision
makers, other responsible and trustee agencies, and the general public of the potential effects of
the proposed project.
The City of Santa Ana distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EA /DEIR on May 24, 2010.
The NOP was distributed to the State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research, public
agencies, utility and service providers, homeowners' associations in the project area, nearby
property owners, and other individuals that may have had an interest in the project. Several public
project scoping meetings were held in 2010 to identify concerns or issues from the community.
The scoping meetings identified seven conceptual project alternatives including No Build,
Transportation System Management (bus improvements), two Bus Rapid Transit Routes, and
three Streetcar Routes.
Through continued community input, these alternatives were screened down to the four
alternatives presented to Council on December 20, 2010. The Reduced Set of Alternatives
included the No Build alternative and those technology options that best met the needs of the
community comprised of the two streetcar alternatives and a TSM alternative that included bus
service improvements and signal synchronization. The EA /DEIR identified those potential impacts
that could be significant and issues that would require additional analysis. The environmental
issues analyzed in the EA /DEIR included:
1. Aesthetics 18. Mineral Resources
2. Agricultural and Forest Resources 19. Noise and Vibration
3.
4.
Air Quality
Biological Resources 20. Population and Housing
5. Coastal Zones 21. Public Services
6. Community Effects 22. Recreation
7. Cultural Resources 23. Safety and Security
8. Ecologically Sensitive Areas 24. Section 4(f) Resources
9. Economic Effects 25. Socio- Economics
10. Endangered and /or Threatened Plant and 26. Transportation, Traffic and Parking
11.
Animal Species
Energy Resources 27 Utilities /Service Systems
12. Environmental Justice 28. Visual Qualityy
13. Geology, Soils and Seismicity 29. Water Quality, Hydrology and Floodplains
14. Hazards & Hazardous Materials 30. Wetlands and Navigable Waterways
15. Land Acquisition and Displacements 31. Construction
16. Land Use and Zoning 32. Cumulative Impacts
17. Right -of -Way, Relocations, Utility 33. Other ConsiderationsCoordination
75A -3
Resolution Certifying the REA/FEIR
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
January 20, 2015
Page 4
The EA /DEIR Notice of Availability was released on May 22, 2014, and the 45 -day public
comment period began May 23, 2014. Subsequently, staff implemented an extensive outreach
campaign that exceeded statutory requirements:
3,796 postcards were prepared and sent to all properties within 500 feet of the area of
potential effect (multi - residential and single -unit properties, including the owner and tenant
of each property), as well as to key stakeholders who had previously participated in the
environmental process. The postcards provided details of the three scheduled meetings in
English, Spanish, and Vietnamese.
A press release was sent out via Nixle and an announcement was made by the City
Manager at a publicly televised City Council meeting at the start of the 45 -day review period.
Seven news outlets, including the OC Reporter and the Orange County Register, provided
print and web coverage on the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project and the
scheduled public meetings.
Information was placed prominently on the homepage of the City's website, eliciting 100,000
views in the first 30 days of the 45 -day review period.
To encourage attendance, staff contacted key stakeholders, groups, and neighborhood
leaders (including those outside of the 500 -foot envelope, such as the Logan and French
Park neighborhoods), and sent out an a -news release to over 2,000 neighborhood leaders
in advance of the meetings.
A copy of the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project AA /DEIR was placed at
seven locations, including five in Santa Ana, one in the OCTA office in Orange, one location
in Garden Grove, and a digital copy online, for public review.
Three public meetings were held along the potential Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed
Guideway Project route at various times to accommodate as many people as possible.
Information, interpretation and translation services were provided in English, Spanish, and
Vietnamese.
Flyers in all three languages were placed at every community and senior center in the city,
providing information on where to find the AA /DEIR, the website address, the 45 -day review
period, and how to submit comments.
Notice of the public meetings and calls for public comment were also promoted on the City's
social media channels several times throughout the 45 -day review period.
To encourage input, flyers on the 45 -day review period and calls for comments were also
distributed as handouts at neighborhood meetings throughout the 45 -day review period.
Information was provided to the Santa Ana Unified School District ( SAUSD) Public
Information Office and various SAUSD staff, to extend notification to those interested.
75A -4
Resolution Certifying the REA/FEIR
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
January 20, 2015
Page 5
The public comment period ended on July 7, 2014. Comments were received from the following
agencies:
Santa Ana Historical Preservation Society (letter and e-mail) - support for Streetcar
Alternative 1.
US General Services Agency (GSA) (e -mail) - support for Streetcar Alternative 1;
opposition to Streetcar Alternative 2.
California Native American Heritage Commission (letter) - reiterating measures needed to
protect sensitive archaeological resources.
Caltrans (letter) - no comment; will continue to follow project.
Public comments were also received from the following groups /residents:
Downtown, Inc. (e -mail) - support for Streetcar Alternative 1
Santa Ana Community & Business Alliance (letter):
Opposition to the "Preferred Option" signed by 85 residents and businesses
Opposition to the "Preferred Option" and request for equity analysis signed by 98
residents
Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce (e -mail) support for Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed
Guideway Project
Santa Ana Restaurant Association (e -mail) support for Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed
Guideway Project
Santiago Lofts resident (e -mail) support for Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway
Project
Public comment totals from the public meetings are as follows:
4 postcards from residents
Public Meeting #1: Verbal comments from 6 individuals
Public Meeting #2: Verbal comments from 4 individuals
Public Meeting #3: Verbal comments from 24 individuals
Comments generally fell into the following categories:
General community support for a streetcar system
Concern about the duration and potential impacts of construction on Downtown businesses
Concern about loss of on- street parking
Opportunities to stimulate economic development along Fifth Street
Fourth Street versus Fifth Street
75A -5
Resolution Certifying the REA/FEIR
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
January 20, 2015
Page 6
Written responses to these comments were provided in the REA /FEIR. The REA /FEIR documents
all written and oral comments received during the public review period and contains the City's
responses. The comments received from the public and from the public agencies did not require
any new analysis or result in major changes in the REA /FEIR.
The Notice of Availability for the REA /FEIR was released on January 5, 2015. The REA /FEIR
identified four environmental categories that will result in less than significant impacts through the
adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Further, the REA /FEIR identified one environmental
category that will result in significant environmental impacts, even with implementation of mitigation
measures. The attached "Findings and Facts in support of Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project State Clearinghouse No.
2010051060" (Exhibit 2) summarizes the evidence relied upon by the City in making these findings.
This evidence is drawn from the NOP, the comments and responses to comments on the EA /DEIR,
the REA /FEIR, and other evidence presented to the City, including all other information in the
administrative record. Additionally, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been
prepared for this project and will be adopted along with the proposed resolution. The Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 3) is found in Chapter 4 of the REA /FEIR (Exhibit 4).
FISCAL IMPACT
is no fiscal impact associated with this specific action.
JI 'k-
Fred Mou§avipour
Executive Director
Public Works Agency
FMNVG /JG
Exhibits: 1. Resolution
2. Exhibit A - Findings and Facts
3. Attachment A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4. REA /FEIR
75A -6
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA CERTIFYING THE REA /FEIR FOR THE
SANTA ANA - GARDEN GROVE FIXED GUIDEWAY
PROJECT AND APPROVING THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana (the "City "), along with the City of Garden
Grove, has proposed that a streetcar line be constructed and operated along a 4.2 mile -
long corridor through the City of Santa Ana and into the eastern portion of the City of
Garden Grove (the "Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project" or "the Project');
and
WHEREAS, under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources
Code section 21000 et seq., "CEQA "), and pursuant to Public Resources code section
21067 and State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) section
15367, the City has assumed the role of the lead agency for the Project on behalf of
itself and the City of Garden Grove; and
WHEREAS, the City determined that an environmental impact report should be
prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental
impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(a) and 15375,
the City circulated a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") to public agencies, special districts,
and members of the public for an initial 30 -day public comment period commencing May
24, 2010 and ending June 22, 2010. In addition, four scoping meetings were conducted
for the general public between June 8 and June 10, 2010; and
WHEREAS, during the NOP comment period, the City solicited comments from
potential responsible and trustee agencies and members of the public; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Environmental Assessment/Draft
Environmental Impact Report ( "EA /DEIR ") to analyze the potential environmental effects
of the Project, and then published the EA/DEIR on May 23, 2014 with a 45 -day public
review period which expired on July 7, 2014. During the public review period, three
public meetings regarding the Project were also held, on June 14, 17, and 19, 2014;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15087, the City circulated a
public notice of availability of the EA /DEIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15086, the City consulted with
and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory
agencies and other interested parties during the 45 -day comment period; and
Exhibit t
Resolution No. 2015 -xxx
Page 1 of 4
75A -7
WHEREAS, the City received 17 written comment letters during the public review
period for the EA /DEIR and prepared responses to the same. Responses were also
prepared to oral comments made during the aforementioned meetings held during the
public review period; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City
provided copies of the written responses to all commenting public agencies; and
WHEREAS, the EA /DEIR assessed the environmental impacts of a number of
alternative versions of the Project, without indicating a preference for any particular
alternative; and
WHEREAS, after review of the public comments and testimony received during
the 45 -day public review period, the City Council of the City of Santa selected, via
Resolution No. 2001 -049 (adopted on August 5, 2014), "Streetcar Alternative 1"
Operations & Maintenance Facility Site B [west of Raitt Street] and Fourth Street
Parking Scenario A [parallel parking]) as the "Locally Preferred Alternative" to be
implemented. For the purposes of this Resolution, the "Project" shall hereafter refer to
Streetcar Alternative 1, as described in Resolution No. 2001 -049; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Revised Environmental Assessment/Final
Environmental Impact Report ( "REA /FEIR "), consisting of comments received during the
45 -day public review and comment period on the EA /DEIR, written responses to those
comments, and revisions and errata to the EA /DEIR. For the purposes of this
Resolution, the "REA/FEIR" shall refer to the EA/DEIR, as revised by the REA /FEIR's
errata section, together with the other sections of the REA /FEIR; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set
forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have
been satisfied in the REA /FEIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially
significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the REA /FEIR sufficiently analyzes both the feasible mitigation
measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project's potential
environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or
reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council
pursuant to this Resolution are based upon oral and written evidence presented to it as
a whole and the entirety of the record of proceedings on the Project, which is hereby
incorporated by this reference, and not based solely on the information provided in this
Resolution; and
Resolution No. 2015 -xxx
Page 2 of 4
75A -8
WHEREAS, the REA /FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council
and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project;
and
WHEREAS, the City has not received any comments or additional information
that produced substantial new information requiring recirculation under Public
Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2015, the City Council conducted a duly noticed
public hearing on this Resolution, at which time all persons wishing to testify were
heard, and the Project was fully considered; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS;
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby adopts the
Findings and Facts attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution and incorporates them into
this Resolution as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. Based on the entire record before the City Council, all written and
oral evidence presented, and the Findings and Facts attached as Exhibit A to this
Resolution, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana finds that it has reviewed and
considered the REA /FEIR In evaluating the Project, that the REA /FEIR is an accurate
and objective statement that fully complies with the Public Resources Code and the
State CEQA Guidelines, and that the REA /FEIR reflects the independent judgment of
the City Council. The City Council consequently hereby certifies the REA /FEIR and
adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations incorporated within the Findings and
Facts attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City
Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as
Attachment A to the Findings and Facts, which are collectively attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit A. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation
measures as set forth in the Findings and Facts and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.
SECTION 4. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of
proceedings for the City's actions related to the Project are available at the City of Santa
Ana, Public Works Agency, 20 Civic Center Plaza Ross Annex (M -36), Santa Ana,
California 92701. The City of Santa Ana is the custodian of the record of proceedings
for the Project.
Resolution No, 2015.xxx
Page 3 of 4
75A -9
SECTION 5. Staff is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination within five
5) days of the approval of this Resolution with the County Clerk of the County of
Orange.
SECTION 6. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby approves the
Project.
ADOPTED this 20th day of January, 2015.
Miguel A. Pulido
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers:
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached
Resolution No. 2015 -XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the
City of Santa Ana on
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
75A -10
Resolution No. 2015 -xxx
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE SANTA ANA - GARDEN GROVE
FIXED GUIDEWAY PROJECT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2010051060
111ETkTFf-,ToT&TFrAW97k
The City Council of the City of Santa Ana (City Council) hereby certifies and finds that the Santa
Ana - Garden Grove (SA -GG) Fixed Guideway Project (proposed project) Revised Environmental
Assessment /Final Environmental Impact Report (REA/FEIR), State Clearinghouse Number
2010051060, has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA
Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq., or CEQA
Guidelines). The REA/FEIR incorporates the following documents by reference as part of the
environmental record for the proposed project: (1) Environmental Assessment /Draft EIR
EA/DEIR); (2) Technical Appendices to the EA/DEIR; (3) Alternative Analysis Report; and (4)
REA /FEIR, which includes Responses to Comments, Corrections and Additions, and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The aforementioned documents, and
the entirety of the Administrative Record for the proposed project, are hereby incorporated by
reference into these findings.
The City Council hereby further confirms it received, reviewed, and considered the information
contained in the REA/FEIR and all hearings and submissions of testimony from City officials and
departments, the public, other public agencies, community groups, and organizations, and finds
that the REA/FEIR reflects its independent judgment and analysis. Concurrently with the
adoption of these findings, the City Council adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations
see Section 9, below) and an MMRP, attached hereto as Attachment A.
Having received, reviewed, and considered the foregoing information, as well as any and all
information in the Administrative Record, the City Council hereby makes the findings below
pursuant to and in accordance with PRC Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15090
and 15091.
The City Council makes the following findings:
a. None of the public comments submitted to the City regarding the EA/DEIR and the
REA/FEIR, including the public testimony made at three public hearings or responses to
comments, present any significant new information that would require the EA /DEIR to be
recirculated for additional public review.
b. No new significant environmental impacts would result from new or modified mitigation
measures proposed to be implemented.
1 January 2015
EfU'p'phT12
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support ofFindings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
c. The EA/DEIR adequately analyzed project alternatives, and there are no feasible project
alternatives or mitigation measures considerably different from others previously analyzed
that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project.
d. Any new information in the REA/FEIR has been provided merely to clarify or amplify
information in the EA/DEIR. The new information does not reveal that the proposed project
would cause significant new impacts not previously identified in the EA/DEIR.
In addition, PRC Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 require the City Council,
prior to approving the SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project, to identify significant impacts of the
proposed project and make one or more of three allowable findings for each of the significant
impacts:
a. The first allowable finding is that "changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, subd.
a][1]).
b. The second allowable finding is that "such changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the
finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency' (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, subd. [a][2]).
c. The third allowable finding is that "specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the final environmental
impact report" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, subd. [a][3]).
The findings reported in Sections 4 through 8 are founded on, and hereby explicitly incorporate
by reference, the analysis, facts, and discussions contained in the REA/FEIR regarding each
particular environmental impact. Although Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines does not
require findings to address environmental impacts initially identified as "less than significant,"
these findings will, nevertheless, fully account for all such effects identified in the REA/FEIR.
A. DOGUment Format
These findings have been organized into the following sections:
1. Section 1 provides an introduction to these findings.
2. Section 2 provides a summary of the project, overview of the discretionary actions required
for approval of the proposed project, and a statement of the project's objectives.
3. Section 3 provides a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the
proposed project.
4. Section 4 sets forth findings regarding the environmental impacts that were determined to
be less than significant without mitigation.
5. Section 5 sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant environmental
impacts. These impacts include those that the City Council has determined can be feasibly
2 January 2015
75A -12
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
mitigated to a less- than - significant level through the imposition of existing regulations,
standard conditions and /or mitigation measures. In order to ensure compliance and
implementation, all mitigation measures will be included in the MMRP for the proposed
project and adopted as conditions of the proposed project by the City Council.
6. Section 6 sets forth findings regarding those significant or potentially significant
environmental impacts that will or may result from the proposed project and which the City
has determined cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less- than - significant level.
7. Section 7 sets forth findings regarding the cumulative, growth- inducing, and irreversible
effects of the proposed project.
8. Section 8 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the proposed project.
9. Section 9 sets forth a statement of overriding considerations, which identifies the benefits
that would outweigh the significant, unavoidable environmental impacts associated with
implementation of the proposed project.
B. Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions
related to the proposed project are available at the City of Santa Ana, Planning and Building
Agency, 20 Civic Center Plaza Ross Annex (M -20), Santa Ana, California 92701. The City of
Santa Ana is the custodian of the Administrative Record for the proposed project.
2. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. Project Location
The SA -GG Fixed Guideway Study Area is located in central Orange County, California and
directly accesses both the Los Angeles -San Diego -San Luis Obispo rail corridor and the Pacific
Electric right -of -way (PE ROW) rail corridor. Running predominantly in an east -west direction,
the corridor extends 4.2 miles through the City of Santa Ana and into the eastern portion of the
City of Garden Grove. The Study Area is generally bounded by Harbor Boulevard to the west,
17th Street to the north, Grand Avenue to the east, and 15t Street to the south. The eastern
terminus of the alignment is the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC) and the
western terminus is the Harbor Boulevard/ Westminster Avenue intersection.
B. Project Description
Following receipt of public comments on the EA/DEIR and after the close of the public comment
period, the City Council selected Streetcar Alternative 1 with Operations & Maintenance (O & M)
Facility Site B (west of Raitt Street) and 0 Street Parking Scenario A (parallel parking) as the
Locally Preferred Alternative for the SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project on August 5, 2014.
Streetcar Alternative 1 (proposed project) would utilize the PE ROW, an abandoned and vacant
rail right -of -way owned by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), through the
western half of its alignment and generally operate along Santa Ana Boulevard, and 4th Street
on the way to SARTC. The 4.2 -mile alignment would include 12 stations and it is anticipated
that the streetcar system would operate seven days a week with 10- minute headways during
3 January 2015
75A -13
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support ofFindings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
peak periods and 15- minute headways during off -peak periods. The streetcars would be
electrically powered using an overhead contact system and a series of Traction Power
Substations (TPSS) located intermittently along the alignment.
The Downtown segment of the alignment would feature couplet operations with the westbound
streetcar alignment on Santa Ana Boulevard, and the eastbound streetcar alignment on 4th
Street. For the eastbound transition from Santa Ana Boulevard to 4th Street, a direct route
would be provided from Santa Ana Boulevard along a public easement on the southern edge of
Sasscer Park to 4th Street.
The western terminus is located at the northeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Westminster
Avenue; the transition from the PE ROW to the western terminus site will include an elevated
crossing. In addition, the proposed project would utilize the PE ROW and cross over the Santa
Ana River. A new single -track bridge for the fixed guideway would be constructed immediately
south of the Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge, which is designated as a historic bridge
and would remain in its current location and condition. Through the use of gates and signaling,
the single -track bridge would accommodate bi- directional fixed guideway traffic.
The proposed project would require the construction of an O & M Facility for streetcar
operations. An O & M Facility is a stand -alone building which would meet the maintenance,
repair, operational and storage needs of the proposed streetcar system. The O & M Facility
accommodates daily and routine vehicle inspections, interior /exterior cleaning of the streetcars,
preventative (scheduled) maintenance, unscheduled maintenance, and component change -
outs. The proposed facility would also provide a venue for parking vehicles that are not in use
and for rebuilding components. The O & M Facility is a rectangular site slightly larger than 2.4
acres. It is located west of Raitt Street and is bordered by 5th Street to the north and the PE
ROW to the south. Located in an area zoned for industrial and commercial uses, this site is
comprised of three parcels, two of which contain existing businesses and a combination of
industrial buildings. The third parcel contains several residences.
The proposed project alignment would utilize 4th Street between Ross Street and Mortimer
Street in the eastbound direction. From east of Ross Street to French Street, 4th Street has one
travel lane in each direction with head -in diagonal parking along each side of the roadway. The
diagonal parking, with vehicles exiting parking spaces by backing into the travel lane, is
incompatible with streetcar operations and the proposed project would convert the diagonal
parking along the south side of 4th Street, between Ross Street and French Street, to parallel
parking, widen the sidewalk along the south side from 12 to 20 feet, and replace streetlights and
landscaping. A total of 26 on- street parking spaces would be removed.
C. Discretionary Actions
Implementation of the proposed project will require several actions by the City Council, including
the following:
Certification of the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REA/FEIR
SCH #2010051060). The REA/FEIR evaluated the environmental impacts resulting from
the proposed project, in accordance with CEQA, as amended (PRC Sections 21000 et
75A -14
January 2015
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support ofFindings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (CCR, Title 14, Sections
15000 et seq.).
Approval of the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Adoption of the MMRP for the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Adoption of the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Santa
Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
The REA/FEIR would provide environmental information to responsible agencies, trustee
agencies, and other public agencies that may be required to grant approvals and permits or
coordinate with the City as a part of project implementation. These agencies include, but are
not limited to, the following:
California Public Utilities Commission. Approval of crossings and horn - sounding
exemption for the crossings at 5th and Fairview Streets.
City of Garden Grove. Various permits, including construction permits.
Southern California Regional Rail Authority. Issuance of a Right -of -Entry Permit.
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Issuance of a Clean Water Act 401
Water Quality Certification, Stormwater Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit,
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Statewide Permit.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
D. Statement of Project Objectives
The purpose of the proposed project is to provide a new east -west transit line in Orange County
between the SARTC in the City of Santa Ana and the Harbor Boulevard/Westminster Avenue
intersection in the City of Garden Grove. The primary objectives of the proposed project are as
follows:
To improve transit connectivity within the Study Area;
To relieve congestion by providing alternative mobility options;
To be sensitive to the character of the community;
To increase transit options;
To improve transit accessibility to and within the Study Area; and
To provide benefits to the environment through improved air quality.
Kl AIL ky /I0o]7IIT, l4krr_1111 IATIT /_1 1 oil 1I1:7IIIAlIs317_tiiCT`
Meaningful public engagement was an important component of the SA -GG Fixed Guideway
Project from the onset. Beginning in 2008 and continuing throughout project development to
March 2014, in preparation for the public review of the EA/DEIR, the City of Santa Ana
conducted outreach to the Downtown businesses. The City's multi - lingual outreach team
conducted door -to -door visits to approximately 230 businesses in the Downtown area, including
approximately 156 businesses along 0 Street. The purpose of the outreach was to share key
5 January 2015
75A -15
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support ofFindings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
information with Downtown business and property owners about the SA -GG Fixed Guideway
Project, inform them about the upcoming release of the EA/DEIR, document questions and
input, and provide business owners with appropriate contact information for additional follow -up.
A "Sorry We Missed You" letter and information packet was also prepared and left behind for
business owners who were not available during the initial visit. The letter offered a briefing with
the outreach team to review the proposed project information packet.
Extensive efforts were conducted to involve the public and stakeholders in the planning for the
implementation of a streetcar along the alignment and through the Downtown area. Prior to the
release of the EA/DEIR, numerous meetings were held with stakeholders throughout the Study
Area to obtain input and provide updates on the SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project. Community
meetings were held with the Lacy Neighborhood, the French Park Neighborhood, the Santiago
Lofts Homeowners Association, the Santa Ana Senior Center, and many other stakeholders.
Stakeholder comments were collected and recorded at each meeting. In addition, a series of
Stakeholder Working Group meetings were held to involve key business people and leaders in
the community. Below is a list of organizations which received presentations on the proposed
project:
French Park Association
Kennedy Commission
Santa Ana Collaborative for Responsible Development
Santiago Lofts Homeowners Association
Artesia Filar Neighborhood Association
Labor Union Members
Federal Courthouse
Santa Ana Senior Center
Stakeholders Working Group
Santa Ana City Council
Santa Ana Restaurant Association
Templo Calvario
State Appellate Court
Orange County Superior Court
Rancho Santiago Community College District Board of Trustees
Lacy Neighborhood
SARTC Community Meeting to discuss the Santa Ana Train Station
Board of Directors, Santa Ana Merchants Association
Downtown Inc
Santa Ana Merchants Association
Santa Ana Unified School District
Stakeholders Working Group Advisory Committee
One -on -one briefings with 140 Downtown Businesses
Santa Ana City College
Railway Association of Southern California
Santa Ana Unified School District Board
s January 2015
75A -16
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
Everest College /Corinthian College
Santa Ana Resource Network
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Transportation Authority Transportation 2020 Committee
Federal Transit Administration
California Public Utilities Commission staff
County of Orange Supervisors and staff
In addition, prior to making any key decisions on the proposed project, the City of Santa Ana
initiated a public scoping process to define the appropriate range of issues to be addressed in
the EA/DEIR. Four scoping meetings were conducted for the general public between June 8
and June 12, 2010. Two of these meetings were scheduled in the evening, one meeting was
scheduled in the morning, and one meeting was scheduled on a Saturday afternoon, providing
those community members who could not attend any of the weekday evening meetings with an
opportunity to participate. Public comment opportunities were made available at each meeting.
It should also be noted that articles and advertisements were published in a number of local
newspapers, including several non - English publications. All information materials were
presented in English, as well as Spanish.
In compliance with PRC Sections 21080.4 and 21092, the Notice of Availability of the EA/DEIR
for public review, beginning May 23, 2014, was filed and posted at the Orange County Clerk -
Recorder's Office; advertised in the local newspaper; flyers were distributed at every community
center in the City of Santa Ana; outreach was also conducted via social media; and a press
release was covered by at least three different news organizations. Although not required under
CEQA regulations, available data from County Assessor and City property records were used to
establish a list of property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the alignment. There were
3,796 postcards delivered to property owners, business owners, tenants, and residents related
to EA/DEIR availability for public review. Hard copies of the notifications and document were
also made available at different locations (Santa Ana City Hall Public Works Counter, Santa Ana
City Hall City Clerk's Office, Santa Ana Public Library, Salgado Center, Rosita Park, Santa Ana
Train Station, Garden Grove City Hall, and OCTA), as well as online on the City of Santa Ana
website. During the review period, 17 written submissions were received on the EA/DEIR from
public agencies, community groups, and individuals. In addition, three public meetings were
held on June 14, 17, and 19, 2014. Approximately 150 people attended the public meetings,
and roughly 34 attendees gave verbal testimony at the meetings.
The REA/FEIR, which contains written responses to the comment letters received during and
after the 45 -day comment period and to oral testimonies during the public meetings, was
completed and distributed on November 8, 2014. Distribution of the REA /FEIR entailed
providing copies of the REA /FEIR to public agencies and organizations that received and /or
commented on the EA/DEIR and notifying individuals who commented on the EA/DEIR or the
REA/FEIR availability. The REA/FEIR was made available to the public on the City's website at
http : / /santaanatransitvision.com and the locations listed above. The REA /FEIR was prepared
7 January 2015
75A -17
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
and distributed in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), which requires that
written responses be provided at least 10 days prior to certifying an EIR.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED TO BE
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The following environmental resource areas would not be significantly impacted by the
proposed project:
A. Aesthetics (pages 3 -66 and 3 -190 of the EA/DEIR)
The proposed project would result in the installation of overhead contact wire poles with
catenary wires, new light poles, and additional traffic signals along the entire length of the
proposed project alignment. These project components would introduce new vertical
elements to the PE ROW and Santa Ana Boulevard. Workers and patrons of commercial
establishments, motorists, and pedestrians would have limited views of the proposed
improvements as they move through the area or visit commercial facilities. The visual
quality associated with the Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge, Santa Ana River
Trail, Sasscer Park, the French Park and Downtown Santa Ana Historic Districts, and
SARTC would not be substantially affected by the proposed project. Therefore, a less -than-
significant impact related to scenic vistas, scenic resources, and visual quality would occur.
The proposed vertical elements and TPSS would not impact the low to moderate visual
quality of the Study Area. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to visual
character would occur.
While the lighting design, including intensity and height, has not been determined to date, in
general, the lighting will be designed to direct lighting to the immediate area to minimize
spillover, and will be consistent with the existing lighting in the area. However, it is possible
that lighting associated with the O & M Facility and the stations /platforms located adjacent to
residential neighborhoods could create a new source of lighting that might impact nighttime
views in those areas. Project design features, including, but not limited to, architectural
integration of all lighting fixtures with the character of the surrounding environment, use of
shielded or recessed lighting, and use of low- profile walkway lights, would eliminate
potential light and glare impacts. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to lighting
would occur.
B. Agricultural and Forest Resources (page 3 -14 of the EAIDEIR)
There are no agricultural, timberland, or forestry resources within the Study Area. The
proposed project would not convert farmland to non - agricultural use; conflict with zoning for
agricultural use, forest land, or timberland; conflict with Williamson Act contracts; or result in
the loss or conversion of forest land to non - forest use. Therefore, no impacts related to
agricultural resources, farmland, and forestry resources would occur.
C. Air Quality (page 3 -156 of the EA/DEIR)
The proposed project is consistent with the City of Santa Ana long -term vision for
transportation development and traffic congestion alleviation. Regionally, the proposed
M
75A -18
January 2015
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
project would develop a mass transit infrastructure, which is a Transportation Control
Measure in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality
Management Plan that seeks to reduce air pollutant emissions via a reduction in vehicle
trips and congestion. In addition, the proposed project is included in Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS), adopted on April 4, 2012. Therefore, a less -than-
significant impact related to conflicting or obstructing the air quality management plan would
occur.
Operational activity would increase regional emissions by less than one pound per day
when compared with the emissions under the No Build Alternative. The net increase in
emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, a less -than-
significant impact related to violation of an air quality standard or contribution to an existing
or projected air quality violation would occur.
The proposed electrically - powered streetcars would not generate localized exhaust
emissions. However, changes to intersection operations as a result of project
implementation could potentially increase vehicle idling and result in carbon monoxide (CO)
hotspots. In addition, the proposed park- and -ride facility located on the northeast corner of
the Harbor Boulevard/Westminster Avenue intersection would potentially increase localized
pollutant concentrations. The CO hotspot analysis conducted for the project indicated that
the proposed project would contribute less than 0.1 part per million (ppm) to the one- and
eight -hour CO concentrations and would be less than the State one- and eight -hour CO
standards of 20 and 9 ppm. The proposed electrically - powered streetcars would not
generate diesel particulate matter. The O & M Facility would service streetcar vehicles and
would require the use of solvents and related chemicals for cleaning and repair activities.
However, the O & M Facility would not generate diesel emissions or be a substantial source
of chemicals identified in the California Air Resources Board guidance for locating pollutant
generators near sensitive populations. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to
exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would occur.
The O & M Facility would require the use of solvents and related chemicals for cleaning and
repair activities. However, these sources would not be used in sufficient quantities that
would emit substantial odors for public complaints. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact
related to odors would occur.
D. Biological Resources (page 3 -217 of the EA/DEIR)
The Study Area is heavily developed and contains no natural biological communities. The
ground disturbance footprint consists entirely of disturbed or developed land, which includes
roadways, developed and undeveloped lots, parking areas, and residential and commercial
developments. Literature review and field survey data determined that no special status
plant or wildlife species have the potential to occur within the project's footprint and that the
Study Area lacks suitable habitat that would typically support special status species or
receive State or federal Endangered Species Act protections. Therefore, a less -than-
significant impact related to candidate, sensitive, or special species would occur.
9 January 2015
75A -19
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support ofFindings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
The Santa Ana River is the only potential special aquatic feature within the Study Area. It is
concrete lined and contains no wetlands or hydrophytic vegetation. Therefore, no impact
related to wetlands and riparian habitat would occur.
The Study Area is already heavily developed and additional development would not interfere
with wildlife movement. The Study Area does not provide a major or local wildlife corridor or
travel route because it does not connect two significant habitats for either fish or wildlife
species. Operational activity within the ROW may frighten urban wildlife, such as raccoons
and opossums. However, operational noise would cause most animals to avoid streetcar
activity. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to wildlife movement would occur.
The proposed alignment would be located within existing surface streets or within the PE
ROW. Operational activities would not result in the removal of special species trees listed in
the City's Tree Preservation Policy. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with
local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as the tree preservation
policy, and a less- than - significant impact related to biological resources would occur.
The Study Area is not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local (including the City of Garden Grove), regional, or
State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impact related to conservation plans would
occur.
E. Architectural Resources (pages 3 -96 and 3 -191 of the EA/DEIR)
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to
any architecturally significant (historic) properties, including the Old Pacific Electric Santa
Ana River Bridge. Although the proposed project would require an alteration to the west
abutment of the Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge to allow the Santa Ana River
Trail on both the east and west sides of the river to be separated, the abutment of the bridge
is not an original component of the bridge and is not an element or feature that contributes
to the historic quality of the bridge. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to
architectural resources would occur.
F. Geology and Soils (pages 3 -97 and 3 -192 of the EA/DEIR)
The Study Area is not within an earthquake fault zone as delineated on the most recent
Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. There is no known evidence of a fault surface
rupture expressed in the regional geomorphology and available historic aerial photographs.
Given that there is no mapped earthquake fault zone within seven miles of the Study Area,
the potential for fault rupture is low. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to fault
rupture would occur.
The subsurface condition of the Study Area is composed mostly of alluvium that could
potentially be exposed to strong seismic ground shaking. This ground shaking could
damage streetcar tracks, the Santa Ana River Bridge, the Westminster Avenue Bridge, or
the O & M Facility. In addition, the segment of the alignment between Harbor Boulevard
and Raitt Street may be impacted by liquefaction due to the potential shallow depth to
groundwater of less than 20 feet. The impacts of liquefaction could include potential
10 January 2015
75A -20
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
collapse or misalignment of at -grade rails, which may cause streetcar derailment. However,
City Staff and regulatory agencies are required to review the design plans and approve the
appropriate foundation treatment prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure the
structure integrity of project facilities. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to
seismic ground shaking and liquefaction would occur.
The topography of the Study Area is relatively flat with no significant slopes and is not
mapped as being in an Earthquake- Induced Landslide Zone. There is no potential for
landslides or seismically- induced landslides. Therefore, no impact related to landslides
would occur.
The entire length of the alignment and the O & M Facility would be completely paved. The
Study Area is in a flat, highly urbanized area, and there is little potential for soil erosion.
Therefore, no impact related to soil erosion would occur.
Expansive soils are typically associated with fine - grained clayey soils that have the potential
to shrink and swell with repeated changes in the moisture content. It is not anticipated that
expansive soils are located near the surface in the Study Area. Therefore, no impact related
to expansive soil would occur.
The Study Area is in a flat, highly urbanized area without a unique geologic feature.
Therefore, no impact related to unique geologic features would occur.
The Study Area is located in an urbanized area extensively served by existing sewer
infrastructure. Implementation of the proposed project would not require the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact related to septic
tanks would occur.
G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (page 3 -148 of the EA/DEIR)
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the proposed project would be
approximately 1,224 metric tons per year and would not exceed the significance threshold of
10,000 metric tons per year. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to GHG
emissions would occur.
The proposed project would be designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled - related emissions
by encouraging the use of public transit by providing accessibility to activity centers that
provide employment and educational opportunities, goods and services. Therefore, a less -
than- significant impact related to GHG plans, policies, and regulations would occur.
H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (pages 3 -103 and 3 -193 of the EA/DEIR)
There is a potential for hazardous materials /waste spills to occur at the O & M Facility, which
is of importance as this site is located 0.20 mile from John C. Fremont Elementary School at
1930 10th Street and Romero -Cruz Elementary School at 1512 Santa Ana Boulevard. The
O & M Facility would store hazardous materials /waste primarily for cleaning and routine
maintenance of the streetcars and tracks and would likely house cleaning chemicals,
lubrication oils, and hydraulic oils. However, the storage and disposal of hazardous
materials /waste would be conducted in accordance with all federal and State regulatory
11 January 2015
75A -21
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
requirements that are intended to prevent or manage hazards and /or remediate spills,
including periodic site inspections for compliance with these required practices. Therefore,
a less- than - significant impact related to hazardous materials would occur.
The proposed alignment is approximately 4.3 miles from the nearest airport (John Wayne
Airport). The proposed alignment is not within an airport land use plan or near a private
airstrip. Therefore, no impact related to airport hazards would occur.
The proposed project would operate both in an exclusive ROW and within mixed -flow traffic.
The exclusive PE ROW portion of the proposed alignment would not block or interrupt
emergency access or evacuation routes. The on- street portion of the alignment would add
streetcars to mixed -flow traffic, which would also have no substantial impact on emergency
access or evacuation routes. However, should a major accident or emergency occur,
emergency vehicles could, with permission from OCTA, use the PE ROW as an emergency
access or evacuation route. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to emergency
response and evacuation plans would occur.
The proposed alignment is located in a fully urbanized area and is not located adjacent to or
intermixed with wildlands. The proposed project would not subject people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of exposure to wildland fires. Therefore,
no impact related to wildland fires would occur.
Hydrology and Water Quality (pages 3 -186 and 3 -214 of the EAMEIR)
The proposed project would likely generate pollutants that could travel in stormwater runoff
along the track alignment in daily maintenance activities. Best management practices
BMPs) designed to reduce potential stormwater pollution would reduce, if not eliminate,
potential impacts to water quality. Therefore, less- than - significant impacts related to water
quality, water discharge, and stormwater runoff would occur.
The proposed project is a transportation facility and would not deplete groundwater supplies.
The O & M Facility would use water for maintenance activities (e.g., vehicle washing and
landscaping and screening) and worker hygiene. Implementation of BMPs would ensure
that water use would be minimal. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to
groundwater would occur.
The existing drainage pattern of the project alignment would not be substantially altered or
impacted by the proposed project. The streetcar tracks do not have gutters like a traditional
road, but water that falls onto impervious surfaces associated with the track system would
be collected and conveyed into the storm drain system by inlets similar to roadway inlets.
Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to the drainage pattern would occur.
A small portion of the Study Area is within an area of low to moderate hazard but is not
expected to be inundated during the 100 -year flood. However, there are locations that
would be inundated during a 100 -year flood at channel crossings and within the western
portion of the proposed project alignment. In addition, the Study Area crosses the Santa
Ana River. Development in these areas is required to follow applicable federal and State
regulations guiding flood management. The greatest potential for flooding would be by dam
12 January 2015
75A -22
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed GuidewayProject
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
inundation of the Prado Dam or a 500 -year flood. These events are unlikely with a 0.2
percent chance of occurring annually. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to
flooding would occur.
There are no bodies of water in the vicinity of the Study Area that are large enough to
produce a seiche. Therefore, no impact related to seiches would occur.
The Study Area is located approximately nine miles inland of the Pacific Ocean and would
not be subject to tsunami inundation. Therefore, no impact related to tsunamis would occur.
The closest hillsides up- gradient from the project alignment are more than ten miles to the
north and are separated from the project alignment by urban development, including
residential uses, streets, and storm drain systems, which makes it unlikely that the project
alignment would experience effects caused by mudslides. Therefore, no impact related to
mudslides would occur.
J. Land Use and Zoning (pages 3 -28 and 3 -201 of the EA/DEIR)
The proposed project would operate in- street within the eastern portion of the proposed
alignment and in the existing PE ROW between Harbor Boulevard and Raitt Street. These
transportation corridors within the Cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove act as boundaries
between neighborhoods. The in- street alignment would not create a new physical barrier
that would divide any portion of the Cities of Santa Ana or Garden Grove. Similarly, the PE
ROW was constructed in 1905. The operation of a streetcar along this segment would not
create a new physical barrier that divides either city. Therefore, no impacts related to
dividing an established community would occur.
On a regional scale, the proposed project would be consistent with the growth management
policies of the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide to improve the standard of
living, improve the regional quality of life, and maintain social, political, and cultural equity.
They would also be consistent with the air quality and open space policies of the SCAG
2012 -2035 RTP /SCS. On the local level, the proposed SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project
would be consistent with the North Harbor Boulevard Specific Plan, Bristol Street Corridor
Specific Plan, Midtown Specific Plan, and City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code.
Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to land use would occur.
K. Mineral Resources (page 3 -108 of the EA/DEIR)
The Study Area does not lie within a known mineral resource or mineral hazard area (i.e.,
radon) that would pose a risk to the human population. The Study Area does not include
mineral activity areas regulated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act and, according
to the State of California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal
Resources on -line mapping system, there are no geothermal resources, including oil and
gas, located in the Study Area. Therefore, no impact related to mineral resources would
occur.
13
75A -23
January 2015
Santa Ana — Gardon Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
L. Noise (pages 3 -152 and 3 -207 of the EA/DEIR)
Regarding operational vibration, the maximum vibration level generated by the proposed
project would be 70 VdB at a streetcar speed of 40 miles per hour and would not exceed
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) vibration impact criteria of 72 VdB for residential land
uses. For institutional land uses, the maximum vibration level would be 74 VdB at a
streetcar speed of 35 miles per hour and would not exceed FTA vibration impact criteria of
75 VdB. Operational activity would not expose people to excessive vibration levels.
Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to vibration would occur.
The proposed project would generate construction - related noise and vibration. Alignment
and bridge construction activities would employ pieces of equipment (i.e., mounted impact
hammer, foundation driller, pneumatic tools, concrete pump truck, and pavement miller or
scarifier) that would exhibit high noise and vibration levels. A Noise and Vibration Control
Plan will be developed and implemented prior to construction that will include BMPs to
minimize exposure to high levels of noise and vibration and ensure compliance with City and
FTA standards. With implementation of the Noise and Vibration Control Plan described in
Section 3.16.2.3 of the EA /DEIR, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable
noise standards and would not generate excessive vibration. Therefore, a less -than-
significant impact related to construction noise and vibration would occur.
The closest public airport within the Study Area is John Wayne Airport, located
approximately four miles to the southeast, and is not within the impacted airport noise level
contours. Therefore, no impact related to airport noise would occur.
M. Population and Housing (page 3 -28 of the EA/DEIR)
The proposed project would require housing acquisition resulting in displacement of
approximately 28 persons. In addition, acquisition would affect fewer than a dozen
businesses, which would displace no more than 50 jobs. Due to the small amount of
housing and business displacement (less than one percent of the Study Area population),
the number of persons displaced would be minimal compared to the existing population.
Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to population would occur.
Given the length of the four -mile alignment and the City of Santa Ana's population of over
58,000 within the Study Area, the displacement of 28 people (less than 0.05 percent) would
not be considered substantial. Acquisitions requiring the displacement of existing residential
uses would comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act). The proposed project would provide relocation
assistance and compensation to displaced residences per the Uniform Act. Compensation
would not be less than the approved appraisal of the property. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in the displacement of substantial housing, and a less -than-
significant impact related to housing would occur.
N. Public Services (page 3 -62 of the EA/DEIR)
The proposed project would not introduce a new population to create additional demand for
police and fire services. The proposed project is not anticipated to create additional demand
14 January 2015
75A -24
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts In Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for police and fire services although an increased demand for security personnel may occur.
However, it is expected that the existing police and fire facilities would be adequate, and no
new facilities would be required. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to police
and fire services would occur.
The proposed project would include security- oriented design features, such as perimeter
fencing around the O & M Facility. A Crime Prevention through Environment Design
program would be implemented during final design that includes natural access control,
natural surveillance, territoriality, and maintenance to create a safe environment. In
addition, all streetcar operators would participate in a safety /security training program and
surveillance cameras may be installed inside streetcar vehicles. These design features,
along with police security patrols, will substantially reduce the risk for criminal activities on
streetcars, at transit stations, and at the O & M Facility. Therefore, a less- than - significant
impact related to streetcar security would occur.
The proposed project would not alter emergency response times given the wide distribution
of emergency facilities throughout the Study Area. Crossing gates for the streetcar would
generally not be down for a period of more than 30 seconds. It is likely that emergency
vehicles would switch to the other side of the street particularly when there are median
extensions. Should the at -grade crossing be inaccessible for a substantial duration,
emergency vehicles could access multiple alternative routes within the Study Area based on
the well- defined street grid. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to emergency
response times would occur.
Although the proposed project would provide improved mobility and access to the Study
Area in accordance with adopted transportation and land use plans, these improvements
would not result in substantial growth of the local student population and, as such, would not
necessitate the need for new schools. Therefore, no impact related to schools would occur.
Although the proposed project would improve mobility and access to communities in
accordance with adopted transportation and land use plans, it would not introduce new
population to the Study Area that could increase demand for parks or require the provision
of new parkland. In addition, the project alignment would not disrupt or impair access to
parks. Portions of the project alignment located outside of the existing transportation ROW
would require some land acquisitions and easements; however, new land and easements
acquisition would not displace parkland. Therefore, no impact related to parks would occur.
There are two federal buildings located near the proposed alignment. The streetcar system
will be designed so as not to inhibit the function or access to the Ronald Reagan Federal
Building and United States Courthouse or the Santa Ana Federal Building. The station near
Santa Ana Boulevard and Ross Street will be at an adequate distance from the federal
buildings so that a safety buffer is provided. Access to federal buildings would be
maintained during construction and operation, and emergency access would be prioritized.
Additional safety measures would also be incorporated to ensure the safe operation of the
federal buildings. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact to the federal buildings would
occur.
15 January 2015
75A -25
Santa Ana—Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support ofFindings and Statement ofOverriding Considerations
The proposed project would improve regional transit access to public service facilities in the
Study Area, including schools, parks and recreation areas, hospitals and community health
facilities. The Willowick Public Golf Course, Spurgeon Intermediate School, George
Washington Carver Elementary School, Santa Ana Civic Center, Santa Ana Public Library,
OCTA Park and Ride Parking Structure, and SARTC are all within walking distance of
proposed stations. These public service facilities would benefit directly from the improved
transit services and access to the populated areas, specifically in the Downtown Santa Ana
area near the Civic Center, where a number of public governmental agencies are located.
Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to public facilities would occur.
O. Recreation (page 3 -231 of the EA/DEIR)
The proposed project would improve transit access to recreational facilities within the Study
Area, several of which are located within walking distance of stations, and would promote
inter -city travel and increase access to the Study Area. This would potentially increase the
use of existing parks and recreational facilities. However, based on ridership projections,
the increased use is not expected to be significant enough to result in substantial physical
deterioration of existing recreation facilities, including the Santa Ana River Trail and
bikeways. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to recreational facilities would
occur.
The Santa Ana River Trail (bicycle and equestrian paths) currently crosses underneath the
Santa Ana River Bridge. The proposed project would be designed to provide sufficient
clearance for users of these paths on both sides of the Santa Ana River. Therefore, a less -
than- significant impact to the Santa Ana River Trail would occur.
P. Transportation and Traffic (pages 3 -131 and 3 -206 of the EA/DEIR)
All intersections assessed for proposed project would operate at similar or improved levels
of service (LOS) as the No Build Alternative. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact
related to intersection LOS would occur.
A roadway segment capacity analysis was completed because the proposed project would
operate in mixed traffic in the central and eastern portion of the Study Area. The proposed
project would not cause additional roadway segments to experience capacity deficiencies
beyond those identified under the No Build Alternative. Therefore, a less- than - significant
impact related to roadway segments capacities would occur.
Grade crossing vehicle activity would not cause excessive vehicle queuing or significantly
impact the transportation system given the relatively small number of passenger vehicle and
pedestrian activity around stations at the termini or intersection movements at the Harbor
BoulevardMestminster Avenue Station and SARTC. In addition, it is not expected that the
proposed project would attract a significant volume of commuters using SARTC as a park -
and -ride to access the streetcar system. It is anticipated that streetcar patrons would come
primarily from Metrolink and Amtrak, and secondarily from other local and intercity bus
services that also utilize SARTC. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to grade
crossings and station circulation would occur.
16 January 2015
75A -26
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
The proposed project would affect access to driveways of four businesses, which would not
interfere with driveway capacity or impact business operations. Therefore, a less -than-
significant impact related to driveway access would occur.
The Harbor Boulevard /1st Street intersection, which operates at LOS C in the AM and PM
peak hour, is the one Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection within the Study
Area. The proposed project would not change the LOS at this intersection. Therefore, a
less- than - significant impact related to the CMP would occur.
The proposed project would involve improvements to the surface transportation network.
The proposed alignment would not connect to an airport or cause an increase in air traffic.
Therefore, no impact related to air traffic patterns would occur.
The proposed project would maintain existing or equivalent emergency access routes and
response times throughout the Study Area by retaining the existing street network and
connections. The proposed alignment does not pass in front of a fire station, and station
locations would not prohibit access to structures. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact
related to emergency access would occur.
As a fixed guideway system, the proposed project would facilitate and encourage alternative
forms of transportation, including increased use of the local bus system and other transit lines
e.g., Metrolink and Greyhound). Accordingly, the proposed project would promote rather than
conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation and
would have no impact on alternative transportation modes.
Q. Utilities and Service Systems (page 3 -229 of the EA/DEIR)
The proposed project would not generate wastewater from activity along the alignment or at
stations. Wastewater would be generated by the O & M Facility but would not put added
strain on existing wastewater treatment capacity. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact
related to wastewater treatment and facilities would occur.
The existing drainage pattern of the proposed alignment would not be substantially altered
or impacted by the proposed project. Streetcar tracks would be constructed mostly at -grade
with the existing street ROW and the PE ROW. The streetcar tracks do not have gutters like
a traditional road, but water that falls onto impervious surfaces associated with the track
system would be collected and conveyed into the storm drain system by inlets similar to
roadway inlets. Stormwater from non - street portions of the alignment may be directed to
vegetated swales for treatment before conveyance to the City storm drain. Therefore, a
less- than - significant impact related to stormwater drainage facilities would occur.
The proposed project is a transportation facility and would not deplete water supplies. The
O & M Facility would use water for maintenance activities (e.g., vehicle washing) and worker
hygiene. Implementation of BMPs would ensure that water use would be minimal.
Therefore, a less- than - significant impact to water supply would occur.
The proposed project would not generate solid waste from activity along the alignment
although standard waste receptacles would be placed at stations. It is not anticipated that
streetcar riders would generate new solid waste that would exceed existing planning
17 January 2015
75A -27
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
assumptions and landfill capacity. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact related to solid
waste disposal and regulations.
5. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED TO BE
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
The following environmental resource areas would not be significantly impacted by the
proposed project with implementation of mitigation measures:
A. Archaeological and Paleontological Resources (page 3 -203 of the EA/DEIR)
Potential Impact: The discovery of archaeological or paleontological resources is possible
during excavation activities. Therefore, without mitigation, significant impacts related to
archaeological and paleontological resources would occur.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed
project which would mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in
the REA/FEIR.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Study Area does not include archeological or
paleontological resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Ground
disturbance would not be more than five feet beneath the existing surface in most areas
although ground disturbance may exceed five feet to accommodate drainage improvements
near Raitt Street and for foundations for elevated structures across Westminster Avenue and
the Santa Ana River. These areas are all located in previously disturbed areas with
underground infrastructure that are along the street ROW or across a concrete channel, and the
potential for the accidental discovery of archeological resources is remote. However, discovery
of archaeological or paleontological resources is possible during excavation activities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CRII would provide the appropriate process in the event
of an accidental discovery and impacts related to archaeological and paleontological resources
would be less than significant.
18 January 2015
75A -28
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Mitigation Measure
CR1 Treatment of Undiscovered Resources — The contractor shall notify construction
personnel of the potential for encountering significant archaeological and paleontological
resources along the alignment, and instructed in the identification of fossils and other
potential resources. All construction personnel shall be informed of the need to stop
work on the project site until a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist has been
provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate
measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. If human remains are encountered
during construction, all work shall cease in the area of potential affect and the Orange
County Coroner's Office shall be contacted pursuant to procedures set forth in Public
Resources Code Section 5097 et seq. and Health and Safety Code in Sections 7050.5,
7051, and 7054 with respect to treatment and removal, Native American involvement,
burial treatment, and re- burial, if necessary. A fifty -foot buffer, or more if deemed
appropriate by the principal investigator, shall be established and work outside the buffer
may resume.
B. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Hazardous Sites) (page 3 -114 of the
EA/DEIR)
Potential Impact: Three properties identified as potentially hazardous sites would be acquired
as part of O & M Facility. The acquisition of these properties would require Phase I
Environmental Site Assessments to ascertain if employees working at the O & M Facility would
be exposed to toxic levels of hazardous materials. Therefore, without mitigation, significant
impacts related to hazardous sites would occur.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project
which would mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in the
REA/FEI R.
Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed project would require limited acquisition of
property, which could have the potential to contain hazardous materials. The majority of
potentially hazardous properties identified within a 0.25 -mile radius of the project alignment
would not be acquired or disturbed and do not require further investigation. However, three
properties identified as potentially hazardous sites would be acquired as part of the O & M
Facility, including All Car Auto Parts located at 2002 West 5th Street, SA Recycling located at
2006 West 5th Street, and American Auto Wrecking located at 1908 West 5th Street.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ1 would reduce impacts related to hazardous sites to
less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
HAZ1 A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall be prepared for the following sites
All Car Auto Parts located at 2002 West 5th Street
SA Recycling located at 2006 West 5th Street
American Auto Wrecking located at 1908 West 5th Street
19 January 2015
75A -29
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
The assessment shall be prepared by a Registered Environmental Assessor. The
assessment shall be prepared in accordance with State standards /guidelines to evaluate
whether the site or the surrounding area is contaminated with hazardous substances
from the potential past and current uses including storage, transport, generation, and
disposal of toxic and hazardous waste or materials. If hazardous materials are identified
in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, a Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment would be completed to identify the extent of contamination and the
procedures for remediation. The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment shall be
approved by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.
C. Noise (Project Operation) (page 3 -152 of the EA/DEIR)
Potential Impact: Project - related noise levels would exceed the significance thresholds at five
Noise Sensitive Areas (NSA). Therefore, without mitigation, a significant impact related to
operational noise levels would occur.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed
project which would mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in
the REA/FEIR.
Facts in Support of Finding: Significant noise impacts at sensitive receptors NSA -4
Spurgeon Intermediate School), NSA -6 (seven housing units), NSA -7 (five housing units), and
NSA -8 (two housing units) would result from sounding of a warning horn and audible warning
devices at gate crossings. Significant noise impact at NSA -9 (five housing units) would result
from operation of the O & M Facility. Mitigation Measure N1 would reduce noise impacts
associated with warning horns, Mitigation Measure N2 would reduce noise impacts associated
with streetcar pass -by noise, and Mitigation Measure N3 would reduce noise impacts at NSA -9
by 5 dBA and NSA -10 by 4 dBA. Implementation of Mitigation Measures N1 through N3 would
reduce impacts related to operational noise to less than significant.
Mitiaation Measure
N1 The City of Santa Ana shall request a horn - sounding exemption from the California
Public Utilities Commission for the crossing at 5th and Fairview Streets. The exemption
shall provide justification and demonstrate that safety would not be compromised. In lieu
of the warning horn, supplemental safety measures (e.g., four -quad gates, roadway
median barriers on grade crossing approaches, and pedestrian gates) would be
implemented. If a horn sounding exemption is approved and established, warning horns
would not be sounded except under an emergency situation.
20 January 2015
75A -30
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
N2 When practical, the contractor shall design special trackwork elements, such as turn-
outs, switches, and cross -over to be located at least 600 feet away from sensitive
receptors. If this cannot be achieved, then special switch devices, such as spring frogs
or movable point frogs shall be utilized. A frog device is used where two rails cross.
The frog is designed to ensure the wheel crosses the gap in the rail without "dropping"
into the gap.
N3 The contractor shall construct a noise barrier at the land uses identified as Noise
Sensitive Areas 9 and 10. For receptors in Noise Sensitive Area 9, the noise barrier
shall be at least 10 feet high and extend for 400 feet along the northern property edge of
the proposed operations and maintenance facility. For receptors in Noise Sensitive Area
10, the noise barrier shall be at least 8 feet high and extend for 225 feet along the
southern boundary of the PE ROW adjacent to 4th Street. The design of the noise
barriers shall be identified on project plans prior to issuance of building permits.
D. Safety and Security (Traffic Hazards) (page 3 -191 of the EA/DEIR)
Potential Impact: The proposed project would result in significant safety hazards related to
streetcar and passenger vehicle collisions and pedestrian safety. Therefore, without mitigation,
a significant impact related to safety hazards would occur.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed
project which would mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in
the REA/FEIR.
Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed project could potentially result in streetcar -to-
streetcar collisions; collision with vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists; and streetcar derailment.
The proposed project would be required to comply with all federal and State mandates that
affect rail safety, including regulations that require fixed guideway systems to establish system
safety and security programs. Following construction, the proposed project would be operated
in accordance with OCTA standard operating procedures, operator rules, and the emergency
plan. A safety program would be developed for and administered to all streetcar operators.
Despite safety features incorporated into the project design, streetcar and passenger vehicle
conflicts have been identified at schools located adjacent to the tracks. These locations include
Spurgeon Intermediate School, Romero Cruz Elementary School, George Washington Carver
Elementary School, and James Garfield Elementary School. Each of these locations represents
an area where streetcars could collide with a passenger vehicle.
The proposed project could potentially result in significant impacts related to pedestrian safety.
The proposed project would include construction of the Willowick Station, located between
Westminster Avenue and the Santa Ana River, to allow future access when the Willowick golf
course site is redeveloped. Without the development of the Willowick Station, there are no
public roadways that cross the proposed alignment within this segment. As an interim solution,
a ten -foot walking path would be constructed on both sides of the fenced OCTA ROW to allow
access from adjacent residential neighborhoods, located north and south of the ROW. The
proposed walking path would be accessed from the two gates near Green Drive and the end of
21 January 2015
75A -31
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Clinton Street. The walking path would not be visible from public streets and from the rear
yards of adjacent homes due to the height of a proposed masonry ROW wall. The walking path
is proposed to be lighted. It is also proposed that there would be pedestrian crossings of the
tracks immediately south of the station platform and approximately 350 feet north of the station
platform. However, the proposed project design creates several safety concerns, including the
following:
Transit patrons would have to walk a long distance along a walking path that is not visible to
the general public;
The proposed lighting level along the walking path may create shadowed or dimly lit areas;
Gates would be accessed by a pass key, which may trap transit patrons without a pass key
or without immediate access to a pass key within the ROW;
If no pass keys are needed at access gates, then it may be possible for non - residents to
access the neighborhoods adjacent to the rear of the homes on isolated streets and
walkways;
Pedestrian crossings of the tracks, located north of the station platforms, may raise safety
consideration for train operations; and
Allowing pedestrian access into the OCTA ROW without fencing of the area directly to the
tracks would potentially result in pedestrians crossing the tracks within the ROW.
Mitigation Measure SAF1 would eliminate adverse effects related to safety for pedestrian during
pick -up /drop -off times at schools within along the alignment. Mitigation Measures SAF2 through
SAFE would eliminate adverse effects related safety for pedestrian accessing the walking path.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures SAF1 through SAF6 would reduce impacts related to
traffic hazards and safety to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
SAF1 The City of Santa Ana shall coordinate with the Santa Ana Unified School District and
Santa Ana Police Department regarding safety at schools adjacent to the alignment.
The collaborative effort between the City and interested parties shall develop and teach
rail safety measures to students and parents. Other precautionary safety features shall
include signs, gated crossing, and crossing and traffic signals to create a safe
environment for parents and students during pick -up /drop -off times.
SAF2 The contractor shall install surveillance cameras along the pedestrian walking paths
within the PE ROW and at pedestrian gates to adjacent neighborhoods. Police security
personnel shall be responsible for surveillance camera monitoring.
SAF3 The contractor shall install emergency call boxes along the pedestrian walking paths
within the PE ROW.
SAF4 The contractor shall design the lighting plan for the pedestrian walking paths within the
PE ROW to eliminate shadows or dimly lit areas to the greatest extent feasible.
22 January 2015
75A -32
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
SAF5 Within the PE ROW, the contractor shall fence the track area, and appropriate signage
and audible and visual warning devices shall be installed at gate openings.
SAF6 If Mitigation Measures SAF2 through SAF4 are considered infeasible, then the Willowick
Station shall not be made operational by the contractor until an appropriate public
access point from the PE ROW is created as part of the Willowick Public Golf Course
redevelopment.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED TO BE
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE AFTER MITIGATION
The following environmental resource area would be significantly impacted by the proposed
project even with implementation of mitigation measures (i.e., significant and unavoidable):
A. Air Quality (Construction Emissions) (page 3 -221 of the EA/DEIR)
Potential Impact: Significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after incorporation of
mitigation measures, would occur as a result of the violation of an air quality standard during
project construction.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed
project which would partially mitigate the significant effects on the environment as identified in
the REA/FEIR, but would not reduce the impact below a level of significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Construction emissions would temporarily impact air quality with
the amount and type of construction activities that would occur for the proposed project. The
proposed project would be segmented for construction purposes, and construction activities
would be completed in phases to minimize the disruption to local residents and businesses in
the Study Area. The SCAQMD has established daily significance thresholds for assessing
regional construction emissions. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions associated with the proposed
project would exceed the regional NOx threshold at times during the construction process. NOx
emissions would continue to exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold after implementation
of Mitigation Measure AQ1. Therefore, significant and unavoidable impacts related to regional
NOx emissions would occur.
Construction emissions of PM1e were found to exceed the SCAQMD's Localized Significance
Thresholds and would, therefore, result in a local air quality impact to sensitive receptors in the
vicinity of the O & M Facility. The proposed project is subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive
Dust), which requires that dust control measures (i.e., watering, offsite dirt trackout, and haul
truck freeboard clearance) be applied to minimize the generation of fugitive dust during
construction activities. Despite the application of these dust control measures, PM10 emissions
are still anticipated to exceed the SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds. No other
feasible mitigation measures, standard conditions, or BMPs exist that would reduce this impact.
Therefore, significant and unavoidable impacts related to localized PM10 emissions would occur.
Mitigation Measure
23 January 2015
75A -33
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
AQ1 During the construction phase, the contractor shall use Tier 4 or higher off -road
construction equipment with higher air pollutant emissions standards.
7. CUMULATIVE, GROWTH INDUCING, AND IRREVERSIBLE
EFFECTS
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts were described on page 3 -237 of the EA/DEIR. Table 3.18 -1 (page
3 -238) lists the current, planned and pending projects in the City of Santa Ana and surrounding
communities that are reasonably foreseeable. The related projects are considered as part of
the baseline for the No Build Alternative in the cumulative analysis.
A. Aesthetics
The related projects are not anticipated to result in cumulative changes to the visual character
and quality of the Study Area. The various local approvals for those projects would ensure
visual compatibility with the existing environment. The proposed project would not degrade the
existing visual character and quality of the Study Area, including light and glare. The combined
effect of the proposed project with the No Build Alternative would not result in a cumulative
impact. Therefore, light and glare impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
B. Agriculture and Forestry
There are no agricultural, timberland, or forestry resources within the Study Area. The
combined effects of the proposed project with the No Build Alternative would not result in a loss
of lands related to agriculture and forestry. Therefore, agriculture and forestry impacts would
not be cumulatively considerable.
C. Air Quality
In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, projects that would result in a significant impact for
either regional or localized air pollutant emissions would contribute toward a cumulative impact.
Cumulative projects within the Study Area and the surrounding area would include
redevelopment of existing uses, as well as development of new commercial and residential
uses. As the proposed project would result in a regionally and localized significant impact
during construction, it is anticipated that continued development (and associated construction
activities) located predominately within the City of Santa Ana would also result in regional and
localized air quality impacts. Therefore, construction - related air quality impacts would be
cumulatively considerable.
For operational air quality emissions, projects that would not exceed the SCAQMD daily
operational emissions significant thresholds would not contribute toward a cumulative impact.
The proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD daily operational emissions significant
thresholds. Therefore, operational - related air quality impacts would not be cumulatively
considerable.
24 January 2015
75A -34
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
D. Biological Resources
Due to the site - specific nature of biological impacts (i.e., tree removal), biological impacts are
typically assessed on a site - specific basis, rather than a cumulative basis. The Study Area does
not include threatened or endangered species or sensitive habitats. In addition, brush clearing
and tree removal would be on a small scale as the Study Area is entirely urban. Nonetheless,
cumulative growth could result in impacts to biological resources including locally protected
trees or violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Related projects and other future
development projects would be subject to the local, regional, State and federal regulations
pertaining to biological resources, including the migratory bird act. With adherence to these
regulations, the combined effect of the proposed project with the No Build Alternative would not
result in a cumulative impact. Therefore, biological resources impacts would not be
cumulatively considerable.
E. Cultural Resources
Cultural resources include significant paleontological, archaeological and built environment
resources. Cumulative impacts to these cultural resources are directly related to the presence
and significance of these resources within the area of direct effect. No significant previously- or
newly- recorded paleontological and prehistoric or historic archaeological sites have been
identified within the Study Area. Given the lack of direct impacts to significant paleontological or
archaeological resources associated with the proposed project, no significant cumulative
impacts are anticipated as a result of concurrent construction activities in the area.
The cultural resources assessment prepared for the proposed project has determined that the
proposed project would not result in an adverse effect to cultural resources. Based on record
searches and historic research, there are a number of significant or potentially significant
cultural resources located within the proposed project vicinity. These cultural resources could
be impacted on the regional level by the development of all cumulative projects, in addition to
the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project could incrementally contribute to a
cumulative effect. However, the above - mentioned projects are subject to CEQA -level
environmental review and include provisions to preserve historic structures and districts.
Consequently, impacts to significant or potentially significant cultural resources can typically be
mitigated through the avoidance of important cultural resources, the development and
implementation of a data recovery plan, and /or following the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. With adherence to these regulations,
cultural resource impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
F. Geology and Soils
Geotechnical hazards are site - specific, and there is little, if any, cumulative geological
relationship between the proposed project and the related projects. Nevertheless, cumulative
development in the area would increase the overall population and number of structures, thus,
increasing the risk of exposure to seismically- induced hazards. Related projects and other
future development projects would be subject to the same local, regional, State, and federal
regulations pertaining to geology and soils. With adherence to these regulations, the combined
25 January 2015
75A -35
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
effect of the proposed project with the No Build Alternative would not result in a cumulative
impact. Therefore, geology and soil impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
California is the 15th largest emitter of GHG on the planet, representing about two percent of the
worldwide emissions. An individual project may contribute an incremental amount of GHG
emissions that could combine with other emission sources to create concentrations of GHG that
could influence climate change. The transportation sector, largely the cars and trucks that move
people and goods, is the largest contributor with approximately 37 percent of the State's total
GHG emissions. Because of the high percentage of transportation- related GHG emissions,
many GHG reduction plans (e.g., Orange County SCS) focus on reducing regional dependence
on single - passenger vehicles. The proposed project is designed to reduce vehicle miles
traveled - related emissions by encouraging the use of public transit by providing accessibility to
activity centers that provide employment and educational opportunities, goods, and services.
The proposed project would encourage a shift in mode of transportation travel from private
passenger vehicle to commuter use of the mass transit system. As a result, the contribution of
the proposed project to the combined GHG impact would not be considerable. Therefore, GHG
emission impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially significant impacts of the related projects associated with hazards and hazardous
materials, or the release, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials, would be assessed on
a case -by -case basis. While impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials are
typically site - specific and do not cumulatively affect off -site areas, conditions, such as
contaminated groundwater, can affect down - gradient properties. In addition, operation of the
related projects can reasonably be expected to involve the limited use of potentially hazardous
materials typical of those used in residential and commercial developments, including cleaning
agents, paints, pesticides, and other materials used for landscaping. Related projects would be
subject to local, State, and federal regulations pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials. It
is expected that all potentially hazardous materials would be used, stored, and disposed of in
accordance with manufacturers' specifications and handled in compliance with applicable
standards and regulations. With adherence to these regulations, hazards and hazardous
materials impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
I. Hydrology and Water Quality
The geographic context for the cumulative impact analysis on water quality is the Santa Ana
River watershed. Like the proposed project, growth in the Santa Ana River watershed would be
subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements regarding water
quality. The Study Area is already densely developed and future land use changes or
development are not likely to cause substantial changes in regional surface water quality. It is
also anticipated that these related projects would also be subject to Standard Urban Stormwater
Mitigation Plan requirements and implementation of measures to comply with total maximum
daily loads. In addition, it is not anticipated that related projects would significantly impact flood
26 January 2015
75A -36
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
control in the concrete -lined Santa Ana River. With adherence to these regulations, hydrology
and water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
J. Land Use and Planning
Each of the related projects have been reviewed or are under review for consistency with
applicable plans, policies and regulations of the City of Santa Ana's General Plan and Zoning
Code. The proposed project would be consistent with adopted land use plans and zoning
codes. Selection of the proposed project would encourage new development around the
stations, and allow access to Downtown and other high- intensity areas of employment,
commercial development, and recreational opportunities. New transit - oriented development
would be facilitated near station areas with underutilized or vacant land uses. This would further
encourage compatibility with surrounding land uses and zoning. Therefore, land use and
planning impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
K. Mineral Resources
Mineral Resource Zones or Oil Drilling /Surface Mining Areas have not been identified within the
Study Area or in the vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore, mineral resource impacts would
not be cumulatively considerable.
Ian
The noise and vibration analysis is based on the forecast of the future growth within the region
and the Study Area. The environmental document for SCAG's 2012 -2035 RTP /SCS concluded
that cumulative noise impacts, including the proposed project, would be significant and
unavoidable. However, with implementation and enforcement of mitigation measures, the
proposed project would result in less- than - significant project - related noise impacts to sensitive
locations along the alignment. As a result, the contribution of the proposed project to the
combined noise impact with other development and transportation projects would not be
considerable. Therefore, noise impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
While impacts associated with vibration are typically site - specific and do not cumulatively affect
off -site areas, transportation projects could generate new sources of vibration. According to the
FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006) guidance document, vibration
levels generated by rubber -tired vehicles are rarely perceptible. There are no related projects
that would generate transportation- related vibration other than that related to rubber -tired
vehicles. The proposed project would not combine with the No Build Alternative to result in a
cumulative impact. Therefore, vibration impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
M. Population and Housing
The Study Area experienced a population decline between 2000 and 2010, while vacancy rates
increased. The proposed project would provide construction jobs in the Study Area, which
could result in a population increase in Santa Ana, Garden Grove, or Orange County. However,
population growth would be minor and, when combined with the growth projections assumed
under the No Build Alternative, would not overburden the available housing supply in the Study
Area. Therefore, population and housing impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
27 January 2015
75A -37
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
N. Public Services
Potentially significant impacts of the related projects associated with increased demand for
public services would be assessed on a case -by -case basis. Potential impacts to public
services from the related projects would be mitigated to a level of less than significant through
the local land use approval process. The proposed project would not create new trips but could
change mode of access, which could redistribute existing travel and change routes related to
public services. The City of Sane Ana is within an urban environment with an expansive street
network and varied inventory of public services. The redistribution in travel would not burden
public services or result in substantial decreases in emergency response times. The police and
fire stations are widely distributed throughout the Study Area and a comprehensive street
network provides numerous alternate routes in the event of a crossing delay. Therefore,
emergency response times would not be impacted. The combined effect of the proposed
project with the No Build Alternative would not result in a cumulative impact. Therefore, public
services impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
O. Transportation and Traffic
The related projects are mainly land use development projects or are future funded and
committed transportation projects that are encompassed in the 2035 traffic analysis that was
performed for the proposed project. The results of the analysis captures the known cumulative
impacts associated with the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in
significant traffic effects and the combined effect of the proposed project with the No Build
Alternative would not result in a cumulative impacts. Therefore, transportation and traffic
impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
P. Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially significant impacts of the related projects associated with utilities and service
systems would be assessed on a case -by -case basis through permitting and will -serve letters,
particularly for development projects. Operation of the proposed project would require the use
of various utilities, including electricity, natural gas, and communication systems. Electricity
would be used to run the streetcar system. New TPSSs would distribute power along the
alignment. The proposed project is included in regional and local land use and transportation
planning documents, and utility companies have the capacity to meet the future demand for
utility services. The quantities required would not be substantial and major modifications or new
utility facilities would not need to be constructed to serve increased demand. Therefore, utilities
and service systems impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Growth - inducing Effects
While the proposed project would provide improved mobility and access to the Study Area in
accordance with adopted transportation and land use plans, these improvements would not
result in substantial population growth. The Study Area experienced a population decline
between 2000 and 2010, while vacancy rates increased. The proposed project would provide
construction jobs in the Study Area, which could result in a population increase in Santa Ana,
Garden Grove, or Orange County. However, population growth would be minor and would not
28 January 2015
75A -38
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support ofFindings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
exceed the growth projections or available housing supply in the Study Area. Therefore, the
proposed project would result in less- than - significant impacts related to population growth.
Growth - inducing projects are generally located in isolated, undeveloped, or underdeveloped
areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure (e.g., sewer and water facilities,
roadways, etc.) or are those that could encourage "premature" or unplanned growth (i.e.,
leapfrog" development, or urban sprawl). Although development of the proposed project
supports urban growth, it would not remove an obstacle to population growth since the Study
Area is heavily urbanized. The proposed project would not spur new direct or indirect regional
growth in terms of population or employment and, therefore, would not result in significant
growth- inducing impacts.
Irreversible Effects
The construction and implementation of the proposed project would entail the irreversible and
irretrievable commitment of energy and human resources; however, this commitment of energy,
personnel, and building materials would be commensurate with that of other projects of similar
magnitude. Labor would also be committed for the planning, design, construction, and
operation phases of the proposed project.
Construction would require the commitment of a variety of nonrenewable or slowly renewable
natural resources. Energy (in the form of fossil fuels) and construction materials (such as
lumber, sand and gravel, metals, and water) would be irretrievably committed for construction of
the proposed project. However, there would be some offset of the loss of energy resources.
Demolition debris would be recycled for other uses. For example, inert construction debris (e.g.,
concrete and asphalt) would potentially be crushed and used for road base or other uses
requiring aggregate as reinforcement material.
Ongoing operation and maintenance of the proposed project would entail a further commitment
of energy resources in the form of petroleum products (diesel fuel and gasoline), natural gas,
and electricity. This commitment of energy resources would be a long -term obligation because
it is not possible to return the land to its original condition once it has been developed.
However, the impacts of increased energy usage are not considered significant impacts.
Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would involve irreversible environmental
changes to existing natural resources, but the impact would be less than significant.
8. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives identified for evaluation in the EA/DEIR were based on public comments, as well
as technical analyses, as detailed in the Alternative Analysis Report (under separate cover and
available by request or on the City's website at http:/ /santaanatransitvision.com). The alternatives
analysis process included a comprehensive review of potential technology and alignment
options.
Prior Analysis of Alternatives
A wide range of public transit options were defined and investigated as candidate technologies.
The initial alignment options were based on the need to establish an east -west transit corridor in
29 January 2015
75A -39
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
the Study Area, and to improve the Study Area's regional transit connectivity by providing direct
connections to existing and planned transit services (Metrolink and OCTA fixed route and Bus
Rapid Transit [BRT] services) at SARTC and at the northeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and
Westminster Avenue in the City of Garden Grove.
A reasonable range of alternatives has been evaluated as part of the environmental process,
beginning with a robust alternatives analysis and using a screening process to provide a limited
range of alternatives in the EA/DEIR. Several other alternatives, including BRT routes along
Santa Ana Boulevard and Civic Center Drive, were considered in the initial alternatives analysis
but were ultimately screened out because they did not fully satisfy the purpose and need or
project goals and objectives and were less cost effective in terms of both capital and operations
and maintenance costs per rider. These other alternatives are described in the Santa Ana and
Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Corridor Alternative Analysis Report. The alternatives
addressed in the EA/DEIR consisted of a No Build Alternative, Transportation System
Management (TSM) Alternative, Streetcar Alternatives 1 and 2, and Initial Operating Segment
IOS) -1 and IOS -2. Streetcar Alternative 1 included the PE ROW through the western half of its
alignment and Santa Ana Boulevard and 4th Street on the way to SARTC. Streetcar Alternative
2 also included the PE ROW through the western half of its alignment and generally Santa Ana
Boulevard, Civic Center Drive, and 5th Street along the eastern half of the alignment to SARTC.
The No Build Alternative was provided as a basis for comparing the build alternatives, each of
which was specifically designed to respond to the purpose and need for the project, study goals,
and community input.
No Build Alternative
This No Build alternative is required by Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines and provides
the basis for comparing future conditions resulting from other alternatives. Conditions in the
foreseeable future (through planning horizon year 2035) include projects that (1) have
environmental analysis approved by an implementing agency and (2) have a funding source
identified for implementation.
Other projects in the foreseeable future include:
Implementation of the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B), both project -level and
program -level components, that are anticipated for build -out by 2028;
Implementation of the Station District Development Projects, which consist of a variety of
residential development projects, community open space and some limited neighborhood -
serving commercial development'
Transit improvements including modest adjustments to existing local bus routes; and
expanded Metrolink service'
Three, new bus rapid transit routes: (1) Harbor Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit Corridor [Costa
Mesa to Fullerton, 10- minute headways, peak period]; (2) Westminster /17th Street Bus
Rapid Transit Corridor [Santa Ana to Long Beach, 10- minute headways, peak period]; and
3) Bristol Street Bus Rapid Transit Corridor [Irvine Transportation Center to Brea Mall, 10-
minute headways, peak period]; and
30 January 2015
75A -40
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support ofFindings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Roadway improvements including the Bristol Street Widening project, which will widen
Bristol Street from four to six lanes between Warner Avenue and Memory Lane, and the
Grand Avenue Widening project, which will widen Grand Avenue from four to six lanes
between 1 st Street and 17th Street.
Findings for No Build Alternative
The City of Santa Ana finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly
trained workers, make infeasible the No Build Alternative identified in the EA/DEIR and
REA/FEIR (CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(3)). Although the No Build Alternative would not result
in environmental impacts, it would not provide the desired levels of mobility and accessibility
within the City of Santa Ana. In addition, the No Build Alternative would not foster economic
development opportunities, promote sustainable transportation investments to respond to the
needs of the community, or deliver travel, benefits, reliability, and choice to the public
transportation system. Therefore, the No Build Alternative would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of the proposed project.
TSM Alternative
The TSM Alternative enhances the mobility of existing transportation facilities and transit
network without construction of major new transportation facilities or significant, costly physical
capacity improvements. The TSM Alternative emphasizes low cost (i.e., small physical)
improvements and operational efficiencies, such as focused traffic engineering actions,
expanded bus service, and improved access to transit services. Included within the TSM
Alternative are modifications and enhancements to selected bus routes in the Study Area
including:
Skip -stop overlay service on 1st Street (Route 64) which includes access to SARTC;
A new route between SARTC and Harbor Boulevard/Westminster Avenue via Civic Center
Drive, Bristol Street and 17th StreetNVestminster Avenue, providing 10- minute peak and 20-
minute off -peak service;
Expanded service span for StationLink service (Route 462) between SARTC and the Civic
Center, providing 15- minute service during both peak and off -peak hours;
In addition, the following system operational improvements are included in the TSM
Alternative:
Traffic signal timing improvements at select congested locations along Santa Ana Boulevard
and Civic Center Drive to provide for enhanced east -west bus flow, potential including but
not limited to:
Main Street at Civic Center Drive
Broadway at Civic Center Drive
Flower Street at Civic Center Drive
Fairview Street at Civic Center Drive
Santa Ana Boulevard at Santiago Street
31 January 2015
75A -41
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support ofFindings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
o Santa Ana Boulevard at Lacy Street (install traffic signal)
Real -time bus schedule information at high - volume transit stops (e.g., Flower Street and 6th
Street, Santa Ana Boulevard and Main Street)
Improvements to transit stop amenities (benches, shelters, kiosks, sidewalk connections,
etc.) along the Santa Ana Boulevard and Main Street corridors
Improvements to bicycle and pedestrian circulation to promote safe, convenient and
attractive connectivity between the transit system and surrounding neighborhoods and
activity centers , including accommodating bicycles on all buses, providing real time bus
arrival information via internet and mobile devices, installing bicycle storage facilities at
SARTC and the Harbor/Westminster stop, and providing study area maps /walking guides on
all buses.
Findings for TSM Alternative
The City of Santa Ana finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly
trained workers, make infeasible the TSM Alternative identified in the EA/DEIR (CEQA
Guidelines 15091(a)(3)). Although the TSM Alternative would result in less- than - significant
environmental impacts, it would not provide the desired levels of mobility and accessibility for
the community. The daily ridership for the TSM Alternative was projected to be 3,100 in 2035,
as opposed to 6,100 under the proposed project. In addition, the TSM Alternative would not
foster economic development opportunities, promote sustainable transportation investments to
respond to the needs of the community, or deliver travel, benefits, reliability, and choice to the
public transportation system. Therefore, the TSM Alternative would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives for the proposed project. For these reasons, the City of Santa Ana rejects
this alternative.
Streetcar Alternative 1
Streetcar Alternative 1 (proposed project) would utilize the PE ROW, an abandoned and vacant
rail right -of -way owned by the OCTA, through the western half of its alignment and generally
operate along Santa Ana Boulevard, and 4th Street on the way to SARTC. The 4.2 -mile
alignment would include 12 stations and it is anticipated that the streetcar system would operate
seven days a week with 10- minute headways during peak periods and 15- minute headways
during off -peak periods. The streetcars would be electrically powered using an overhead
contact system and a series of TPSS located intermittently along the alignment.
Findings for Streetcar Alternative 1
Streetcar Alternative 1 has no substantial differences in the severity of environmental impacts
when compared to the other alternatives. The purpose of the proposed project is to provide a
new east -west transit line in Orange County between the SARTC in the City of Santa Ana and
the Harbor Boulevard /Westminster Avenue intersection in the City of Garden Grove. The
primary objectives of the proposed project are as follows:
To improve transit connectivity within the Study Area;
To relieve congestion by providing alternative mobility options;
32 January 2015
75A -42
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
To be sensitive to the character of the community;
To increase transit options;
To improve transit accessibility to and within the Study Area; and
To provide benefits to the environment through improved air quality.
Streetcar Alternative 1 would satisfy each of the project objectives and goals with similar
environmental effects as the other build alternatives. Therefore, Streetcar Alternative 1 is the
environmentally superior alternative.
Streetcar Alternative 2
Streetcar Alternative 2 would utilize the PE ROW through the western half of its alignment and
substantially operate along Santa Ana Boulevard, Civic Center Drive, and 5th Street along the
eastern half of the alignment to SARTC. The operational characteristics of this alternative are
identical to Streetcar Alternative 1. The differences between the two streetcar alternatives are
the alignment and the fact that Streetcar Alternative 2 would have one additional station for a
total of 13.
Findings for Streetcar Alternative 2
Similar to Streetcar Alternative 1 (the locally preferred alternative), construction - related air
quality emissions associated with Streetcar Alternative 2 would result in a regional NOx impact,
a localized PM1e impact, and a cumulative impact. The City of Santa Ana finds that specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible Streetcar
Alternative 2 identified in the ENDEIR (CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(3)). The daily ridership for
Streetcar Alternative 2 was projected to be 4,700 in 2035, as opposed to 6,100 for the proposed
project. Streetcar Alternative 2 would generate less ridership than the proposed project. It
would not provide adequate access to transit within the City of Santa Ana and, therefore, would
not be consistent with the goals and objectives of the proposed project. For these reasons, the
City of Santa Ana rejects this alternative.
I0S -1 and I0S -2
In response to funding and phasing issues raised by fiscal constraints identified during OCTA's
long -range transportation planning process, IOSs, which are shorter segments of the Streetcar
Alternatives, were analyzed. Similar to the proposed project, construction - related air quality
emissions associated with IOS -1 and IOS -2 would result in a regional NOx impact, a localized
PM1e impact, and a cumulative impact. The intent of the IOS alternatives was to identify starter
segments that could be constructed and operated until funding is assembled to complete the
remaining portion of the project. Both IOS -1 and IOS -2 would terminate at Raitt Station ( Raitt
Street and Santa Ana Boulevard) rather than Harbor Station (Harbor Boulevard and
Westminster Avenue). Both would include the same project features and design options as
their respective full alignment build alternatives between Raitt Street and SARTC. The
configuration of Raitt as an interim terminus station is the same for IOS -1 and IOS -2. Just over
50 spaces would be provided for station parking at Raitt within the PE ROW on an interim basis
33 January 2015
75A -43
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
to be replaced by parking at Harbor Station upon completion of the full Project. Vehicular
access to Raitt Station parking would be via Daisy Avenue.
Findings for IOS -1 and IOS -2
The City of Santa Ana finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly
trained workers, make infeasible IOS -1 and IOS -2 identified in the EA/DEIR and (CEQA
Guidelines 15091(a)(3)). The IOS alternatives would not be environmentally superior to the
proposed project with the exception that these shorter route options would result in less
excavation and subsequent acquisition and construction - related impacts. The impacts of the
IOS alternatives would be essentially the same as the proposed project with traffic, parking and
circulation impacts being redistributed to the new terminal station location at Raitt Station. Each
IOS alternative would generate approximately 47 percent of the ridership associated with the full
alignment. The other key distinction of these shorter alignment options is that they reduce the
beneficial effects from the full route, particularly in the area of regional connectivity. Therefore,
IOS -1 and IOS -2 would not be consistent with project goals and objectives compared to the
proposed project. For these reasons, the City of Santa Ana rejects these alternatives.
O & M Facility Site Options
Both Streetcar Alternatives 1 and 2 would require the construction of an O & M Facility for
streetcar operations. An O & M Facility is a stand -alone building which would meet the
maintenance, repair, operational and storage needs of the proposed streetcar system. The O &
M Facility accommodates daily and routine vehicle inspections, interior /exterior cleaning of the
streetcars, preventative (scheduled) maintenance, unscheduled maintenance, and component
change -outs. The proposed facility would also provide a venue for parking vehicles that are not
in use and for rebuilding components. Two O & M facilities were analyzed in the EA/DEIR. O &
M Facility Site A is an irregularly shaped parcel slightly larger than 2.2 acres, and bordered by
6th Street to the north, 4th Street to the south, the Metrolink tracks to the east, and various
industrial and commercial businesses to the west. Currently used as a waste transfer and
recycling center, this site contains one primary structure with the remainder of the site used for
receiving and sorting recycling materials, and parking. O & M Facility Site B is a rectangular site
slightly larger than 2.4 acres. It is located west of Raitt Street and is bordered by 5th Street to
the north and the PE ROW to the south. Located in an area zoned for industrial and
commercial uses, this site is comprised of three parcels, two of which contain existing
businesses and a combination of industrial buildings. The third parcel contains a multi - family
structure with six residences.
Findings for O & M Facility Site Options
The City of Santa Ana finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly
trained workers, make infeasible O & M Facility Site A identified in the EA/DEIR and (CEQA
Guidelines 15091(a)(3)). The smaller size, irregular shape, and distance from the PE ROW
make O & M Facility Site A less efficient to develop and operate, and provides less opportunity
to accommodate a greater range of O & M functions on the site. In conjunction with its location
34 January 2015
75A -44
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support ofFindings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
eastern end of the corridor, O & M Facility Site A provides less flexibility to serve future system
expansion, or extensions or connections through Garden Grove to Anaheim. For these
reasons, the City of Santa Ana rejects O & M Facility Site A.
The size, rectangular shape and proximity to the PE ROW make O & M Facility Site B more
efficient to develop and operate, and provides opportunity to accommodate a greater range of O
M functions on the site. In conjunction with its location in the western half of the corridor, O &
M Facility Site B provides greater flexibility to serve future system expansion, or extensions or
connections through Garden Grove to Anaheim. For these reasons, the City of Santa Ana
adopts O & M Facility Site B.
Fourth Street Parking Scenarios
The proposed project would utilize 4th Street between Ross Street and Mortimer Street in the
westbound direction. From east of Ross Street to French Street, 4th Street has one travel lane
in each direction with head -in diagonal parking along each side of the roadway. The diagonal
parking, with vehicles exiting parking spaces by backing into the travel lane, is incompatible with
reliable streetcar operations. Three design scenarios were identified in the EA/DEIR to address
the diagonal parking on 4th Street.
Scenario A: Convert the diagonal parking along the south side of 4th Street, between Ross
Street and French Street, to parallel parking and widen the sidewalk along the
south side from 12 feet to 20 feet, and replace streetlights and landscaping. A
total of 26 on- street parking spaces would be removed under this scenario.
Scenario B: Remove the diagonal parking along the south side of 4th Street, between Ross
Street and French Street, and widen the sidewalk along the south side from 12
feet to 28 feet, and replace streetlights and landscaping. A total of 77 on- street
parking spaces would be removed under this scenario.
Scenario C: Remove the diagonal parking along both sides of 4th Street, between Ross Street
and French Street, widen the sidewalks along both sides from 12 feet to 28 feet,
and replace streetlights and landscaping on both sides of the street. A total of
132 on- street parking spaces would be removed under this scenario.
Findings for Fourth Street Parking Scenarios
The City of Santa Ana finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly
trained workers, make infeasible Fourth Street Parking Scenarios B and C identified in the
EA/DEIR (CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(3)). Although significant impacts were not identified for
any of the parking alternatives, Fourth Street Parking Scenario A would remove the least
amount of parking. For this reason, the City of Santa Ana rejects Fourth Street Parking
Scenarios B and C in favor of Fourth Street Parking Scenario A.
35 January 2015
75A -45
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Findings for Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures for the proposed project have been identified in the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program. None of the recommended measures that are within the City of Santa
Ana jurisdiction have been rejected. To the extent that these findings conclude that various
proposed Mitigation Measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are
feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Santa Ana hereby
binds itself to implement or, as appropriate, require implementation of these measures. These
findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of
obligations that will come into effect when the City of Santa Ana adopts a resolution approving
the proposed project.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an environmentally superior
alternative be identified among the selected alternatives. If the No Build Alternative is identified
as the environmentally superior alternative, the identification of the next best environmentally
superior alternative must be identified. As described in the EA/DEIR and the REA/FEIR, the No
Build Alternative has been found to have the least amount of environmental impacts and is the
environmentally superior alternative. Of the remaining alternatives, the TSM Alternative is the
CEQA environmentally superior alternative because no impacts were identified in the EA /DEIR.
However, the City hereby finds that the TSM alternative would not achieve the project's basic
objectives and thereby rejects this alternative.
9. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The REA/FEIR has identified and discussed significant environmental effects that will occur as a
result of implementation of the proposed project. With implementation of feasible mitigation
measures, standard conditions, and /or BMPs, as discussed in the REA/FEIR, these effects can
be mitigated to levels considered less than significant except for the significant impacts related
to regional construction emissions and localized construction emissions, as described above in
Section 6 of this document. Specifically, implementation of the proposed project would result in
the following significant impacts even after imposition of all feasible mitigation measures,
standard conditions, and /or BMPs and would require adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations:
Construction emissions associated with the proposed project would result in exceedance of
the SCAQMD's NOx threshold for construction activities for the years 2012 and 2013 and,
as such, would result in a significant regional air quality impact. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure AQ1 would reduce NOx emissions, although emissions would still
exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold.
Construction emissions of PM1e were found to exceed the SCAQMD's Localized
Significance Thresholds and would, therefore, result in a local air quality impact to sensitive
receptors in the vicinity of the O & M Facility. The proposed project is subjected to
SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), which requires that dust control measures (i.e.,
watering, offsite dirt trackout, and haul truck freeboard clearance) be applied to minimize the
generation of fugitive dust during construction activities. Despite the application of these
36 January 2015
75A -46
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
dust control measures, PM10 emissions are still anticipated to exceed the SCAQMD's
localized significance thresholds. No other feasible mitigation measures, standard
conditions, or BMPs exist that would reduce this impact.
In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, projects that would result in a significant impact
for either regional or localized air pollutant emissions would contribute toward a cumulative
impact. Cumulative projects within the Study Area and the surrounding area would include
redevelopment of existing uses, as well as development of new commercial and residential
uses. As the proposed project would result in a regionally and localized significant impact
during construction for both NOx and PM1e emissions, it is anticipated that continued
development (and associated construction activities) located predominately within the City of
Santa Ana would also result in regional and localized air quality impacts. Therefore, the
contribution of the proposed project to this air quality construction impact would be
cumulatively considerable. No other feasible mitigation measures, standard conditions, or
BMPs exist that would reduce this cumulatively considerable impact.
In making this determination, the Lead Agency is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093,
which provides as follows:
a. CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be
considered "acceptable."
b. When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant
effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the
agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR
and /or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be
supported by substantial evidence in the record.
c. If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be
included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of
determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings
required pursuant to CEQA Section 15091.
Having considered the unavoidable adverse significant impacts of the proposed project, the City
Council hereby determines that all feasible mitigation measures have been adopted to minimize,
substantially reduce, or avoid the significant impacts identified in the REA /FEIR, and that no
additional feasible mitigation is available to further reduce significant impacts. Further, the City
Council finds that economic, social, and other considerations of the proposed project outweigh
the significant and unavoidable impacts described above, and adopts the following Statement of
Overriding Considerations. In making this Finding, the City Council has balanced the benefits of
the proposed project against its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts and has
indicated its willingness to accept those impacts.
37 January 2015
75A -47
Santa Ana—Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
The following statements are in support of the City Council's action based on the REA/FEIR
and /or other information in the record. The following project objectives identify the benefits of
project implementation:
To improve transit connectivity within the Study Area;
To relieve congestion by providing alternative mobility options;
To be sensitive to the character of the community;
To increase transit options;
To improve transit accessibility to and within the Study Area; and
To provide benefits to the environment through improved air quality.
The City Council finds the project objectives would include benefits to the City of Santa Ana. In
addition to these project objectives, the following benefits constitute an overriding consideration
warranting approval of the proposed project despite the significant and unavoidable
environmental effects. The City Council finds that the project benefits derived from the project
objectives identified above, as well as those listed below, are each individually and separately
sufficient to outweigh all of the proposed project's significant and unavoidable impacts.
The proposed project would support local plans for transit - oriented development (TOD).
The City of Santa Ana recognizes that land use, economic opportunity, and transportation
planning go hand in hand. Over the last several years, the City of Santa Ana has
implemented TOD in the area adjacent to SARTC. Santa Ana's Transit Zoning Code, which
encompasses 450 acres within the Study Area, supports mixed -use development and
provides a transit - supportive, pedestrian— oriented development framework to reduce vehicle
trips and greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposed project would support economic vitality and foster redevelopment
opportunities. The City of Santa Ana recognizes the importance of public investment in
infrastructure as a catalyst for economic development. In the competitive Orange County
marketplace, transportation infrastructure projects that improve access and mobility enhance
the attractiveness of neighborhoods and provide a competitive edge for nearby businesses.
Therefore, an important element of the City's integrated transportation -land use vision is the
provision of transit service that is continuous and reliable, as well as a permanent and
visible fixture for transit users and the community. Such service would improve visibility and
access to existing economic activity centers and areas targeted for redevelopment.
Connectivity to these key existing and future development areas is one of the most critical
aspects of the SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project. In recent years, the City of Santa Ana has
taken active steps to revitalize its downtown area to attract new businesses, customers, and
visitors, utilizing a design scheme that fosters walkability and transit use. The Artist's Village
and the East End Promenade in Downtown Santa Ana are prime examples of this effort.
Moreover, the recent adoption of the Transit Zoning Code by the City of Santa Ana provides
the policy foundation for redevelopment activities specifically targeted to the SA -GG Fixed
Guideway Project. However, constrained access continues to be a challenge for the area.
To the west, the City of Garden Grove continues to promote economic development along
the Harbor Boulevard Corridor (International West). The proposed transportation investment
is intended to support economic vitality and foster redevelopment opportunities within the
3$ January 2015
75A -48
Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Study Area by improving access and connectivity within the Study Area, and between the
Study Area and the surrounding region. This, in turn, will improve visibility and enhance
access to Study Area land uses, and promote business activity. It will strengthen existing
development and foster new opportunities for mixed -use development and transit - supportive
residential products, and regionally significant resort and entertainment venues in areas
such as the Willowick Public Golf Course and the southern end of the Harbor Boulevard
Corridor.
The proposed project would fulfill Santa Ana's overall vision for the Study Area, including a
transit system that integrates seamlessly with the community and that is compatible with the
established urban character.
39
75A -49
January 2015
75A -50
Attachment A
Chapter 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PRC Section 21081.6 and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines require adoption of a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for all projects for which an EIR has been
prepared. This requirement was originally mandated by Assembly Bill (AB) 3180, which was
enacted on January 1, 1989, to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted
through the CEQA process. Specifically, PRC Section 21081.6 states that "...the agency shall
adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of
project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment... [and that the program] ... shall be designed to ensure compliance during project
implementation."
AB 3180 provided general guidelines for implementing monitoring and reporting programs, which
are enumerated in more detail in Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. However, specific
reporting and /or monitoring requirements to be enforced during project implementation shall be
defined prior to final approval of the proposed project by the decision - maker. In response to
established CEQA requirements, the proposed MMRP shall be submitted to the City of Santa
Ana (lead agency) for consideration prior to completion of the environmental review process to
enable the decision - makers appropriate response to the proposed project. Although the lead
agency may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to other agencies or entities, it
remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in
accordance with the program."
The MMRP describes the procedures for the implementation of the mitigation measures to be
adopted for the proposed project as identified in the EA/DEIR and REA /FEIR. The MMRP will be
in place through all phases of the proposed project, including design (pre- construction),
construction, and operation (post- construction both prior to and post- occupancy). The City of
Santa Ana shall be responsible for administering the MMRP activities or delegating them to staff,
other City departments (e.g., Department of Building and Safety and Department of Public
Works), consultants, or contractors. The City of Santa Ana will also ensure that monitoring is
documented through reports (as required) and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The
designated environmental monitor (e.g., City building inspector, project contractor, or certified
professionals depending on the provision specified below) will track and document compliance
with mitigation measures, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to
remedy problems.
Each mitigation measure is categorized by environmental topic and corresponding number, with
identification of:
The enforcement agency
The monitoring agency
The monitoring phase (i.e., the phase during which the measure should be monitored);
The monitoring frequency
The action indicating compliance with the mitigation measure
Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAjFEIR P a g ol234
January 2015 EXHIBIT 3
75A -51
All agencies and departments are in the City of Santa Ana, unless otherwise noted.
Land Use and Zoning
No mitigation measures related to land use and zoning are required.
Land Acquisition and Displacement
No mitigation measures related to land acquisition and displacement are required.
Visual Quality
No mitigation measures related to visual quality are required.
Cultural Resources
CR1 A qualified principal investigator who meets the Secretary of the Interior's professional
qualification standards for an archeologist shall be responsible for managing Native
American archaeological resources and human remains. The qualified principal
investigator shall appoint an archaeological monitor to be present for ground- disturbing
activities that could encounter undisturbed soils. If the qualified principal investigator
determines that Native American archaeological resources and human remains are likely
present, then both an archeological monitor and a Native American monitor identified by
the principal investigator shall be present. The Native American monitor shall be a Native
American identified by the applicable tribe and /or the Native American Heritage
Commission. The timing and duration of the monitoring shall be determined by the
principal investigator based on the sensitivity of exposed sediments.
Prior to initiation of earth - disturbing activities that could encounter undisturbed soils; the
archaeological monitor shall conduct a brief awareness training session for all
construction workers and supervisory personnel. The training shall explain the importance
of and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. Each worker
shall learn the proper procedures to follow in the event that cultural resources or human
remains /burials are uncovered. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection
and the immediate contact of the site supervisor and the archaeological monitor. It is
recommended that this worker education session include visual images of artifacts that
might be found in the project vicinity, and that the session take place on -site immediately
prior to the start of ground- disturbing activities.
If archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during construction, all
work shall cease in the area of potential affect until the find can be addressed. The
Orange County Coroner's Office shall be contacted pursuant to procedures set forth in
Public Resources Code Section 5097 et seq. and Health and Safety Code in Sections
7050.5, 7051, and 7054 with respect to treatment and removal, Native American
involvement, burial treatment, and re- burial, if necessary. A fifty -foot buffer, or more if
deemed appropriate by the principal investigator, shall be established and work outside
the buffer may resume.
Santa Ana Garden Grave Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g ol 285
January 2015
75A -52
Areas that would not encounter undisturbed soils and would therefore not be required to
retain an archaeologist shall demonstrate non - disturbance to the City of Santa Ana
through the appropriate construction plans, as -built drawings, or geotechnical studies
prior to any earth - disturbing activities. Impacts to any significant resources shall be
mitigated to a less- than - significant level through data recovery or other methods
determined adequate by the archaeologist and that are consistent with the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for Archaeological Documentation. Any identified cultural
resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 form and filed with the SCCIC.
Enforcement Agency:
Implementation /Monitoring Agency:
Monitoring Phase:
Monitoring Frequency:
Compliance Action:
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
City of Santa Ana
Principal Investigator and Archaeological or Native
American Monitor /SHPO
Construction
Ground breaking activities involving undisturbed
soil
Field Inspection /Monitoring and Maintenance of
Log to Demonstrate Compliance
No mitigation measures related to geology, soils, and seismicity are required.
1CFFkTrromlyiEii1 . M
HAZ1 A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall be prepared for the following site should
O &M Facility Site A be adopted as part of the proposed project:
Madison Materials located at 1035 East 4`h Street
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall be prepared for the following sites should
O &M Facility Site B be adopted as part of the proposed project:
All Car Auto Parts located at 2002 West 5 "' Street
SA Recycling located at 2006 West 5`" Street
American Auto Wrecking located at 1908 West 51h Street
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall be prepared for the following sites should
O &M Facility Site A be adopted as part of the proposed project:
The assessment shall be prepared by a Registered Environmental Assessor. The
assessment shall be prepared in accordance with State standards /guidelines to evaluate
whether the site or the surrounding area is contaminated with hazardous substances from
the potential past and current uses including storage, transport, generation, and disposal
of toxic and hazardous waste or materials. If hazardous materials are identified in the
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment would
be completed to identify the extent of contamination and the procedures for remediation.
The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment shall be approved by the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control.
Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR
January 2015
75A -53
a g e1 236
Enforcement Agency:
Implementation /Monitoring Agency:
Monitoring Phase:
Monitoring Frequency:
Compliance Action:
City of Santa Ana
Registered Environmental Assessor /Department of
Toxic Substances Control
Pre - Construction
Once, prior to construction
Site Investigation and Submittal of the Phase I and
Phase II Environmental Site Assessments
Traffic and Parking
No mitigation measures related to traffic and parking are required.
Noise and Vibration
N1 The City of Santa Ana shall request a horn - sounding exemption from the California Public
Utilities Commission for the crossing at 5th and Fairview Streets. The exemption shall
provide justification and demonstrate that safety would not be compromised. In lieu of
the warning horn, supplemental safety measures (e.g., four -quad gates, roadway median
barriers on grade crossing approaches, and pedestrian gates) would be implemented. If a
horn sounding exemption is approved and established, warning horns would not be
sounded except under an emergency situation.
Enforcement Agency:
Implementation /Monitoring Agency:
Monitoring Phase:
Monitoring Frequency:
Compliance Action:
City of Santa Ana
City of Santa Ana /California Public Utilities
Commission
Design
During design and prior to operation
Agency request submission /Field Inspection
N2 When practical, the contractor shall design special trackwork elements, such as turn-
outs, switches, and cross -over to be located at least 600 feet away from sensitive
receptors. If this cannot be achieved, then special switch devices, such as spring frogs
or movable point frogs shall be utilized. A frog device is used where two rails cross. The
frog is designed to ensure the wheel crosses the gap in the rail without "dropping" into
the gap.
Enforcement Agency: City of Santa Ana
Implementation /Monitoring Agency: Contractor /City of Santa Ana
Monitoring Phase: Design
Monitoring Frequency: Prior to Approval of Final Plans and Specifications
Compliance Action: Field Verification of Installation of Trackwork
N3 The contractor shall construct a noise barrier at the land uses identified as Noise
Sensitive Areas 9 and 10. For receptors in Noise Sensitive Area 9, the noise barrier shall
be at least 10 feet high and extend for 400 feet along the northern property edge of the
proposed operations and maintenance facility. For receptors in Noise Sensitive Area 10,
the noise barrier shall be at least 8 feet high and extend for 225 feet along the southern
boundary of the PE ROW adjacent to 4`h Street. The design of the noise barriers shall be
identified on project plans prior to issuance of building permits.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el 237
January 2015
75A -54
Enforcement Agency:
Implementation /Monitoring Agency
Monitoring Phase:
Monitoring Frequency:
Compliance Action:
Air Quality
City of Santa Ana
Contractor /City of Santa Ana Planning and Building
Department
Design and Pre - operation
Prior to permitting and prior to operation
Design Review and Field Verification
No mitigation measures related to air quality are required.
Hydrology
No mitigation measures related to hydrology are required.
Safety and Security
SAF1 Under Streetcar Alternatives 1 and 2 and the IDS Alternatives, the City of Santa Ana
shall coordinate with the Santa Ana Unified School District and Santa Ana Police
Department regarding safety at schools adjacent to the alignment. The collaborative
effort between the City and interested parties shall develop and teach rail safety
measures to students and parents. Other precautionary safety features shall include
signs, gated crossing, and crossing and traffic signals to create a safe environment for
parents and students during pick -up /drop -off times.
Enforcement Agency: City of Santa Ana
Implementation /Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Ana /Santa Ana Police Department
Monitoring Phase: Design and Pre - Operation
Monitoring Frequency: On -going during Construction and Testing
Compliance Action: Development of Safety Education Program and
Instruction and Field Verification
SAF2 The contractor shall install surveillance cameras along the pedestrian walking paths within
the PE ROW and at pedestrian gates to adjacent neighborhoods. Police security
personnel shall be responsible for surveillance camera monitoring.
Enforcement Agency:
Implementation /Monitoring Agency
Monitoring Phase:
Monitoring Frequency:
Compliance Action:
City of Santa Ana
Contractor /City of Santa Ana and Santa Ana Police
Department
Design and Pre - operation
Prior to Operation
Field Verification
SAF3 The contractor shall install emergency call boxes along the pedestrian walking paths
within the PE ROW.
Enforcement Agency: City of Santa Ana
Implementation /Monitoring Agency: Contractor /City of Santa Ana
Monitoring Phase: Design and Pre - operation
Monitoring Frequency: Prior to operation
Compliance Action: Field Verification
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g ol238
January 2015
75A -55
SAF4 The contractor shall design the lighting plan for the pedestrian walking paths within the
PE ROW to eliminate shadows or dimly lit areas to the greatest extent feasible.
Enforcement Agency:
Implementation /Monitoring Agency:
Monitoring Phase:
Monitoring Frequency:
Compliance Action:
City of Santa Ana
Contractor /City of Santa Ana
Design
Once prior to design approval
Design Review and Field Verification
SAF5 Within the PE ROW, the contractor shall fence the track area, and appropriate signage
and audible and visual warning devices shall be installed at gate openings.
Enforcement Agency:
Implementation /Monitoring Agency
Monitoring Phase:
Monitoring Frequency:
Compliance Action:
City of Santa Ana
Contractor /City of Santa Ana
Design and Pre - operation
Prior to Operation
Field Verification
SAF6 If Mitigation Measures SAF2 through SAF4 are considered infeasible, then the Willowick
Station shall not be made operational by the contractor until an appropriate public access
point from the PE ROW is created as part of the Willowick Golf Course redevelopment.
Enforcement Agency:
Implementation /Monitoring Agency:
Monitoring Phase:
Monitoring Frequency:
Compliance Action:
City of Santa Ana
Contractor /City of Santa Ana and Santa Ana Police
Department
Pre - operation
Prior to Operation
Field Verification
Construction (Air Quality)
AQ1 During the construction phase, the contractor shall use Tier 4 or higher off -road
construction equipment with higher air pollutant emissions standards.
Enforcement Agency:
Implementation /Monitoring Agency:
Monitoring Phase:
Monitoring Frequency:
Compliance Action:
Cumulative
City of Santa Ana
Contractor /SCAQMD
Construction
Monthly
Field Verification and Maintenance of Log to
Demonstrate Compliance
No mitigation measures related to cumulative impacts are required.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR
January 2015
75A -56
Paga1239
Revised Environmental Assessment/
Final Environmental Impact Report
75A -57
1 1
Page No.
CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................... ..............................1
1.1 Intended Use of the Revised EA /Final EIR .............. ..............................1
1.2 Summary of the Proposed Project ........................ ..............................2
1.3 Selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative ........... ..............................3
1.4 Noticing and Availability of EA/ DEIR ..................... ..............................3
1.5 Environmental Review Process ............................ ..............................3
CHAPTER 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ...................................... ..............................5
2.1 Public Review ................................................... ..............................5
2.2 Summary of Comments ...................................... ..............................9
2.3 Comments and Responses ............................... ............................... 10
CHAPTER 3.0 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS ............................... ............................228
CHAPTER 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ............................234
Appendix A Environmental Assessment /Draft Environmental Impact Report
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIEEIR
January 2015
75A -58
Pageli
This Revised Environmental Assessment /Final Environmental Impact Report (REA /FEIR) complies
with both National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA) requirements. The federal and State environmental clearance for the Santa Ana - Garden
Grove Fixed (SA -GG) Guideway Project (proposed project) was prepared in a joint NEPA and CEQA
document.
1,1 Intended Use of the Revised EA/Final EIR
This REA /FEIR was prepared at the direction and under the supervision of the City of Santa Ana
City) as the local lead agency. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is a
responsible agency under CEQA. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is the federal lead
agency pursuant to NEPA. This REA /FEIR incorporates the Environmental Assessment /Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EA /DEIR) by reference and includes a description of a subsequent
change to the proposed project, which involves the identification of a Locally Preferred
Alternative. In addition, the REA /FEIR includes comments and recommendations received in
response to the EA /DEIR (either verbatim or in summary); a list of persons, organizations, and
public agencies who commented on the EA /DEIR; responses to significant environmental points
raised in those comments; and other relevant information added by the local lead agency.
The intended use of this REA /FEIR by the City is to assist in making decisions regarding whether
to adopt the proposed project, certify the FEIR, and file the Notice of Determination, which will
complete the CEQA process. The intended use of this REA /FEIR by FTA is to update the
proposed project and provide the necessary information to issue the Findings of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) to complete the NEPA process.
This REA /FEIR is comprised of four chapters:
Chapter 1.0 Introduction. This chapter includes an overview of the proposed project, a summary of
the alternatives considered, and a summary of the project's potential environmental impacts.
Chapter 2.0 Responses to Comments. This chapter contains comments received by the City
during the public review period and public hearings for the EA /DEIR and responses to each
comment.
Chapter 3.0 Corrections and Additions. This chapter provides the changes to the EA /DEIR in
response to comments received during the public review period and public hearing process.
Chapter 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This chapter includes a list of the
required mitigation measures and identifies the enforcement agency, monitoring agency,
monitoring phase, monitoring frequency, and the action indicating compliance with each
measure.
Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g ell
January 2015
75A -59
1.2 Summary of the Proposed Project
The SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project proposes to provide a new east -west transit line in Orange
County between the Santa Ana Regional Transit Center (SARTC) in the City of Santa Ana and
the Harbor Boulevard /Westminster Avenue intersection in the City of Garden Grove. The
purpose of the SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project is to:
Improve Transit Connectivity within the Study Area;
Relieve Congestion by Providing Alternative Mobility Options;
Be Sensitive to the Character of the Community;
Increase Transit Options;
Improve Transit Accessibility to and within the Study Area; and
Provide Benefits to the Environment through Improved Air Quality.
The alternatives addressed in the EA /DEIR consisted of a No Build Alternative and a
Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative, as well as four build alternatives;
Streetcar Alternatives 1 and 2 and Initial Operating Segment (IOS) -1 and IOS -2, which are
shorter versions of the full alignment. Streetcar Alternative 1, which is the Locally Preferred
Alternative, will utilize the Pacific Electric Right -of -Way (PE ROW) through the western portion of
the approximately four -mile alignment to reduce costs and impacts and to provide optimum
accessibility. The eastern portion of the alignment will operate along Santa Ana Boulevard and
4 "' Street on the way to SARTC. The streetcar system will be electrically powered using an
overhead contact system and a series of Traction Power Substations. The Locally Preferred
Alternative includes 24 stations.
Streetcar Alternative 2 would utilize the PE ROW through the western half of its alignment and
primarily operate along Santa Ana Boulevard, Civic Center Drive, and 51" Street through the
eastern half of the alignment to SARTC. The operational characteristics of this alternative are
identical to Streetcar Alternative 1. The differences between the two streetcar alternatives are
the alignment and the fact that Streetcar Alternative 2 would have one additional station for a
total of 13.
The No Build Alternative provides the basis for comparing future conditions resulting from other
alternatives. This alternative includes conditions in the foreseeable future (through planning
horizon year 2035) include projects that (1) have environmental analysis approved by an
implementing agency and (2) have a funding source identified for implementation. The TSM
Alternative enhances the mobility of existing transportation facilities and transit network without
construction of major new transportation facilities or significant, costly physical capacity
improvements. The TSM Alternative emphasizes low cost (i.e., small physical) improvements
and operational efficiencies, such as focused traffic engineering actions, expanded bus service,
and improved access to transit services. In response to funding and phasing issues raised by
fiscal constraints identified during OCTA's long -range transportation planning process, IOSs
were developed as alternatives, which are shorter segments of the Locally Preferred Alternative
and Streetcar Alternative 2. Further details on these alternatives are provided on page 2 -1 of
the EA /DEIR.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR
January 2015
75A -60
Page12
1.3 Selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative
Following receipt of public comments on the EA /DEIR and after the close of the public comment
period, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana selected Streetcar Alternative 1 with
Operations & Maintenance Facility Site B (west of Raitt Street) and 4`h Street Parking Scenario A
parallel parking) as the Locally Preferred Alternative for the SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project on
August 5, 2014. The selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative was based on the evaluation
criteria that were approved by the community during the public scoping process. These criteria
included the consideration of accessibility and livability; economic development, transit
supportive land use, and community goals; environmental responsibility; travel benefits, choice,
and reliability; and cost effectiveness and financial feasibility. Streetcar Alternative 1 produced
the highest ridership, and served the greatest number of transit dependent households.
Compared to Streetcar Alternative 2, it required less right -of -way acquisition, had a lower capital
cost to construct, and greater ease of constructability. The existing land uses along the
Streetcar Alternative 1 alignment were highly transit supportive, and offered greater economic
development potential for the future. The selection of this Locally Preferred Alternative
constitutes the extent of change to the proposed project that has occurred since the circulation
of the EA /DEIR. The selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative does not create a change in
circumstances, generate changes to the previously identified alternatives, or alter the previous
environmental evaluation and determinations which were identified in the EA /DEIR.
1.4 Noticing and Availability of EA/DEIR
In compliance with NEPA regulations and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085 and 15087, a Notice
of Availability of the EA /DEIR was distributed, and the EA /DEIR was made available for public
review for 45 days beginning May 23, 2014 to provide an opportunity for interested parties to
comment on the EA /DEIR. There were three public hearing meetings, which were held on
June 14, 17, and 19, 2014. During the review period, 17 written submissions were received on
the EA /DEIR from public agencies, community groups, and individuals. These comments and the
corresponding responses are presented in Chapter 2.0, Responses to Comments of this
REA /FEIR.
Meaningful public engagement was an important component of the SA -GG Fixed Guideway
Project from the onset. Prior to making any key decisions on the proposed project, the City of
Santa Ana initiated a public scoping process to define the appropriate range of issues to be
addressed in the EA /DEIR. Four scoping meetings were conducted for the general public
between June 8 and June 12, 2010. Two of these meetings were scheduled in the evening,
one meeting was scheduled in the morning, and one meeting was scheduled on a Saturday
afternoon, providing those community members who could not attend any of the weekday
evening meetings with an opportunity to participate. Public comment opportunities were made
available at each meeting. It should also be noted that articles and advertisements were
published in a number of local newspapers, including several non - English publications. All
information materials were presented in English, as well as Spanish.
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g e13
January 2015
75A -61
The alternatives identified for evaluation in the EA /DEIR were based on public comments, as well
as technical analyses, as detailed in the Alternative Analysis Report (under separate cover and
available by request or on the City's website at http : / /santaanatransitvision.com. The
alternatives analysis process included a comprehensive review of potential technology and
alignment options. A wide range of public transit options were defined and investigated as
candidate technologies. The initial alignment options were based on the need to establish an
east -west transit corridor in the Study Area, and to improve the Study Area's regional transit
connectivity by providing direct connections to existing and planned transit services (Metrolink
and OCTA fixed route and Bus Rapid Transit [BRT] services) at SARTC and at the northeast
corner of Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue in the City of Garden Grove.
A reasonable range of alternatives has been evaluated as part of the environmental process,
beginning with a robust alternatives analysis and using a screening process to provide a limited
range of alternatives in the EA /DEIR. The alternatives analysis is described in detail beginning on
page 2 -29 of the EA /DEIR. Several alternatives, in addition to those previously discussed,
including BRT routes along Santa Ana Boulevard and Civic Center Drive, were considered in the
initial alternatives analysis but were ultimately screened out because they did not fully satisfy
the purpose and need or project goals and objectives and were less cost effective in terms of
both capital and operations and maintenance costs per rider than Streetcar Alternatives 1 and 2.
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an environmentally superior
alternative be identified among the selected alternatives. If the No Build Alternative is identified
as the environmentally superior alternative, the identification of the next best environmentally
superior alternative must be identified. As described in the EA /DEIR and the REA /FEIR, the No
Build Alternative has been found to have the least amount of environmental impacts and is the
environmentally superior alternative. Of the remaining alternatives, the TSM Alternative is the
CEQA environmentally superior alternative because no impacts were identified in the EA /DEIR.
However, the City hereby finds that the TSM Alternative would not achieve the proposed
project's basic objectives and thereby rejects this alternative.
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el A
January 2015
75A -62
Chapter 2.0 Responses to Comments
This chapter provides responses to all written and oral comments received on the EA /DEIR.
Comments include issues raised by the public that warrant clarification or correction of certain
statements in the EA/DEIR.
2.1 Public Review
The EA /DEIR was circulated for a period of 45 days beginning on May 23, 2014. During the
review period, 17 written submissions were received on the EA /DEIR from public agencies,
groups and individuals. Between June 14 and June 19, 2014, the City also held three public
meetings to present the conclusions of the EA /DEIR and receive comments from the public.
Approximately 150 people attended the public meetings, and roughly 34 attendees gave verbal
testimony at the meetings. Transcripts of the verbal testimony and responses to the
environmental issues raised in their testimony are provided below. Table 2 -1 presents a list of
all public agencies, organizations, and individuals who submitted written comments. Each
comment letter has been assigned a number.
TABLE 2-1: COMMENT LETTERS
No. I Commenter Comment Topic
M ERALAGEFI
1 U.S. General Services Administration Supportfor Streetcar Alternative 1
Region 9 Portfolio Management Division
Maureen Sheehan, NEPA Project Manager
400 15" St. S.W.
Auburn, WA 98001
SLAT# AeExc r=s .
2 State of California Draft EIR Review Process
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Scott Morgan
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044
Re: Native American Heritage Commission
3 State of California Draft EIR Review Process
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Scott Morgan
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044
Re: California State Transportation Agency
4 Native American Heritage Commission Impacts to Archaeological Resources, Native
Dave Singleton American Remains, and Sacred/ Historic Sites and
1550 Harbor Boulevard Mitigation Monitoring Plan
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el5
January 2015
75A -63
TABLE 2-1: COMMENT LETTERS
No. Commenter Comment Topic
5 State of California No comments provided.
California State Transportation Agency
Department of Transportation District 12
Maureen El Harake,
Branch Chief, Regional- Community- Transit Planning
3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92612
0RGANIZJ1TIpNS - -
6 Orange County Draft EIR Review Process
Clerk- Recorder's Office
12 Civic Center Plaza, Room 106
Santa Ana, CA 92702
7 Santa Ana Historical Preservation Society Historic Resources, ROW Acquisition, Support for
Alan Lawson Streetcar Alternative 1
120 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
8 Santa Ana Community & Business Alliance (SAC -BA) Construction, Land Use, Growth, Community
Madeleine Spencer Outreach and Noticing, Displacement, Purpose and
333 East 9" #303 Need, Cost, Safety, Equity /Environmental Justice,
Santa Ana, CA 92701 General Opposition
Commenters: Elia Fitz; Jose Olegario Perez; Maximo
Navarro; David Manzo; Francisco Pro.; AclZria Hernandez;
Teresa M. Julio; Alicia Meza; Erick Leyva; Gina Torres;
Bienvenida Guzman; Susi Lopez
9 Santa Ana Business Council, Inc. (SABC) Impacts to Business on Fourth Street and
400 East 4", Suite 7 Opposition to Streetcar Alternative 1
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Commenters: Shahram Makhani; Laura Fabilla Diaz;
Guillermina Madriles; Manuel Pena; Ceballos Fernando;
Raul Alvarez; Tomas Valenzuela; Inhee Cha; Inhee Cha;
Won Cha; Walter W. Cha
10 Commenters: Karla Cuevas; Art Samacruz; Villamar Construction, Land Use, Growth, Community
Ortiz; Ashley Brown; Maria Anza; Miguel Angel; Maylin Outreach and Noticing, Displacement, Purpose and
Mendoza; Hugo Martinez; Alvarez Regino; Maximiliano Need, Cost, Safety, Equity /Environmental Justice,
Garcia; Alejandro Escobar; Lorene Ramirez; Cinthya Opposition to Streetcar Alternative 1
Perez; Lizzi Murtough; Katherine Anza; Geraldine
Arellano; Clarissa Arellano; Aurora Sandivia; Petra
Salgado; Maria Hernandez; Enrique R.; Yesenia Canova;
Nathalie Canova; Evangeline Romero; Manuel Topete;
Imelda Salgado; Jose Ochoa; Virginia Ochoa; David Inga;
Patrick Douphy; Cesar Gonzalez; Francisco Salgado;
Lesley Ramos; Sergio Diaz; Maria Salgado; Ciro Salgado;
Adelfa Najera; Irma Lopez; Monse Perez
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g 016
January 2015
75A -64
TABLE 2-1: COMMENT LETTERS
No. Commenter Comment Topic
11 Santa Ana Community & Business Alliance (SAC -BA) Construction, Land Use, Growth, Community
Madeleine Spencer Outreach and Noticing, Displacement, Purpose and
333 East 9" #303 Need, Cost, Safety, Equity /Environmental Justice,
Santa Ana, CA 92701 Opposition to Streetcar Alternative 1
Commenters: Ginette Sanchez; Cirilo Martinez; Andrew
Ramos; Jose Llanos; Ismael Becerril; Isidro Acosta; Juan
Sanchez; Crecencio Martinez; Raul Hernandez; Hanadi
Roman; Jose Roman; Evander Aguirre; Cuahutemoc
Sanchez; Araceli Kantu; Angela Garcia; Angela Mejia;
Carmen Ortega; Maria Perez; Yolanda Aguirre; Consuelo
Blanco; Edlyn Salazar; Mari Carmen Valencia; Javier
Galvez; Edith Hernandez, Sergio Ortega; Teresa Andrade;
Cristina Moreno; Praxedes Bernal; David Rey Resendiz;
Jose Olivares; Leonardo Moreno Navarro; Oscar Hurtado;
Juan Sacche; Hugo Rojas Hernandez; Jose Hernandez;
America Najera; Marco Zeferino; Araceli Robles; Rigoberto
Robles; Luis E. Robles; Apolonio Cortes; Nancy Mejia;
Laura Pantoja; Edward Garza; Jeff Merrick; Pat Aliso;
Cinthya Sanchez; Elva Navarrete; Yohana Rojas; Venancio
Chavez; Angelica Flores; Arnold W; Luis Pantoja; Juan
Carlos Macedo; Javier Roman; Jonathan Lizarraga; Gavino
Mendez, Miguel Angel Macedo; Yanet Castaneda; Juan
Vergara; Jose E. Vega; Abrahan Hernandez, Jorge
Cabrera; Mario Martinez; Juanita Hernandez; Maria
Guadalupe Diaz; Nohemi Gonzalez, Jose Elias Gonzalez;
Isidora Espinoza; Felipe Chavez; Victor Guerrero;
Crecencio Reyes; Angie Tapia; Francisca Trujillo; Rufno
Tochihuitl; Teresa Mendez; Jaime Mendez; Estela Tejada;
Victoria garcia; Moices Vasquez; Rosa E. Ubach; Maria
Perez; Esperanza Ramirez; Adrian Brindis; Celene Ponce;
Soledad Gomez
12 Santa Ana Business Council, Inc. (SABC) Opposition to Streetcar Alternative 1
400 East 41", Suite 7
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Commenters: Perla Veronica Alvarez; Elma Vazquez;
George Hansen; Quan M. Tran; Guadalupe Macias;
Martha Guillen; Jose M. Solorio; Maria Hernandez; Hector
Ruiz; Paulino Fuentes; Palmira Astudillo; Susan Chan;
Carlos Rodriguez; Patricia Munoz; Jose Rodriguez; Susan
Ceballos; Daniel Estrada; Martha Sliva; Aden Rodriguez;
Efren; Raymond Rangel; Acencion Trujillo; Laura
Hernandez; Josefina Estrada; Gerardo Bahena; Edilberto
Forero; Lupe Sandoval; Guadalupe Pantoja; Michael
Kassira; Ricardo Cortez; Elvis Viera; I rma Aguilera;
Mariano Mendoza; Jorge Vital; Sal Navarro; Arturo
Lomeli; Tomas Valenzuela; Jaime Nungavay; Joseph G
Elias; Ruth Gerardo; Mike Husain; Jeam Yeol Chon; Lee
Gomez; Elia Castel /on; Aracely Calderon; Danica Marin;
Alberto Otero; Hector Silva; Alicia Salcedo; Guillermo de
la Pina; Abdul Amoudi; Nam Hye Yun; Marcela Prado
Rodriguez; Marcela Rodriguez; Adan Hernandez; Ruben
Puebla; Ruben Alvarez; Grace Yanez' Mary Larrea; Rosa
Weber; Joe M. Lara; Silvia Huerta; Willer Cobeha;
Fortunato Reyes; Teresa Saldivar; Nam Hye Yun; Sandra
Cerpas; Shay Patmer; Lety Gomez; Herb Rose; Frank
Chavez; Barbara Y Rooker; Maria Guerrero; Arturo
Arellanes; Samuel Romero
Santa Ana-Garden Grove fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g all
January 2015
75A -65
TABLE 2-1: COMMENT LETTERS
Commenter Comment TopicNo.
INUIVII7UALS
13 Dennis Dascanio Support for Streetcar Alternative I
COMMENT CA:,RD' r
14 Jose Rodriquez Support for Streetcar Alternative 2
312 E. 4" Street, Suite A
Santa Ana, CA 92701
15 Jose Diaz Public Notification of Design Changes
1502 W. 9" Street
Santa Ana, CA 92703
16 Adrian Munoz Impacts to the community, including businesses,
407 Vance Street public facilities, churches, pedestrians, and disabled
Santa Ana, CA 92701
17 Frank Mitchell, III. General Support for the Project and Further
1920 S. Greenville Street Extension of Alignment
Santa Ana, CA 92704
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
1 PH1 -1 — Madeleine Spencer PH1 -1 —Community Outreach and Noticing
PH1 -2 — Madeleine Spencer PH1 -2 — Construction, Traffic, Ridership, Safety,
Cost, Design
PHI -3 — Madeleine Spencer PH1 -3 — Further Extension of Alignment, Ridership
PH1 -4 — Madeleine Spencer PH14 — Improvements to the Bus System and
Economic Growth
PH1 -5 — Madeleine Spencer PH 1 -5 — Funds to Improve Safety
PH1 -6 — Madeleine Spencer PH1 -6 — Economic Impact
PH1 -7 — Madeleine Spencer PH1 -7 — Environmental Justice /Equity Analysis
PH1 -8 — Unknown Speaker PH1 -8 — Community Outreach and Noticing
PH1 -9 — Sean Pulich PHI -9 — Integration of the Proposed Project into the
Existing Bus System
PH1 -10 — Sean Pulich PH1 -10 — General Support for the Project,
Development of More Retail along the Alignment,
and Further Extension of the Alignment
PH1 -11 —Ruby Cardenas PH1 -11 — Impact to Schools
PH1 -12 — Ruby Cardenas PH1 -12 — Compatibility of the Proposed Project with
Other Transit Systems
P H 1 -13 — Ruby Cardenas P H 1 -13 — Alternatives Analysis
PH1 -14 —Sean Pulich PH1 -14— Operations During Special Events
PH1 -15 —Ruby Cardenas PH1 -15— Construction and Preference for Streetcar
Alternative 2
PHI -16 — Ruby Cardenas PH 1 -16 — Alternatives Analysis
PH1 -17 — Ruby Cardenas PH1 -17 — Design
PH1 -18 — Raul Yanez PHI -18— Community Outreach and Noticing
PH1 -19 — Raul Yanez PHI -19 — Support for Streetcar Alternative 2,
Construction
PH1- 20 —Tish Leon PHI -20— CEQA Process and Purpose of Public
Review Period and Meetings
PHI -21 — Sean Pulich PH1 -21 — Alternatives Analysis, Further Extension of
Alignment
PH1 -22 —Madeleine Spencer PH1 -22 — Community Outreach and Noticing,
Construction
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g e1 6
January 2015
75A -66
TABLE 2-1 COMMENT LETTERS
No. Commenter Comment Topic
PH 1-23 — Madeleine Spencer PH1 -23 — Parking
PH1 -24 — Madeleine Spencer PH1 -24 —Displacement, Environmental
Justice /Equity, Neighborhood Impact
PHI -25 —Sean Pulich PH 1 -25 — Ridership, Fare
PHI -26 — Unknown Speaker PH 1 -26 — Construction Schedule
PHI -27 — Ruby Cardenas PH 1 -27 — Transit Schedule
2 PH2 -1 — Peter Katz PH2 -1 — General Support
PH2 -2 — Ruby Woo PH2 -2 — Design and Landscaping
PH2 -3 — Unknown Speaker PH2 -3 — Construction Schedule
PH2 -4 — Unknown Speaker PH2 -4 — Construction, Land Use
3 PH3 -1 — Unknown Speaker PH3 -1 — Impact of the Streetcar Alternative 2
Alignment
PH3 -2 — Unknown Speaker PH3 -2 — Environmental Justice /Equity
PH3 -3 —Wan Cha PH3 -3 — Construction Impacts to Historic Structures
PH3 -4 —Wan Cha PH3 -4 — Ridership
PH3 -5 — Aldolpho Lopez PH3 -5 — Land Use Development and Ridership
PH3 -6 — Saul O'Campo PH3 -6 — Construction, Safety, Impacts to School
Routes
PH3 -7 — Raul Yanez PH3 -7 — Construction
PH3 -8 — Madeleine Spencer PH3 -8 — Community Outreach and Noticing
PH3 -9 — Unknown Speaker PH3 -9 — Parking
PH3 -10 — Unknown Speaker PH3 -10 — Ridership
PH3 -11 — Isabel Lopez PH3 -11 — Community Outreach and Noticing
PH3 -12 — Unknown Speaker PH3 -12 — Preferred Alternative Selection
PH3 -13 — Unknown Speaker PH3 -13 — Environmental Justice /Equity
PH3 -14 — Unknown Speaker PH3 -14 — Safety
PH3 -15 — Unknown Speaker PH3 -15 — Fares
PH3 -16 — Unknown Speaker PH3 -16 — Funding
PH3 -17 — Unknown Speaker PH3 -17 — Design
PH3 -18 —Unknown Speaker PH3 -18 — Fiscal /Economic Impact
PH3 -19 — Unknown Speaker PH3 -19 — Design
PH3 -20 — Unknown Speaker PH3 -20 — Utilities
PH3 -21 — Madeleine Spencer PH3 -21 — Funding
PH3 -22 — Unknown Speaker PH3 -22 — Displacement
2.2 Summary of Comments
Comments on the EA /DEIR were received from federal, State, and local agencies, as well as
community groups and individual community members. The comment topics ranged from broad
statements of support or opposition to specific questions on environmental areas of concern.
The one federal agency to comment on the EA /DEIR was the U.S. General Services
Administration, which expressed support for Streetcar Alternative 1. Four State agencies
submitted comment letters related to the EA /DEIR. Three of the comment letters acknowledged
that the EA/DEIR was received, and one comment letter was related to the preservation of
cultural resources.
Seven comment letters were received from local organizations, including the Santa Ana
Historical Preservation Society, which raised concerns over effects to the Howe - Waffle House.
Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el9
January 2015
75A -67
The Santa Ana Community & Business Alliance and the Santa Ana Business Council, Inc.
submitted similar comment letters representing members of the community. The comment
letters either included a list of people supporting the letter or individual form letters restating the
concerns in the cover letters submitted by the business groups. In summary, the comment
letters from the Santa Ana Community & Business Alliance and the Santa Ana Business Council,
Inc., expressed opposition to the proposed project and listed concerns associated with
community outreach and noticing, construction activity, environmental justice /equity, safety,
displacement, land use and growth, purpose and need, and cost.
One emailed comment was received from a community member and four comment cards were
submitted by individuals at the three public meetings, at which the conclusions of the EA /DEIR
were presented. These comments: (1) expressed general support for the proposed project, one
comment expressed support for Streetcar Alternative 1; (2) expressed support for Streetcar
Alternative 2; (3) asked how the public would be notified of design changes; and (4) expressed
concern with various environmental topics discussed in the EA /DEIR, including community
impacts. Questions were fielded by the project team and recorded by court reporters. Meeting
transcripts are provided in this REA /FEIR, although names of the people who submitted
comments were not noted in the transcripts. Each of the comments stated during the public
meetings are addressed in this chapter.
2.3 Comments and Responses
The comment letters and hearing transcripts reproduced in the following pages follow the same
order of presentation and organization as described in Table 2-1.
Santa Ana Garden Grave Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g 0110
January 2015
75A -68
Comment Letter No. 1
From: Maureen Sheehan - 9P2PTC [mailto:maureen.sheehan(&, sa.¢ov]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 11:24 AM
To: Gabriel, Jason
Cc: Galvez, William E.; Cavazos, David; Cathy Higley (chiglevCa,cordobacorp.com)
Subject: Re: FW: Santa Ana Transit Vision - Comment Period Extension
Jason,
Thank you for the phone call today. Like I said, we are anticipate sending you GSA and our
Tenant Agency comments the week of 7/14.
GSA's preferred alternative is Streetcar Alternative #1 where the streetcar runs on 4a` St.
Streetcar Alternative #2 is highly undesirable to GSA and our Tenant Agencies from a security
standpoint. Our comments next week will elaborate on this.
Thank you for including GSA in your review, and look forward to working with you on this
project.
75A -69
1 -1
Letter
U.S. General Services Administration
Region 9 Portfolio Management Division
Maureen Sheehan, NEPA Project Manager
400 15" St. S.W.
Auburn, WA 98001
Response 1 -1
The support for Streetcar Alternative 1 was forwarded to the decision makers for consideration.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el 12
January 2015
75A -70
Comment, Letter No. 2 .
A. STATE OF ^
CAF PLANK/
Go ernor s Office of Planning
CALIFORNIA
in5 and Research 1
mt State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit ' "r oFUrl"11
Edmund G. Brown ]r. Ken Alex
Governor Director
July 8, 2014
Jason Gabriel
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, M -36
P.O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Subject: Santa Ana and Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Corridor
SCI-1 #: 2010051060
Dear Jason Gabriel:
The State Clearinghouse subruitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On
the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listedthe state agencies that
reviewed your document. The review period closed on July 7, 2014, and the couunents,Egna the
responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed, If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State
Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten - digit State Clearinghouse number in future -
correspondence so that we, may respond promptly.
Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that;, ..
A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those.:
activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are 2 -1
required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those con'unents shall be supported by
specific document:atioa" ,,
These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need
more information or clarification of the enclosed couunents, we reconunend that you contact the
commenting agency directly. -
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review mqunernents for
draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the
State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the envirolmieutal,review -
process. - -
Sinecrely,
Scot organ
y
Director, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: 12.esddlfttb'9 a` , REET P.O. BO% 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 96912 -9044
1''+'L(916)445,061.3 I'A%(OW)323 -3018 www.oprxa.gov
75A -71
Do.cLimo— nt_Detalls..Rep -ort
State Clearinghouse data Base
SCH# 2010051060
Project Title Santa Ana and Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Corridor
Lead Agency Santa Ana, City of
Type EIR Draft EIR
Description The Santa Ana- Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project proposes to provide a new east -avast transit line
in Orange County between the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC) In the City of
Santa Ana and the Harbor Boulevard /Westminster Avenue intersection in the City of Garden Grove
Both streetcar alternatives would utilize the PE ROW through the western portion of the approximately
four mile alignment. The streetcar systems would be electrically powered using an overhead contact
system and a series of Traction Power Substations, Streetcar Alternative 1 would include 12 stations
and Streetcar Alternative 2 would include 13 stations.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Jason Gabriel
Agency City of Santa Ana
Phone 714 647 5664 Fax
ernall
Address . 20 Civic Center Plaza, M -36
P.O. Box 1988
City Santa Ana State CA Zip 92702
Project. Location.
County Orange
City Santa Ana .. ,
Region
Lat/Long 33045'9.1"N/117'52'20"W
Cross Streets
Parcel No.
Township Range Section . .Base
Proximity to:
Highways SR -22, 55; 57, 1 -5
Airports No
Railways SA PE ROW, Metrolh,k
Waterways Santa Ana River
Schools Numerous
Land Use Transportation', Industrial, Commercial
Project Issues ArchaeologicHistoric; AestheticlVisual; Air Quality; Other Issues; Noise; Traffic /Circulation; _
Wetland /Riparian; Water Quality; Toxic /Hazardous; Flood Plain /Flooding; Biological Resources;
Dralnage /Absorption; Forest Land /Fire Hazard; Geologic /Seismic; Public Services; Recreation /Parks;
Soil Erosion /Compaction /Grading; Vegetation; Water Supply; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Cumulative
Effects
Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 5; Office of Historic Preservation;
Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Cal Fire; Caltrans, District 12;
AirResources Board; Air Resources Board, Transportation Projects; Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Region 8; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission;
Public Utilities Commission
Date Received 05/23/2014 Start of Review 05/2312014
75A -72
End ofReview 07/07/2014
s
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1660 Harbor BovIevard, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 96691
1916) 3733716
ax (916) 372,5471
Web Site
Ds nehcC p.nolt --
e-maii: ds_naho ®pacbell.net
Mr. Jason Gabriel
May 30, 2014
City of Santa Ana
Public Works Authority
20 Civic Center Plaza, MS 36; P.O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Sent by U.S. Mail
No. of Pages: 4
L4
JUN 0 n 2014
STATE CLEARING Hous6
RE: SCH #2010051060 CEQA Notice of Completion;; draft Environmental.lmpact
Report (DEIR) for the "Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway
Project ;" located in the Santa Ana and Garden Grove areas; Orange Q.ounty;,
California
Dear Mr. Gabriel:
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has reviewed the
above- referenced environmental document.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that any project
which includes archeological resources, is a significant effect requiring the
preparation of an EIR (CEQA guidelines 15064.5(b).. To adequately comply.with
this provision and mitigate project - related impacts on archaeological resources;
the Commission recommends the following actions be required:
Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the ,
identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources;
pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §15064.5(f , In areas
of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally
affiliated Native American, with knowledge in cultural resources, should monitor
all ground - disturbing activities. Also, California Public Resources Code Section
21083.2 require documentation and analysis of archaeological items that meet
the standard in Section 15064.5 (a)(b)(f).
If there is federal jurisdiction of this project due to funding or regulatory
provisions; then the following may apply: the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA
42 U.S.0 4321 - 43351) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16
U.S.0 470 et seq.) and 36 CFR Part 800.14(b) require consultation with culturally
75A -73
affiliated Native American tribes to determine if the proposed project may have an
adverse impact on cultural resources
We suggest that this (additional archaeological activity) be coordinated
with the NAHC, if possible. The final report containing site forms, site
significance, and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediately to the
planning department. Any information regarding site locations, Native American
human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate
confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure pursuant
to California Government Code Section 6254.10.
A list of appropriate Native American Contacts for consultation concerning
the project site has been provided and is attached to this letter to determine if the
proposed active might impinge on any cultural resources.
California Goverment Code Section 65040.12(e) defines "environmental justice"
to provide ".fair treatment of People—with respect to the development, adoption;
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.' (The
California Code is consistent with the edsral Executive Order 12898 regarding
environmental jusfe.' Also; applicable to state °agencies is Executive Order B- 10 -1-1
requires consultation with Native American tribes their elected officials and other
representatives of tribal governments to. provide meaningful input into the development
of legislation, regulations, rules, and policies on matters that may affect tribal -;
communities.
Lead agencies should consider first, avoidance for sacred and./or historical
sites, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15370(a): Then if the project goes ahead
then, lead agencies include in their mitigation and. monitoring plan provisions for-
the analysis and disposition of recovered artifacts, pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Section,21083.2 in consultation with culturally affiliated Native.
Americans.
Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American
human remains in their mitigation plan, Health and Safety Code §7050.5, CEQA
15064.5(e)., and Publio.Resources Code. §5097.98 mandates the process to be
followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human r sins in a
location other.than a dedicated.cemete,ry:-
Program
CC: State Clearinghouse
Attachment: Native American Contacts list
75A -74
Letter2
State of California — Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Scott Morgan
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
Response 2 -1
The comment is an acknowledgement that the City of Santa Ana has complied with the State
Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents pursuant to CEQA. The
comment letter also informs the City of Santa Ana that the EA /DEIR was submitted to relevant
State agencies for review. This comment letter is not directly related to the content or
adequacy of the EA /DEIR, and no further response is necessary.
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) provided comments to the State
Clearinghouse. A response to the NAHC comment letter is provided in Comment Letter 4.
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el 17
January 2015
75A -75
Dle
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Governor
July 9, 2014
Comment Letter No. 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Jason Gabriel
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, M -36
P.O. Box 1985
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Subject: Santa Ana and Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Corridor
SCH#: 2010051060
Dear Jason Gabriel:
OF PLVNI
s
N f
PraLIFOPa,
M
Ken Alex
Director
The enclosed comment (s) on your Draft EIR was (were) received by the State Clearinghouse after the end
ofthe state review period, which closed on July 7, 2014. We are forwarding these conntrents.to you
because they provide infonmation or raise issues that should be addressed in your final; environmental
document.
The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments.
However, we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental
document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project.
Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions concerning the
environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above - named project, please refer to
the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number (2010051060) whon contacting this office.
Sincerely,
Scott r6'rgan
Director, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
1400.TENTId STRLf;T P.O. $Ott 3044 SACRAML+'NTO, CALIFORNIA 05512 -3044
TEL(010)445-0613
7
5A16) 323 -501$ www.ope.ca.gov .
3 -1
I
B JAIL UI Ult 1 Li U MU G. ORO
DEPARTMENT G1FTRANSPORTATION L4-rG_
DISTRICT 12
13347MICHELSONDRIVE, SUITE 100
IRVINE, CA 92612.8894
PHONE (949)724.2086 Serious drought,
FAX (949) 724.2592 Help save ivalerl
TTY 711
www.dotca.gov
June 20, 2014
Mr, Jason Gabriel
City of Santa Ana
Public Works Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza, M -36
Santa Ana, CA. 92701
Dear Mr. Gabriel:
C WED
JUL 0 9 2014
STATE CL.E'ARINC9 MOUSE
File: lGR/CEQA
SCH4:2010051060
Log 9: 3850
1 -5
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report
for the Santa Arna,Gar•den Grove Fixed Guideway Project. The SA-60 Fixed. Guideway
Project is a transit improvement project being considered by the Cities of Santa Ana and Garden
Grove in cooperation with OCTA and'FTA to improve mobility and provide other community
enhancements. Working together, these agencies have prepared an environmental, review of the
proposed transit improvements in the corridor, with FTA serving as the federal lead agency for
the BA under NEPA and the City of Santa Ana serving as lead agency for the DEIR under
CEQA.
The SA -GG Fixed Guideway Study Area is located in central Orange County, California and
directly accesses boththe Los Angeles -San Diego -San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) rail corridor and
the Pacific Electric right -of -way (PE ROW) rail corridor. Running predominantly man east -west
direction, the corridor extends 4.2 miles through the City of Santa Ana and into the
eastern portion of the City of Garden Grove. The Study Area is generally bounded by Harbor
Boulevard to the west, l7th Street to the north, Grand Avenue to the east, and 1 st Street to
the south. The eastern terminus of the alignment is the Santa Ana, Regional Transportation
Center (SARTC) and the western terminus is the Harbor Boulevard/Westminster Avenue "
intersection.
The California .Department of Transportation provides for the needs of travelers of all ages and
abilities in all planning, programming, design, construction, operations, and maintenance
activities and products on the State highway system. The Department views all transportation
improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in
California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the
transportation system.
Provide a safe, sustainable, le and "'(aryl iransparlalion system
o enhance Calb i Ian a7i(''Jflivability"
1
Mr. Jason Gabriel
June 20, 2014
Page 2
The Department of T'rpnsportation (Department) is a commenting agency on this
project and has no comment.at this time. However, in the event of any activity in the
Department's right of way, an encroachment permit will be required.
Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that
could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questi,qus or need
to contactus, please do not hesitate to call Aileen Kennedy at (949) 724 -223 9.
Sincerely,
ale-1 11
MAUREEN EI, HARAKE
Branch Chief, Regional. Community-Transit Planning
District 12
c Majid Ghamami, Traffic Operations North
Scott Morgan, Office of Planning and Research
Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient narecormllon Wiwi
to enhance California's economy and livability"
75A -78
Letter 3
State of California — Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Scott Morgan
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044
Response 3 -1
The comment is an acknowledgement that the City of Santa Ana has complied with the State
Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents pursuant to CEQA. The
comment letter also informs the City of Santa Ana that the EA /DEIR was submitted to relevant
State agencies for review. This comment letter is not directly related to the content or
adequacy of the EA/DEIR, and no further response is necessary.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provided comments to the State
Clearinghouse. A response to the Caltrans comment letter is provided in Comment Letter 5.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el 21
January 2015
75A -79
Comment Letter No. 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Edmuntl !3 Brown, y.. v rarnor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1650 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 96691
916)373.3716
Fax (016) 373.0471
Web Site www.n hc.ca. ov
0s_nahc parsbell.net -
e -mail: ds_nahc@paobell.net
May 30, 2014
Mr. Jason Gabriel
City of Santa Ana
Public Works Authority
20 Civic Center Plaza, MS 36; P.O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Sent by U,S. Mail
No. of Pages: 4
RE: SCH #2010051060 CEQA Notice of Completion;; draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) for the "Santa Ana — Garden Grove Fixed Guideway
Project," located in the Santa Ana and Garden Grove areas; Orange County,
California
Dear Mr. Gabriel:
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has reviewed the
above - referenced environmental document.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that any project
which includes archeological resources, is a significant effect requiring the
preparation of an EIR (CEQA guidelines 15064.5(b).. To adequately comply wit[
this provision and mitigate project - related impacts on archaeological resources,
the Commission recommends the following actions be required:
Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the
identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources,
pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §15064.5(f). In areas
of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally
affiliated Native American, with knowledge in cultural resources, should monitor
all ground - disturbing activities. Also, California Public Resources Code Section
21083.2 require documentation and analysis of archaeological Items that meet
the standard in Section 15064.5 (a)(b)(f).
4 -1
If there is federal jurisdiction of this project due to funding or regulatry
provisions; then the following may apply: the National Environmental Policy Act
o (
NEPA
4-242U.B.0 4321 - 43351) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16
U.S.0 470 et seq.) and 36 CFR Part 800.14(b) require consultation with culturally
75A -80
affiliated Native American tribes to determine if the proposed project may have an 14 -2
adverse impact on cultural resources cont.
We suggest that this (additional archaeological activity) be coordinated
with the NAHC, if possible. The final report containing site forms, site
significance, and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediately to the
planning department. Any information regarding site locations, Native American
human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate
confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure pursuant
to California Government Code Section 6254.10.
A list of appropriate Native American Contacts for consultation concerning
the project site has been provided and is attached to this letter to determine if the
proposed active might impinge on any cultural resources.
California Government Code Section 65040.12(e) defines "environmental justice'
to provide "fair treatment of People... with respect to the development, adoption,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies," (The
California Code is consistent with the Federal Executive Carder 12898 regarding
environmental justice.' Also, applicable to state agencies is Executive Order B -10 -11
requires consultation with Native American tribes their elected officials and other
representatives of tribal governments to provide meaningful input into the development
of legislation, regulations, rules, and policies on matters that may affect tribal
communities.
Lead agencies should consider first, avoidance for sacred and/or historical
sites, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15370(x). Then if the project goes ahead
then, lead agencies include in their mitigation and monitoring plan provisions for
the analysis and disposition of recovered artifacts, pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Section 21083.2 in consultation with culturally affiliated Native
Americans.
4 -3
Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American
human remains in their mitigation plan. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, CEQA
15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code §5097.98 mandates the process to be 4 -4
followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a
location other than a dedicated
ceWProgram
CC: State Clearinghouse
Attachment: Native American Contacts list
75A -81
Native American Contacts
Orange County California
May $0, 2014
Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Aclachemen Nation
David Belardes, Chairperson
32161 Avenida Los Amigos Juaneno
San Juan Capistrang CA 92675
chiefdavidbelardes@yahoo.
949) 493 -4933 - home
949) 293 -8522
Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation
John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Admin.
Private Address Gabriellno Tongva
tattniaw@gmail.com
310 -570 -6567
Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Aciachemen Notion
Teresa Romero, Chairwoman
31411 -A La Matanza Street Juaneno
San Juan Capistrang CA 92675.2674
949) 488 -3484
949) 488 -3294 - FAX
530) 354 -5876 - cell
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
Robert F. Dorame, Tribal Chair /Cultural Resources
P.O. Box 490 Gabrielino Tongva
Bellflower CA 90707
gtongvaQverizon.net
562 - 761.6417 - voice
562 - 7616417 -fax
Gabriel en / Tongv San Gabriel Band of Mission Juaneno Band of Mission IndiansAnthonyMorales, aChairperson Adolph 'Bud' Sepulveda, Vice Chairperson
PO Box 693 Gabrielino Tongva P.O. Box 25828 Juaneno
San Gabriel , CA 91778 Santa Ana , CA 92799
GTTribalcouncil@aol , com bssepul@yahoo.net
626) 286 -1232 - FAX
626) 286 -1758 - Home
626) 286.1262 -FAX
Gabrieiino (Tongva Nation
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
P.Q. Box 86908 Gabrielino Tongva
Los Angeles , CA 90056
sgoad@gabrielino- tongva.com
951 - 845 -0443
This list Is currentonly as ofthe date ofthis document.
714838 -3270
714-914 -1812 - CELL
bsepul@yahoo.net
Gabriel !no-Tongva Tribe
Bernie Acuna, Co- Chairperson
P.O. Box 180 Gabrielino
Bonsall , CA 92003
619) 294 -6660 -work
310) 428 -5690 - cell
760) 636.0854 FAX
bacunai @gabrielinotribe.org
Distribution ofthis list does not relieve any person ofthe statutory responsibility as defined In Section 7060.6 of the Health and Safety Code,
Section 6007.04 of the Public Resources Code and Section 6007.88 of the Public Resources Code,
This list a only applicable for contacting locative Americans with regard to cultural resourcesfor the proposed
SCH #2010061000; CEOA Notice of Completion; draft IEnAeonmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Santa Ana- Garderr Grown Guideway
Project; located in Orange County, California.
75A -82
Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Aejaehemen Nation
Joyce Perry, Representing Tribal Chairperson
4955 Pasec Segovia Juaneno
Irvine , CA 92612
kaamalam @gmail.com
949- 293 -8522
Gabrielino- Tongva Tribe
Linda Candelana, Co- Chairperson
P,O. Sox 180 Gabrielino
Bonsall I CA 92003
paimspringsg@yahoo.com
626 -676 -1184- cell
760) 636-0854 - FAX
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians
Andrew Sales, Chairperson
P.O. Box 393 Gabrielino
Covina I CA 91723
gabrielenoindians @yahoo.
626) 926 -4131
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Conrad Acuna,
P.O. Box 180 Gabrielino
Bonsall 1 CA 92003
760 - 636 -0854 - FAX
This list Is current only as ofthe data of this document
Native American Contacts
Orange County California
May 3% 2014
Gabrlellno /Tongva Nation
Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resorces Director
P.O. Box 86908 Gabrielino Tongva
Los Angeles , CA 900e6
samdunlap@earthlink.net
909 - 262.9351
Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of the statutory responsibility as defined In Section 7850.5 of the Health and Safety Code,
Section 0007.04 of the Public Resources Coda and Section 5087.88 of the public Resources Code.
This list s only applicable for contacting locative Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed
SCHJ12010051050; CSGA Notice of Completion; draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)'for the Santa Ana - Garden Grown Guideway
Project; located In Orange County, California.
75A -83
Letter4
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
Dave Singleton
1550 Harbor Boulevard
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Response 4 -1
The proposed project includes mitigation (Mitigation Measure CR1 on page ES -17 of the
EA /DEIR) in coordination with the California State Historic Preservation Office to account for the
possibility of accidentally discovered archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CR1 states
that:
A qualified principal investigator who meets the Secretary of the Interior's professional
qualification standards for an archeologist shall be responsible for managing Native
American archaeological resources and human remains. The qualified principal
investigator shall appoint an archaeological monitor to be present for ground- disturbing
activities that could encounter undisturbed soils. If the qualified principal investigator
determines that Native American archaeological resources and human remains are likely
present, then both an archeological monitor and a Native American monitor identified by
the principal investigator shall be present. The Native American monitor shall be a
Native American identified by the applicable tribe and /or the Native American Heritage
Commission. The timing and duration of the monitoring shall be determined by the
principal investigator based on the sensitivity of exposed sediments.
Prior to initiation of earth - disturbing activities that could encounter undisturbed soils; the
archaeological monitor shall conduct a brief awareness training session for all
construction workers and supervisory personnel. The training shall explain the
importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources.
Each worker shall learn the proper procedures to follow in the event that cultural
resources or human remains /burials are uncovered. These procedures include work
curtailment or redirection and the immediate contact of the site supervisor and the
archaeological monitor. It is recommended that this worker education session include
visual images of artifacts that might be found in the project vicinity, and that the
session take place on -site immediately prior to the start of ground- disturbing activities.
If archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during construction, all
work shall cease in the area of potential effect until the find can be addressed. The
Orange County Coroner's Office shall be contacted pursuant to procedures set forth in
Public Resources Code Section 5097 at seq. and Health and Safety Code in
Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 with respect to treatment and removal, Native
American involvement, burial treatment, and re- burial, if necessary. A fifty -foot buffer,
or more if deemed appropriate by the principal investigator, shall be established and
work outside the buffer may resume.
Areas that would not encounter undisturbed soils and would therefore not be required to
retain an archaeologist shall demonstrate to the City of Santa Ana that disturbance has
occurred through the appropriate construction plans, as -built drawings, or geotechnical
studies prior to any earth - disturbing activities.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el 26
January 2015
75A -84
Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less- than - significant level
through data recovery or other methods determined adequate by the archaeologist and
that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeological
Documentation. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the appropriate
DPR 523 form and filed with the SCCIC.
Response 4 -2
The proposed project includes federal involvement and, accordingly, the FTA, the lead agency
under the NEPA, has conducted Native American consultation in compliance with NEPA, Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Part 8OO.14(b). Refer to the Cultural Resources Evaluation Report included as Appendix F of the
EA /DEIR for detailed information related to the Native American Consultation Process. As stated
on page 3 -93 of the EA /DEIR, the initial Native American consultation process began on July 7,
2010 when letters were sent to the 15 Native American individuals or organizations included on
the list provided by the NAHC during the Notice of Preparation process. To date, no written
responses have been received. In addition, phone calls to Native American contacts were made
on September 29, 2011. Anita Espinosa, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, commented on
September 29, 2011 that the area is considered sacred lands and that she or another tribal
representative should be informed if archaeological remains be found. The Juaneno Band of
Mission Indians requests that Native American monitors be present during ground- disturbing
activities. No additional responses have been received.
Response 4 -3
See Responses 4 -1 and 4 -2. As discussed in Section 3.7.2.3 on page 3 -100 of the EA /DEIR, no
archaeological resources were identified in the Area of Potential Effects (APE) as being eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources. The
construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in adverse effects on
archaeological or historic properties. Therefore, impacts to sacred and historical sites have been
avoided. Mitigation Measure CR1 on page ES -17 of the EA /DEIR requires that an appropriate
Native American monitor be retained for ground- disturbing activities though coordination with
NAHC upon the identification of Native American Archaeological resources by the principal
investigator. The final report for ground disturbing activities containing the site forms, site
significance, and mitigation measures will be submitted to the NAHC immediately upon completion.
Response 4 -4
Mitigation Measure CRII on page ES -17 of the EA /DEIR contains provisions for the unanticipated
discovery of human remains pursuant to the procedures set forth in Public Resources Code
PRC) Section 5097 et seq. and Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 with
respect to treatment and removal, Native American involvement, burial treatment, and re- burial.
Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el 27
January 2015
75A -85
Comment Letter No. 5
5T61Fti OF CALIFORNIA-- CALIhORNIA STATII TRANSPORTATIONAGL+NCY IIDMUNDG BROWN Jr Govarnoe
DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 12
3347 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100
IRVINE, CA 92612 -8894
PHONE (949) 724.2056
FAX (949) 774 -2592
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
June 20, 2014
Mr. Jason Gabriel
City of Santa Ana
Public Works Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza, M -36
Santa Ana, CA. 92701
Dear Mr. Gabriel:
Serious draught.
Help save waterl
File: IGR/CEQA
SCH#: 2010051060
Log #: 3850
I -5
Thank you for the opportunity to review acid comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report
for the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project. The SA-GO Fixed Guideway
Project is a transit improvement project being considered by the Cities of Santa Ana and Garden
Grove in cooperation with OCTA and FTA to improve mobility and provide other community
eliliancements. Working together, these agencies have prepared an environmental review ofthe
proposed transit improvements in the corridor, with FTA serving as the federal lead agency for
the EA under NEPA and the City of Santa Ana serving as lead agency for the DEIR under
CEQA.
The SA -GG Fixed Guideway Study Area is located in central Orange County, California and
directly accesses both the Los Angeles -San Diego -San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) rail corridor and
the Pacific Electric right -of -way (PE ROW) rail corridor. Running predominantly in an east -west
direction, the corridor extends 4.2 miles through the City of Santa Ana and into the
eastern portion of the City of Garden Grove. The Study Area is generally bounded by Harbor
Boulevard to the west, 17th Street to the north, Grand Avenue to the east, and 1 st Street to
the south. The eastern terminus of the alignment is the Santa Ana Regional Transportation
Center (SARTC) and the western terminus is the Harbor Boulevard /Westminster Avenue
intersection.
The California Department of Transportation provides for the needs of travelers of all ages and
abilities in all planning, programming, design, construction, operations, and maintenance
activities and products on the State highway system. The Department views all transportation
improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in
California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the
transportation system.
Provide a safe, sustainable, integratedand e ictent transportallon system
to enhance Ca4fornia's economy andlivability "
75A -86
5 -1
Mr. Jason Gabriel
June 20, 2014
Page 2
The Department of Transportation ( Department) is a commenting agency on this
project and has no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity in the
Department's right of way, an encroachment permit will be required.
Please continue to keep us informed ofthis project and any future developments that
could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need
to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Aileen Kennedy at (949) 724 -2239.
Sincerely,
MAUREEN EL HARAKF.
Branch Chief, Regional - Community- Transit Planning
District 12
c: Majid Ghamami, Traffic Operations North
Scott Morgan, Office of Planning and Research
Provide a sofa, sustainable, integratedand ,fflcienl transportation system
to enhance Cali%o nia's economy and livability"
75A -87
5 -1
cont.
Letter 5
State of California — California State Transportation Agency
Department of Transportation District 12
Maureen El Harake, Branch Chief, Regional- Community- Transit Planning
3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92612
Response 5 -1
The comment is an acknowledgement that Caltrans is a commenting agency, but that it had no
comment on the EA /DEIR. This comment letter is not directly related to the content or adequacy
of the EA /DEIR, and no further response is necessary.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g 0130
January 2015
75A -88
Comment Letter No. 6
Hugh Nguyen
Clerk - Recorder
Orange County
Clerk- Recorder's Office
12 Civic Center Plaza, Room 106, P.O. Box 238, Santa Ana, CA 92702
web: www.oc.ca.gov /recorder/
PHONE (714) 834 -2500 FAX (714) 834 -5284
CITY OF SANTA ANA
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA (M -20 ) P.O. BOX 1988
SANTA ANA, CA 92702
Office of the Orange County Clerk - Recorder
Memorandum
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
The attached notice was received, filed and a copy was posted on 05/22/2014
It remained posted for 30 (thirty) days.
Hugh Nguyen
Cleric - Recorder
In and for the County of Orange
By: RASHAD SALAAM
Public Resource Code 21092.3
Deputy
The notice required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21092 for an environmental impact report
shall be posted in the office of the County Clerk of each county * ** in which the project will be
located and shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. The notice required pursuant to Section
21092 for a negative declaration shall be so posted for a period of20 dam, unless otherwise
required by law to be posted for 30 days. The County Clerk shall post notices within 24 hors of
rec"
Public Resource Code 21152
All notices filed pursuant to this section shall be available for public inspection, and shall be
posted*** within 24 hours of receipt in the office of the County Clerk. Each notice shall remain
posted for a period of 30 days.
Thereafter, the clerk shall return the notice to the local lead agency*** within a notation of
the period it was posted, The local lead agency shall retain the notice for not less than nine
months.
Additions or changes by underline; deletions by * **
75A -89
M
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Gnrdovvay ect
U
May 23, 2014 t tL •irr J 33IH4;101FY. !!VW1111LO101-i 1*41
Project Description and Location: The Santa Ana - Garden Grove (SA -GG) Fixed Guideway Project proposes to
provide a new east -west transit line in Orange County between the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center
SARTC) in the City of Santa Ana and the Harbor Boulevard /Westminster Avenue intersection in the City of Garden
Grove. The purpose of the SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project is to:
POSTEDImproveTransitConnectivitywithintheStudyArea;
Relieve Congestion by Providing Alternative Mobility Options; MAY 2 2 2414BeSensitivetotheCharacteroftheCommunity;
Increase Transit Options; OppNeECDUNtYCL' REC0RDER1E1M1RiMENT
Improve Transit Accessibility to and within the Study Area; and DEPUTY
Provide Benefits to the Environment through Improved Air Quality. 8Y
The build alternatives addressed in the Environmental Assessment /Draft Environmental Impact Report (EA /DEIR)
consist of a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) /Bus Alternative, Streetcar Alternatives 1 and 2, and Initial
Operating Segments for the Streetcar Alternatives (IOS) -1 and IOS -2. To reduce costs and impacts and to provide
optimum accessibility, the streetcar and IOS alternatives would operate in mixed -flow traffic on city streets and in a
dedicated "Streetcar only" guideway in the Pacific Electric Right -of -Way (PE ROW).
The TSM /Bus Alternative would improve the local transit network without construction of major new transportation
facilities. Enhancements would be achieved through low cost (i.e., small physical) improvements and operational
efficiencies. Included within the TSM Alternative are modifications and enhancements to selected bus routes in the
Study Area, including a new route between SARTC and Harbor Boulevard /Westminster Avenue; intersection /signal
improvements; and bus stop amenity upgrades.
Both streetcar alternatives would utilize the PE ROW through the western portion of the approximately four mile
alignment. The eastern portion of the Streetcar Alternative 1 alignment would operate along Santa Ana Boulevard
and 4" Street on the way to SARTC; the eastern portion of the Streetcar Alternative 2 alignment would operate
along Civic Center Drive and 5" Street between Spurgeon and Flower Streets. In harmony with the City of Santa
Ana's Complete Streets Program, Streetcar Alternative 2 will accommodate bicycle lanes along Civic Center Drive.
The streetcar systems would be electrically powered using an overhead contact system and a series of Traction
Power Substations. Streetcar Alternative 1 would include 12 stations and Streetcar Alternative 2 would include
13 stations.
IOSs, which are shorter segments of Streetcar Alternatives 1 and 2, were developed in response to funding and
phasing issues raised by fiscal constraints identified during the Orange County Transportation Authority's long -
range transportation planning process. The intent of the IOSs is to identify starter segments that could be
constructed and operated until funding is assembled to complete the projects. Both IOS -1 and IOS -2 terminate at
the Raitt Street /Santa Ana Boulevard intersection, rather than the Harbor Boulevard/ Westminster Avenue
intersection. Both IOS Alternatives include the same project features and design options as their respective full
alignment build alternatives between Raitt Street and SARTC.
Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts: The EA /DEIR was prepared by the City of Santa Ana as the local
lead agency, and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as the federal lead agency, to satisfy the requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EA /DEIR
examines the potential impacts that may result from implementation of the proposed alternatives and identifies
75A -90
mitigation measures. The proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts in four resource areas:
hazardous materials; noise and vibration; safety and security; and construction air quality. Mitigation measures
would eliminate the significant impacts associated with hazardous materials, noise and vibration, and
safety /security. Significant construction air quality impacts under CEQA would remain after the implementation of
mitigation; however, it should be noted that construction - related air quality Impacts would be temporary. In
addition to mitigation measures, design features and best management practices have been incorporated into the
proposed project. These include a Traffic Management Plan, a Noise and Vibration Control Plan, and a number of
features to manage water quality.
Availability of the EAIDEIR Documents: The EA /DEIR for this project may be reviewed online at
www.santaanatransitvision.com /fixed .nuidewav proiect.htrnl. A hardcopy may be reviewed at the following
locations:
Location_ Address
Santa Ana City Hall Public Works Counter 20 Civic Center Plaza, Ross Annex, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Santa Ana City Hall City Clerk's Office 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Santa Ana Public Library 26 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Sal ado Center, Rosita Park 706 N. Newho a St., Santa Ana, CA, 92703
Santa Ana Train Station 1000 E. Santa Ana Boulevard, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Garden Grove C(ty Hall Public Engineering Counter 11 11 Floor). 11222 Acacia Parkway, Garden Grove, CA 92842
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) 600 S. Main Street Orange, CA 92868
Review Period: The comment period on this EA /DEIR will be 45 days beginning May 23, 2014. Comments that will
be addressed and included in the EA /Final EIR must be submitted in writing to one of the following addresses on or
before the end of the public comment period or submitted at the public hearings described below. Comments
cannot be accepted by phone.
Mail: Mr. Jason Gabriel
City of Santa Ana, Public Works Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza, M -36
P.Q. Box 1988
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Emall: fixedguidewaycomments@santa- ana.org
Fax': (714) 647 -5635
Online: http:// www. santaanatransitvision .com/contact_form.htm!
POSTEDE
MAY 2 2 2014
ORNt13E COUNTY C E K•RECOaDER DEPARTMENT
BY: DEPUTY
Written comments should be submitted no later than 5:00 PM on Monday, July 7, 2014
Public Hearing Schedule: The City of Santa Ana will also accept comments on the EA /DEIR at the following dates,
times, and locations (please note that there will be a time limit per commenter):
Date Time Location
Saturday, June 14, 2014 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p "m Garfield Community Center, 501 N. Lacy, Santa
Ana CA 92701
Tuesday, June 17, 2014 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Santa Ana Police Department Community Room,
60 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Thursday, June 19, 2014 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Goodwill Industries, 412 N. Fairview Street, Santa
Ana, CA 92701
75A -91
ADA and Language Accommodation: Interpreters will be provided for Spanish and Vietnamese. If you require an
interpreter in another language, including sign language, or other accommodations at these public hearings, please
contact the City of Santa Ana five days prior to the hearing at (714) 647 -5013.
For more information, please visit the project website at www.santaanatransitvision.com / fixed_guideway_
project.htmi.
i
MAY 2 2 2014
ORANGE COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER DEPARTMENT
OA . DEPUTY
75A -92
Letter 6
Orange County
Clerk- Recorder's Office
12 Civic Center Plaza, Room 106
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Response 6 -1
The comment is an acknowledgement that the Notice of Availability of the EA /DEIR has been
received, filed, and posted for 30 days in compliance with the noticing and filing requirements of
Sections 21080.4 and 21092 of the PRC. This comment letter is not directly related to the
content or adequacy of the EA /DEIR, and no further response is necessary.
Santa Ana Garden Grave Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR
January 2015
75A -93
Page135
Comment Letter No. 7
Santa Ana Historical
Preservation Society
Dr.'Willelia Howe -Waffle House & Medical Musetun
120 Civic Center Drive West, FN
Sand Ana, CA 92701 -7505
R Legacy ofPnsert afiae Since f9T4 (714) 547 -9645 ° www SantaAnalristory.com
July 7, 2014
Mr. William Galvez, Interim Executive Director
City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza, M -36
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment/ Draft Environmental
Impact Report for the Santa Ana and Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
Dear Mr. Galvez:
The Santa Ana Historical Preservation Society (SAHPS) would like to thank you for the
opportunity to comment on the above - referenced document. Our comments on the 7.1
Environmental Assessment /Draft Environmental impact Report for the Santa Ana and Garden
Grove Fixed Guideway Project" follow.
SAHPS operates the Dr. Willella Howe -Waffle House and Medical Museum at 120 Civic Center
Drive West in Downtown Santa Ana. The 125 year old Queen Anne style Victorian also serves
as the headquarters for SAHPS. in reviewing the subject environmental document, we found a
few errors regarding the Howe -Waffle House.
In Table 3.4 -1 on page 3 -33 ( "Section 4 (F) Resources "), the address of the Howe - Waffle House
and Carriage Barn is incorrectly listed in Item #15. The address should be changed to 120 Civic
Center Drive West.
In Table 3.7 -1 on page 3 -95, the address for the Howe Waffle House is also listed incorrectly in
Item #33, as "120 East Civic Center Drive."
Also, in the "French Park" section on page 3 -42 the document describes the Howe -Waffle House
as being in French Park. This is not correct. We suggest that discussion of the Howe Waffle
House be moved to the "Downtown Santa Ana" section on page 3 -44.
75A -94
7 -2
SAHPS is assuming that, despite the location of the Howe - Waffle House being incorrect in theinstancescitedabove, there would be no acquisition of the existing property at 120 Civic Center 7 -3
Drive West. Is this assumption correct?
A second major concern for SAHPS Is the proposed work within the right -of -way for Streetcar
Alternative 2. Figure 2 -5 on page 2 -12 ( "Civic Center Drive Bike Lane ") illustrates a section of
Civic Center Drive showing the existing traffic lanes and sidewalk dimensions compared with the
proposed dimensions adding the streetcar, its platform and bike lanes.
Since it is not described, we're not sure where Figure 2 -5 is located. We know it is not a typical
section for the stretch of West Civic Center Drive between Main on the east and Sycamore on
the west. In that section, the existing public sidewalk on the south side of Civic Center Drive
between Main and Sycamore Streets is 8'0' wide. The width of the existing sidewalk on the
south side of Civic Center Drive as shown in Figure 2 -5 is 12'0 ". Without further clarification we
cannot be certain how the existing right -of -way for the Howe -Waffle House will be affected by
Streetcar Alternative 2.
7 -4
Also, on page ES -7 of the Executive Summary, the document states, "Streetcar Alternative 2
would require additional right -of -way to accommodate the bicycle lane." Again, it is unciear 7-5
where acquisition of this additional right -of -way would occur.
SAHPS is very concerned about how improvements in the right -of -way to accommodate the
streetcar alignment and bike lanes would affect the Howe -Waffle House at 120 Civic Center
Drive West, and if the acquisition of additional right -of -way would be necessary. Accordingly, 7 -5
SAHPS cannot support Streetcar Alternative 2 without this clarification.
In conclusion, SAHPS supports Streetcar Alternative 1 as proposed. We believe it will promote ImorevisitorstoDowntownSantaAnaandreducecurrentvehicleandparkingdemandsonthe 7-7
existing street system.
SAHPS appreciates the opportunity to comment on the subject environmental document. If any
of our comments require clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me at 714/ 550 -9369 or 17-8
via email at miramarl274 @att.net.
Sincerely,
Alan Lawson
Associate Director, SAHPS
SAHPS fixed guideway comments]
cc: Alison Young, President, SAHPS
Roberta Deed, Treasurer, SAHPS
75A -95
Letter
Santa Ana Historical Preservation Society
Alan Lawson
120 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Response 7 -1
The comment is an acknowledgement that the EA /DEIR has been reviewed by the Santa Ana
Historical Preservation Society (SAHPS). This comment is not directly related to the content or
adequacy of the EA /DEIR, and no further response is necessary.
Response 7 -2
Details regarding the location of the Howe - Waffle House have been corrected and identified in
the Chapter 3.0, Corrections and Additions. The correct address is 120 Civic Center Drive
West. This has been corrected in Table 3.4 -1 on page 3 -33 of the EA /DEIR and Table 3.7 -1 on
page 3 -94 of the EA /DEIR. In addition, the discussion of the Howe - Waffle House has been
moved from the French Park discussion on page 3 -42 of the EA /DEIR to Downtown Santa Ana
discussion on page 3 -44 of the EA /DEIR.
Response 7 -3
The commenter is correct in that no acquisition of the existing property located at 120 Civic
Center Drive West would be required for the proposed project.
Response 7 -4
Figure 2 -5 on page 2 -12 of the EA /DEIR has been relabeled to show Civic Center Drive West
from Flower to Parton Streets. The section of Streetcar Alternative 2 and IOS -2 in front of the
Howe - Waffle House can be viewed in Appendix 0, Section A, on Drawing No. TR -26 (page 79).
As shown in this drawing, the sidewalk width in front of the Howe - Waffle House would remain
at 8 feet. Along Civic Center Drive West, the proposed alignment would be located on the north
side of the street as it travels west and the only acquisitions, as shown in Figure 3.3 -4 on page
3 -22 of the EA /DEIR and Table 3.3 -5 on page 3 -23 of the EA /DEIR, would occur on the north
side of the street. The right -of -way in front of the Howe - Waffle House, on the southern side of
Civic Center Drive West, would remain unchanged with Streetcar Alternative 2 and IOS -2. The
proposed project and IOS -1 would travel along 5`" Street to the south and not along Civic Center
Drive West.
Response 7 -5
The text on page ES -7 of the EA /DEIR has been revised to clarify that the additional right -of -way
required for the bike lane proposed under Streetcar Alternative 2 would be located on the north
side of Civic Center Drive West. No acquisition of the Howe - Waffle House, which is on the
south side of the street, would be required. In addition, the right -of -way required for the bike
lane is in order to separate the bike lane from the streetcar station platform areas which would
be located on the east side of Broadway and Main Streets. Both locations are located more than
Santa Ana•Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el 38
January 2015
75A -96
200 feet from the Howe - Waffle House. The acquisition is shown in Figure 3.3 -4 on page 3 -22
of the EA /DEIR and would involve a full take (18,719 square feet) of the property at the
northeast corner of Main Street and Civic Center Drive West (Burger King) and a partial take
730 square feet) of the property at the northeast corner of Broadway Street and Civic Center
Drive West (St. Joseph's workshop).
Response 7 -6
The right -of -way in front of the Howe - Waffle House, on the southern side of Civic Center Drive
West, would remain unchanged with Streetcar Alternative 2 and IOS -2. The proposed project
and IOS -1 would travel along 5th Street to the south and not along Civic Center Drive West. See
Responses 7 -4 and 7 -5 for additional information in response to this comment.
Response 7 -7
The support for Streetcar Alternative 1 was forwarded to the decision makers for consideration.
Response 7 -8
The comment is not directly related to the content or adequacy of the EA /DEIR, and no further
response is necessary.
Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR
January 2015
75A -97
Payol39
July 7, 2014
7 n!;t 9nis
r „•l
SANTA ANA 'A.OMMUNITY
BUSINESS ALLIANCE
Comment Letter No. 8
Mndeleine Spencer
333 Gast 916 it 303
Santa Ana, CA 92701
714 -815 -2653
spenel 111(ii;;mail.chapman.edu
City Manager David Cavazos, City Attorney Sonia Carvalhe, Mayor Pulido, Council
Members & City Staff,
SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO SANTA ANA'S FIXED GUIDEWAY
STREETCAR) PROJECT CONNECTING TO GARDEN GROVE
Dear City of Santa Ana,
Over the next several years, construction of a fixed guideway project on Pourfll
Street will cause a contraction in spending in the corridor which over the course of the 8 -1
construction will result in a cumulative decline in aggregate demand for the products
currently sold by merchants on this street. This will severely test businesses in a time
when the economy has already severely slowed. The fact that the city has proposed this
as their "preferred route” raises many questions as to whether this proposed plan is in fact
a marker of sorting, and has re- reminded business owners on Fourth Street of the many
previous attempts that have been made by the city since 1985 to agitate long standing
businesses along this street.
This process of agitation began with the marked failure to redevelop the area
originally larown as the Fiesta Marketplace, this was first proposed in official records 85-
432141. Redevelopment procedures for Fourth Street which would harm business owners 8 -2
re- emerged in the "Renaissance Plan," which resulted in a series of policies of unequal
and differential investment of public and private resources on this street beginning with
the "Fourth Street Fagade Program" and in the 2008 establishment of "CID" or the
Community Improvement District for the same area which without the knowledge of a
majority of the business owners was conspired to only benefit a few businesses along the
corridor who profited from the tripled property tax assessments by way of what was
referred to as "Property Based Improvement Districts" or PBIDs which was found illegal
by the Grand Jury in accordance with the California Penal Code 993 and 993:1 The £act
that now in June of 2014 the city has sought again to pursue a fixed guideway (streetcar $ 3
75A -98
project) though 4th street having again only informed "a few individual businesses" as
was stated by City Manager David Cavazos in the first EIR proceeding on June 14, 2014
where only two business owners, out of 10 other residents who were in attendance, had
attended. After inquiring further along the Fourth Street Corridor as to who had been.
informed it was found that a majority of the businesses along the corridor were uniformed
about the upcoming project. This is disturbing because the businesses know that the city
has no problem of communicating with business owners when they have a code violation,
as only months before many of the businesses along the fourth street corridor were
unsuspectingly ticketed for code violations during the Cisco de Mayo Event. This
showing that the city has every ability to inform businesses of violations yet seem to have
little ability to inform them of processes that may well affect their livelihood for years to
come. It is felt by many that this guideway running down Fourth Street in fact constitutes
not only a disenfranchisement but also a disservice to much of the Merchant constituency
along this street.
Another concern is with regard to the Santa Anita Neighborhood directly behind
the Willowick Golf Course. There are already visible signs of displacement occurring in Ithisneighborhoodandthereareconcernsabouthowthethisguidewayprojectwill
further affect the prospect of displacement of the residents in this neighborhood:
For all of the above stated reason as well as the following reasons 1.) Lack of
inclusion in the planning process, 2.) Questionable objectives for specified project, ',
sorting 3.) Project costs 4.) Disruptive construction, vacant properties, displacement, and
5.) Public safety issues, this statement of opposition not only opposes this project route
but also request an Equity Assessment be. done to mitigate further affects in the rest ofthe
city in relation to of unequal investment, borders, invisibilization, spatial hgmogencity,
exclusion from governance, serial displacement and social disintegration, all the injuries
that would be caused by further sorting in the city of Santa Ana. The requirement fora
transport equity analysis was initiated by U.S. Executive Order 12898 (1994) codified a
renewed concern about the effects of the government's activities on minority and low-
income populations.
Sincerely,
Madeleine Spencer
President
Emmanuel Ceballos
Vice President
75A -99
8 -3
cont.
8 -4
M
tri Rt " ;; q iqii
DECLARO MI OPOSICION A LA "OPCION PREFERENCIAL" ¢ L TRFN-ELOT9 7QUE LA CIUDAD DE SANTA ANA
TIENE PROYECTADO PARA CONECTAR FOR ESTA VIA CON GARDEN GROVE
F,
r.i....,
NAME ADDRESS Telehone
1 Elia Fitz 1910 N. Spurgeon st # 20Santa Ana CA 92701
2 Jose Olegario Perez 1239 Magnolia sve Santa Ana CA 92707
3 Maximo Navarro 1239 Magnolia sve Santa Ana CA 92707
4 David Manzo 2803 W. Warner # B Santa Ana CA 92707
5 Francisco Pro. 417 E. Pine st Santa Ana CA 92701
6 Adriana Hernandez 3632 S Main st Santa Ana CA
7 Teresa M. Julio 8202 19th st Westminster CA 92683
8 Alicia Meza 100W Midway spc 213 Anaheim, CA 92805
9 Erick Leyva 3328 W. Camille st Santa Ana CA 92701
10 Gina Torres 112 E. Edinger Santa Ana CA 92707
11 Bienvenida Guzman 4117 W. Mc. Fadden ave
12 Sus! Lopez 2701 W. st Andrew PI Santa Ana CA 92704
75A -100
714 -605 -8900
714- 561 -4238
714 -727 -4427
714 - 376 -7925
714 -631 -1792
714- 552 -5260
714 -605 -1833
714 -B09 -6282
714 - 824 -2921
714- 605 -1358
714 - 805 -4757
up
cO00U
3 O
w I p E
c gg
y' rn
p
C
p
AP'
Ai
R
ry9y
cgs
X 4MEOCV" ybpp0 d y O V Q `1 A p' 'r O OaWrir•(: V N v% N QNNf' vii 7V{
9 y4O^ N e V G 1• M M C N Y1i r VJtiNIdN r a
gp r A 2• V U a fin O F JFtiy V
C
OODU
E
1' Cp A C O l
M cq yy 4
W y V1 L F d
Oro'
o ipcf, a d cvRi"aw.° o° m"v• °co Q.
N V N R '- 'u a R ^w v q u' •° o '°
ryry
u V U'J
75A -101
OODU
0
go
0 Z
7
o O3 t7 C i
RO 'o
49 0
vmc/2 'a' A 6 - A w
aN+
o, 2.
r A;H A A'S
2E5
o
1A Q IPN ;4P z >
o 0GV
0
SP 2 Z5
mw FlWZ2 a y
CG '
40
cw
bo
c) Z
u NV,
ON
in
C, s,
le,
u G.
O
or
z
75A -102
CO 00
P.
ka
V3
2,2
T VI
As 442 _El 5L.
1'a 'A L,
14 C4
u
8
tl
15 1
I m D 9- ti
Ell .1
2'r 1 F.9u
0 V
z t
m2Z w
z 7* 2 A
v
C) Z W 0 9
0 Q U
ai
mF
0 W,
t I CD 6
ELI.
00
7
75A -103
OV
Z "I
O ,
q
z 0 7s z
a. o
r3, Lj
ov<
NI 0
t 5 r 4
20 11 - I fi zi
p uuuu
lz
CO C
n.
0
04k.:: -'. Z Lo
C,
8 AL
m
15 z
P 2 -,4
2
igE551 >
Z:- 90
44 a tM
Ll 0
al
A :2 13
a Div,
Feu02 a a
U
z M
75A -104
OD U
4r
cz
JR g g
INEEO .,@9uu
co 0
ts
a.t2
z Pt
uu 31.
el 4j
12 w
49
75A -105
0
t;
2 0.0
am V
P.8
R u
9's
nn
k5
Ei
u 010- iz
000U
12 V;
0 p
2Rui
WU
m
go
C-)
U&„
rn
E
jj =
71
6A.
Z:7
o-
0 <
75A -106
it
1 0
cr 87-
X
Fl
QZ
HA
ZQ
u0 rf
Fjr.'2LJr!
02
2:2:2
El,
Wx
0
10
w Q u 7
75A -107
Letter 8
Santa Ana Community & Business Alliance (SAC -BA)
Madeleine Spencer
333 East 9`h #303
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Response 8 -1
Construction details and associated impacts are discussed on page 3 -197 of the EA /DEIR.
Construction of the proposed project would have temporary impacts on vehicle and pedestrian
access and require minimal pavement cuts. These temporary construction related adjustments
would allow businesses in the area to continue to serve customers with minimized disruption. It
is not anticipated that any businesses within the Study Area outside of the project footprint
would have to temporarily or permanently cease operations due to construction activity. The
overall duration of construction activities is anticipated to be 30 months; however, the duration
of concentrated construction activities would be no more than six months at one location along
the alignment. In addition, noncontiguous segments can be constructed at the same time.
Construction would be completed in coordination with Downtown stakeholders and the business
community in order to minimize potential impacts from construction, such as coordinating work
at night and on weekends. The long -term benefits for the businesses within the Study Area
include greater pedestrian and transit access for employees and customers alike.
Response 8 -2
With regards to the Renaissance Plan, Fourth Street Facade Program, Community Improvement
District (CID), and Property Based Improvement District (PBID), the proposed project would only
involve the construction of a streetcar along the proposed alignment. None of the alternatives
for this project include redevelopment or propose the establishment of a CID or PBID.
The purpose of the SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project is to:
Improve Transit Connectivity within the Study Area;
Relieve Congestion by Providing Alternative Mobility Options;
Be Sensitive to the Character of the Community;
Increase Transit Options;
Improve Transit Accessibility to and within the Study Area; and
Provide Benefits to the Environment through Improved Air Quality.
Section 2.9 on page 2 -29 of the EA /DEIR describes the selection and evaluation of alternatives
for the project. The alternatives analysis process consisted of four major steps: (1) Preliminary
Definition of Alternatives, which included creating a range of conceptual alternatives that could
potentially satisfy the Purpose and Need and meet the goals and objectives for the project; (2A)
Initial Screening (Route Options) to eliminate route options with fatal flaws and those that do not
satisfy the Purpose and Need and meet the goals and objectives of the project; (213) Initial
Screening (Technology Options) to eliminate technology options with fatal flaws and those that
do not satisfy the Purpose and Need and meet the goals and objectives of the project and
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a cJ 0150
January 2015
75A -108
determine the reduced set of alternatives to be carried forward for detailed analysis; and (3)
Detailed Evaluation and Environmental Impact Analysis of the reduced set of alternatives and
selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative. The EA /DEIR provided the City with a comparison
of environmental impacts between the alternatives.
The routes for the alternative alignments were based on ridership, engineering constraints, and
environmental factors. The potential disruption to businesses is discussed on page 3 -197 of the
EA /DEIR. The most disruptive construction activities would be limited to a 24 -month period;
however, these activities would be sequenced by segment so that any one segment would
experience disruption for a portion (no more than six months) of the construction duration. As
stated on page 3 -202 of the EA/DEIR, access to businesses would be maintained during
business operating hours. In addition, the second sentence in the second to last paragraph on
page 3 -202 of the EA /DEIR has been revised to state that signage would be posted to alert
customers that businesses are open during construction and wayfinding to businesses whose
access is disrupted. Signs would also be posted alerting nearby businesses of temporary lane
reductions, weekend or nighttime closures, and /or detours. Construction would be completed in
coordination with Downtown stakeholders and the business community in order to minimize
potential impacts from construction, such as coordinating nighttime or weekend work. In
addition, the Downtown portion of the alignment would be constructed at the beginning of the
construction process to limit impacts to businesses.
Response 8 -3
Section 2.9 on page 2 -29 of the EA /DEIR describes the public outreach for the development of
alternatives, scoping, and circulation of the EA /DEIR. Section 3.5 on page 3 -61 of the EA /DEIR
discusses additional public outreach in relation to targeting environmental justice (EJ)
populations. Beginning in 2008 and continuing throughout project development to March 2014,
in preparation for the public review of the EA /DEIR, the City of Santa Ana conducted outreach to
the Downtown businesses. The City's multi - lingual outreach team conducted door -to -door visits
to approximately 230 businesses in the Downtown area, including approximately
156 businesses along 41 Street. The purpose of the outreach was to share key information with
Downtown business and property owners about the SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project, inform
them about the upcoming release of the EA/DEIR, document questions and input, and provide
business owners with appropriate contact information for additional follow -up. A "Sorry We
Missed You" letter and information packet was also prepared and left behind for business
owners who were not available during the initial visit. The letter offered a briefing with the
outreach team to review the project information packet.
Regarding public outreach to potentially affected business owners along 4m Street, extensive efforts
were conducted to involve the public and stakeholders in the successful planning for the
implementation of a streetcar along the alignment and through the Downtown area. Prior to the
release of the EA/DEIR, numerous meetings were held with stakeholders throughout the Study Area
to obtain input and provide updates on the SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project. Community meetings
were held with the Lacy neighborhood, the French Park neighborhood, the Santiago Lofts
Homeowners Association, the Santa Ana Senior Center, and many other stakeholders. Stakeholder
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el 51
January 2015
75A -109
comments were collected and recorded at each meeting. In addition, a series of Stakeholder
Working Group meetings were held to involve key business people and leaders in the community.
Below is a list of organizations which received presentations on the proposed project:
French Park Association
Kennedy Commission
Santa Ana Collaborative for Responsible Development
Santiago Lofts Homeowners Association
Artesia Filar Neighborhood Association
Labor Union Members
Federal Courthouse
Santa Ana Senior Center
Stakeholders Working Group
Santa Ana City Council
Santa Ana Restaurant Association
Temple Calvario
State Appellate Court
Orange County Superior Court
Rancho Santiago Community College District Board of Trustees
Lacy Neighborhood
SARTC Community Meeting to discuss the Santa Ana Train Station
Board of Directors, Santa Ana Merchants Association
Downtown Inc
Santa Ana Merchants Association
Santa Ana Unified School District
Stakeholders Working Group Advisory Committee
One -on -one briefings with 140 Downtown Businesses
Santa Ana City College
Railway Association of Southern California
Santa Ana Unified School District Board
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
Everest College /Corinthian College
Santa Ana Resource Network
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Transportation Authority Transportation 2020 Committee
Federal Transit Administration
California Public Utilities Commission staff
County of Orange Supervisors and staff
In accordance with CEQA and NEPA regulations, the Notice of Availability of the EA /DEIR for
public review was filed and posted at the Orange County Clerk- Recorder's Office in compliance
with PCR Sections 21080.4 and 21092; advertised in the local newspaper; flyers were
distributed at every community center in the City of Santa Ana; outreach was also conducted
via social media; and a press release was covered by at least three different news organizations.
Although not required under CEQA or NEPA regulations, available data from County Assessor
and City property records were used to establish a list of property owners and tenants within
500 feet of the alignment. There were 3,796 postcards delivered to property owners, business
owners, tenants, and residents related to EA /DEIR availability for public review. Hard copies of
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el 52
January 2015
75A -110
the notifications and document were also made available at different locations (Santa Ana City
Hall Public Works Counter, Santa Ana City Hall City Clerk's Office, Santa Ana Public Library,
Salgado Center, Rosita Park, Santa Ana Train Station, Garden Grove City Hall, and OCTA), as
well as online on the City of Santa Ana website.
Response 8 -4
As shown in Figure 3.3 -2 on page 3 -20 of the EA /DEIR, none of the alternatives would result in
the full acquisition of property or the displacement of residents and tenants within the
referenced Santa Anita Neighborhood directly behind the Willowick Golf Course. Near the Santa
Anita Neighborhood, the proposed alignment would be constructed entirely within the PE ROW
and no residents would be displaced within this area. It is not anticipated that the proposed
project would affect existing vacant properties and the increased accessibility upon
implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to cause future property vacancies.
Response 8 -5
The following response directly relates to each of the points the commenter made regarding
1) lack of inclusion in the planning process, (2) questionable objectives for specified project,
3) project costs, (4) disruptive construction, vacant properties, displacement, and (5) public
safety issues.
1) Lack of inclusion in the planning process. See Response 8 -1 regarding public outreach.
Specific outreach efforts were conducted to include communities of EJ concern, particularly
Limited English Proficiency.(LEP) communities, in the planning process. The following activities
were conducted specifically to ensure participation from communities of EJ concern, per
requirements under Executive Orders 12898 and 13166:
Identifying and meeting with environmental justice stakeholders, including Templo Calvario,
neighborhood associations, community groups, and senior centers.
Established a project information hotline with outgoing messages in English and Spanish.
Translated and submitted notices for publication in the following local Spanish language
newspapers:
Excelsior (Spanish language weekly of the Orange County Register on May 24, 2010)
Miniondas (June 3, 2010)
Conducted visits by a multi - lingual outreach team to approximately 230 Downtown
businesses, including approximately 156 along 4`h Street to provide information about the
project, the upcoming release of the EA /DEIR, and contact information for additional follow-
up.
2) Questionable objectives for specified project. The proposed project is a transit improvement
project being considered by the Cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove in cooperation with OCTA
and FTA to improve mobility and provide other community enhancements. The proposed
project's objectives are derived from the need for transportation improvements in the Study
Area, which address a variety of community issues. The identification of these needs and
corresponding goals and objectives are stated in Table 1 -1 on page 1 -14 of the EA /DEIR.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g e153
January 2015
75A -111
3) Project costs. Comparative costs were presented in Table ES -1 on page ES -15 of the
EA /DEIR, and shown below, to allow for public input and for consideration by the decision -
makers prior to taking any action on the proposed project.
TABLE ES-1: PRELIMINARY CAPITAL ST ESTIMATES (IN 2011 $1,000,000)
Low High
Streetcar
Alternative 1
Alternative
TSM
Annual Revenue Miles
14.5
419,120
Streetcar 1
363,459
197.4
105,664
209.7
Streetcar 2
32,656
217.0
22
228.1
IDS -1
7
146.5
13,282,258
158.8
I0S -2
6,110,656
166.2
12.51
177.2
Source: Cordoba Corporation, Santa Ana and Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Corridor Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Report,
April 2014,
Streetcar Alternatives 1 and 2 include the same two design options for the maintenance facility
and the facilities proposed to be constructed on each of these sites are identical. The cost
difference between the options is approximately $11 million, and is related to the estimated cost
to acquire the right -of -way. Operations & Maintenance Facility Site A would cost approximately
37.4 million and Operations & Maintenance Facility Site B would cost approximately
26.4 million.
Operations & Maintenance cost projections are important for assessing cost effectiveness and to
conduct financial planning. The TSM bus costs were estimated based on current transit cost
information provided by OCTA. The Operations & Maintenance cost projections for the streetcar
alternatives were based on operating cost per revenue hour derived from historical Portland and
Seattle bus -to- streetcar Operations & Maintenance cost per revenue vehicle hour ratios. These
ratios were averaged and applied to the OCTA bus cost per revenue vehicle hour. The estimated
Operations & Maintenance cost for each build alternative is summarized in Table ES -2 on page
ES -16 and shown below.
TABLE ES 2: ANNUAL 0 M COST ESTIMATES
TSM
TSM - SARTC to
Harbor Route Only
Streetcar
Alternative 1
Streetcar
Alternative 2
Annual Revenue Miles 1,061,590 419,120 332,015 363,459
Annual Revenue Hours 105,664 35,152 26,364 32,656
Peak Vehicles 22 8 6 7
Annual 0 & M Costs 13,282,258 5,100,000 4,933,284 6,110,656
Cost Per Revenue Mile 12.51 1 $12.07 1 $14.86 1 $16.81
Cost Per Revenue Hour 125.70 1 $143.94 1 $187.12 1 $187.12
Source: Cordoba Corporation, Santa Ana and Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Corridor Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Report,
April 2014.
Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g e154
January 2015
75A -112
4) Disruptive construction, vacant properties, displacement. Construction details and
associated impacts are discussed on page 3 -197 of the EA/DEIR. A comprehensive community
outreach program would be developed prior to the start of construction activities. For business
owners and commercial property owners, the disruption of construction activities would involve
multiple construction crews operating along the corridor simultaneously. As stated on page
3 -202 of the EA /DEIR, access to businesses would be maintained during business operating
hours. In addition, the second sentence in the second to last paragraph on page 3 -202 of the
EA/DEIR has been revised to state that signage would be posted to alert customers that
businesses are open during construction and wayfinding to businesses whose access is
disrupted. Signs would also be posted alerting nearby businesses of temporary lane reductions,
weekend or nighttime closures, and /or detours. Construction would be completed in
coordination with Downtown stakeholders and the business community in order to minimize
potential impacts from construction, such as coordinating nighttime or weekend work. It is not
anticipated that the proposed project would affect existing vacant properties. The proposed
project does not include a land use development component other than the maintenance facility.
Acquisitions requiring displacement would comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act). Acquisitions related to the build
alternatives are shown in Table 3.3 -5 on page 3 -23 of the EA /DEIR and shown below. The
proposed project would result in three full acquisitions and six partial acquisitions; Streetcar
Alternative 2 would result in six full and ten partial acquisitions; IOS -1 would result in four full
and two partial acquisitions; and IOS -2 would result in five full and six partial acquisitions. The
amount and type of private property acquisitions were found to result in less- than - significant
impacts.
5) Public safety issues. Modern streetcars operate similar to buses in city streets, moving with
the flow of traffic and allowing passenger pick -up and drop off at designated stops. Public
outreach and education programs would be offered to familiarize local residents and business
owners with the new streetcar system.
In addition, the system would be required to meet the federal requirements of 49 CFR Part 659
and State requirements of California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order 164D.
These regulations require fixed guideway systems to establish system safety and security
programs. Based on the establishment of the safety and security programs, hazards and
security threats would be minimized. In addition, CPUC must certify that the project is safe and
secure before the project can be placed in revenue service. Following construction, the project
would be operated in accordance with OCTA standard operating procedures, operator rules, and
the emergency plan. The EA /DEIR analyzed potential public safety impacts and addressed safety
concerns associated with schools; Mitigation Measures SAF1 through SAFE, identified in
Section 3.15.3 on page 3 -195 of the EA/DEIR, would be implemented as part of the project.
These measures include lighting, fencing, signage and education delivered to students and
parents to warn of potential hazards. The EA/DEIR found that with implementation of mitigation
measures, no adverse safety impacts would occur.
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g 0155
January 2015
75A -113
The last portion of the comment requested an equity assessment for the proposed project. An
EJ analysis, which identifies minority and low- income populations and evaluates whether the
adverse effects of the proposed project would disproportionately burden these vulnerable
populations, was included in Section 3.5 of the EA /DEIR. This analysis was completed using
prescribed methodology by the FTA, which was developed in response to Executive Order
12898 and is consistent with U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Order 561O2(a) and
FTA Circular 4703.1. In determining the adverse effects, the project must consider both short -
term and long -term consequences and weigh them against the benefits of the proposed project.
As shown in Table 3.5 -2 on page 3 -49 of the EA /DEIR, and presented below, all of the
communities within the Study Area are considered EJ populations. The communities closest to
the alignment would benefit the most from increased accessibility and connectivity but would be
subject to temporary construction effects. Section 3.5.2.3 of the EA/DEIR provides a detailed
evaluation of the potential EJ effects for each community within the Study Area. Additional
detail is provided in the Community Impact Assessment, which is included as Appendix C of the
EA /DEIR.
The EA/DEIR determined that the proposed project would have no adverse health and
environmental effects related to land use, visual quality, cultural resources, geotechnical
conditions, hazardous materials, hydrology, traffic, noise and vibration, air quality and
greenhouse gases, and safety and security.
Transportation effects from the project are expected to be beneficial because of the improved
accessibility and connectivity provided by the new transit service. The benefits to transit users
would include improved access to employment and activity centers. The proposed project
would distribute station amenities, parking, improved jobs and housing access, and other
beneficial project features.
Construction activity would occur along the project alignment and at stations and staging areas,
which would affect all communities along the alignment equally. These effects are described in
Response 8 -1 and in more detail in Section 3.16 on page 3 -197 of the EA /DEIR. Transit service
is meant to serve where the demand is greatest, and these areas are often have more
development intensity are likely to be affect by construction activity. However, these short -term
construction effects would be outweighed by the long -term permanent beneficial impacts that
would affect EJ populations.
Since the EJ communities within the Study Area would be the primary recipients of the benefits
of the project, there would not be a denial in the receipt of benefits to minority and low- income
populations.
Response 8 -6
The Declaration of Opposition from 12 business owners for the same reasons as stated in the
above comments was forwarded to the decision makers for consideration.
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR
January 2015
75A -114
Pagel56
75A -115
tts
s
w
4
Q_
R
SJ
0
c
co N
6 m
C c
mU1 -t
0 M I M M 0 0 0 F- O d' m M I M O 0 0 0 F- It m F- m r- M m N 0 0 dt m LL M i i O M m N O O It m 6. O I, d It N
m ON M m w 0] M I N n O N M m OW O N O
I M N N X M r m N M N N wX m wX OM Md' NM Nm OM w M 0M 0M h MMm Vm Nc Nm OM w n
r w r- my
N d O M m O O O O O dM O M O O O O O O O O O ONMMmmmOmOOOiMmmmOmOOOmMmOymNNMOMmMMI, m N N M O M m M m I, M m
N m
d M N M V
U i6
m Qay
mm
w 3
mccF, x7a
9 N ao
Oj
U U m 0 E m N YO LL U U m O N w m
C M m U U J' m M M M m m U
N
U J O J= LL Y
o oEEv E E
E E v' M o d E E E Y t y
1 N U N L O O m! J N m m L O O
x x U in in U U> m x x U w in U U O a w> a
cwo
v "w m m m m m m m m m t m m m m m mHCCYYmYY0tmCCVmmQwLLaAmmmmmm
LL LL a LL LL LL a LL LL LL LL w a a. LL LL LL LL LL a a o.
N I V m m 0 M m m N I 7 m m m m m N O m
O O 0 0 0 00- O 0 0 m 0 0 O m M O O
N O O
M M M
0 o f m a a m m 0 0 m m 0 0 mm0O0MMOOMmMMmO0OMM0O0O00m
M 0 0 O O O t M M 0 0 0 O O 7 0 0 0 M M
T T T T T T
O O O O O O
0] C1 m m m x
N O N m m m
N n N m YM n
O O O O O O
C N N N C y y N
n' a a a a a a
faq Q
a o N a o 2 2; a m> o
cc a a a a N¢„ m oc a a a a a N a m of yNmMU) N M N NF' a N amN 0
On
m( f u) 1 o N
LL
n
W
LL UU 07 O nZ
N OG> M O O O N NN mM O m I' S: M O 0 0 N NN M O N O
F O O 0 0 m d' N m N F-: O O 0 0 0 m N O O
75A -115
tts
s
w
4
Q_
R
SJ
0
c
co N
6 m
C c
mU1 -t
75A -116
C
d
y
yQ
v
v
N W
ti
o yN
O h
v c5d
s N
U N
ONO
O e o
O
o ^ ao
Q o
y U U
U
o
m
d
W,
3
Q
Y
a
91
cm
to
0N
a
c ccmcn ->
m m m F- o
mI LON NNn
O
O
d M
m; oO m m N O d Om O d'
N
N
C;
fnn W r WNM7XOM1OOhMVXX M M
N N' m ID m W C m m W
N
N 7 O m O O m N 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
M m O m 0 0 M m O Mm 0 m MM m ONdyakWNNmMM- I m N N m MM m W
m W iO N n d' m In N N d'
U AJ
m
vmx
N C
9 N
J
U U o
C
U U V C y U LL U U E N O G G
c0
v .h m 75 m
F Q
Q, IL LL ll lL d d 41 LL lL LL lL a a a a n. a
N h do W m N Vo W W N O m
N O O O N M N O O O N N t d' M N
0 0 0
m O O O 0O m m m 0O O O O O O 0O m m
M O O O a M M M O O O V O O O M M
T T
O O O O
m m c m m c
O mY O
m N N m
o0 N
O O O 0Tal
C N N O T N y O
Q Q Q Q QoQ a
Q m
N N O M N N G c Q T Q mNNNNNmQuyimmo
U zaw33a33m> a o m c
z U> m O mN. LO D O m M
m M O O O O m W M 0 0 0 0 N O
O O O O In N 0 0 0 0 O O N O OfqN
75A -116
C
d
y
yQ
v
v
N W
ti
o yN
O h
v c5d
s N
U N
ONO
O e o
O
o ^ ao
Q o
y U U
U
o
m
d
W,
3
Q
Y
a
91
cm
to
0N
a
c ccm
cn ->
j k SSA ES C
SANTA ANA EUSINESS d@UNCIUI, IN07 P 1 1!: 37
is i I i -i
Gt., ,L
Comment Letter No. 9
SANTA ANA BUSINESS COUNCIL, INC.
400 East Fourth Street Suite 7
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Phone: (714) 743 -6342
Fax (714) 972.2654
e -mail: claudiaarellanes55ah6tmall.com
www.saboina.00rn
DECLARATION OF OPPOSITION
STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO SANTA ANA 'S PREFERED OPTION" ON THE
FIXED GUIDEWAY (STREETCAR) PROJECT CONNECTING TO GARDEN GROVE.
iir
1 Shahram Makhani
2 Laura Fabilla Diaz
3 Guillermina Madriles
4 Manuel Pena
5 Ceballos Fernando
6 Raul Alvarez
7 Tomas Valenzuela
8 Inhee Cha
9 Inhee Cha
10 Won Cha
11 Walter W Cha
BUSINESS NAME:
Telas Fabric
Servi Centro
Mina Bridal
Manuel J. Pena Consulting
CW Cellular Inc.
Alvarez Check Cashing
Bandalero Bookd
Tile, LLC
Downtown J & L
Pinetree Lending
AMDS Metal
75A -117
9 -1
p a t IN
0
ws,8
U
6 P'u
So
w T
qj
O
t
ad
E 1
10;
4.g
Ej
Fj
10Q
ed w Z: wan
15
it
iz
75A -118
O
J,
4g
as
v
A l.-
A
g g vpL
Hz p1 arM .l A
iZ
no z w
uc
A
Ls
2 7c
7.2 46 2 0
i 0
O
Q
h B
54 2
V w 0 H 0 e x F:
75A -119
2
vi
O
AR.
g 62 S-ol
to
m
8 on 0mci */ bQ N ,v 9''+.urs„'S .
cq
r t}
I
to
EL
3
A P R J
fa
8
lwU41gj
m
tt
o
3.r
0 Vi 9
Rt to
Rj 2
04
y c E u y 2:—
75A -120
C 0J
41
OE:
A 5tt 49
J, 0
t' SAN
ld k
19
rq
V 80 A
0 H ei P!
C6 0
EM t;
IM 0
73
2!n
0 m= i
75A -121
o
24
zi
v
ZT
2w v-,
t C) 5 1 T:
VK 43
r(-N
CZ
co .n
E r
C6 0
k.
AZ.
RU Al
w
2 q
I'M
V
IV
7. Z0oa
o.2 V
suoMaF
75A -122
M 6
MH q
f P
Lk
p EL
04
Sa
Ull S,-A
iA
fn E E
75A -123
Letter9
Santa Ana Business Council, Inc. (SABC)
400 East 4`h, Suite 7
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Response 9 -1
The Declaration of Opposition from 11 business owners from the SABC, listing the same reasons
included in Letter 8, was forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. See Responses
8 -1 through 8 -5. The comment letter is not directly related to the content or adequacy of the
ENDEIR, and no further response is necessary.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g ol66
January 2015
75A -124
Comment Letter No. 10
DECLARO MI OPOSICION A LA "OPCION
ni I 7
PREFERENCIAL" DEL TREN '.ECTRIC JO, E L(, A "CIUDAD PE SANTA ANA
TIENE PROYECTADO PARA CONECTAR POR ESTA VIA CON GARDEN GROVE
NAME ADDRESS
1 Karla Cuevas 709 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92703
2 Art Santacruz 709 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92703
3 Wismar Ortiz 732 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92702
4 Ashley Brown 732 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92702
5 Maria Anza 713 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92703
6 Miguel Angel 606 1/2 Figueroa 92703
7 Maylin Mendoza 725 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92703
8 Hugo Martinez 803 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92703
9 Alvarez Regino 809 N. Figueroa Apt A Santa Ana CA 92703
10 Maximiliano Garcia
11 Alejandro Escobar 3631 Hazard ave. Santa Ana CA 927D3
12 Lorene Ramirez 3627 W. Hazard st Santa Ana CA 92703
13 Cinthya Perez 705 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92703
14 Lizzi Murtough 127 Madrid Tustin CA
15 Katherine Anza 713 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92703
16 Geraldine Arellano 710 N. Bewley st Santa Ana CA 92703
17 Clarissa Arellano 710 N. Bewley st Santa Ana CA 92703 10 -1
18 Aurora Sandivia 725 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92703
19 Petra Salgado 807 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92703
20 Maria Hernandez 3631 Hazard st Santa Ana CA 92703
21 Enrique R. 3631 Hazard st Santa Ana CA 92703
22 Yesenia Canova 3638 W. 5th st Santa Ana CA
23 Nathalie Canova 3638 W. 5th st Santa Ana CA
24 Evangeline Romero 909 N. Jackson at
25 Manuel Topete 623 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92703
26 Imelda Salgado 623 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92703
27 Jose Ochoa 602 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92703
28 Virginia Ochoa 602 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92703
29 David Inge, 1225 Carlton Place Santa Ana CA 92707
30 Patrick Douphy 1225 Carlton Place Santa Ana CA 92707
31 Cesar Gonzalez 714 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana Ca 92703
32 Francisco Salgado 718 N. Figueroa at Santa Ana CA 92703
33 Lesley Ramos 718 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92703
34 Sergio Diaz 718 N, Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92703
35 Maria Salgado 718 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92703
36 Ciro Salgado 718 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92703
37 Adelfa Najera 718 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92703
38 Irma Lopez 730 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92703
39 Monse Perez 610 N. Figueroa st Santa Ana CA 92703
75A -125
COOrU
75A -126
CCS
cd 7i
cC V cn Z 0 0 -w
hW i-r CG H CsC-4 N Z
N O
4ry y Q. N .o cn O o> OJ
IW—
W ppqq 6C Q LU j
k U Q t
0.0 b ct U z w= O
u m w E EUU) Ems) v
WW r Q yO., U
m
o
hhh Aaa q p Q W cd p M W -0
Qr
IO,
NR.y-S 7 N O
ct
W coo
4 O 41 2 N am
C! O E N
W O N01 CZ3 U Dw°00
Cd a CT d U- U- o u O`
W c~d N i LLQ
v y rn 00 m a m
dy C3 a W
Cd E Z) co
LLIaboWo LLa0Q® p z a>) L6 mac
F QF C7 = E m
O, W Qa Z Z a) a) ?i
N O
N
7:; Q V] H LL
2 O
0 a j
c cc
O Z OU and r a
Q C O H W m y QrNOF EEc
0 0 N Z
U)
O H Z
0 0 0
m=
d)
CC "Li A0 OU o d U p o 0 0 0
r 1
W C h r
O
bA F O a0
O as 2
CIA qde.,.,i a V 0 w M N
C l N O u; .5 wFcoN
O Ub Z N Lu 22 m _
O c
co maE
0) z o I- o
75A -126
75A -127
O
C
J
N
V
lyl r T)
O
Cs
C
tN
t,
ilA
1
LL
w N
VIA\
tp
0` ztt- T
75A -127
75A-128
7—
c
E
Cn
U
I.z
75A-128
r ,
75A -129
d)
77
o LD
ti
A- c-'r
Od
1V
ZZ
cz IL
75A -129
75A -130
LL I`
S
of aiU' U
r
J
o y
r.
a
E
dm
E c
Oz a`.
75A -130
Letter 10
Declaration of Opposition from Various Individuals Residing on
N. Figueroa Street, W. Hazard Avenue, Madrid Avenue,
N. Bewley Street, W. 5`h Street, N. Jackson Street, and Carlton Place
Response 10 -1
The Declaration of Opposition from 39 individuals, listing the same reasons included in Letter 8,
was forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. See Responses 8 -1 through 8 -5. The
comment letter is not directly related to the content or adequacy of the EA /DEIR, and no further
response is necessary.
Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g al 73
January 2015
75A -131
July 7, 2014
f
SACHBAX
SANTA ANA` C66MMUNITY
BUSINESS ALLIANCE
Comment Letter No. I I
Mmdeleine Spencer
333 bast 9 "' # 303
Saunr Ana, CA 92701
714) 513 =2653
Spenc110(idmuil.chapman . edu
City Manager David Cavazos, City Attorney Sonia Carvalho, Mayor Miguel Pulido, Council
Members & City Staff,
DECLARATION OF OPPOSITION LETTERS IN RESPECT" TO TILE SANTA ANA
GARDEN GROVE "PREFERRED OPTION " OF THE FIXED GUIDEWAY PROJECT
Dear City of Santa Ana,
Enclosed are a series of Letters of Opposition to the city's preferred option to the Santa Ana
Garden Grove Fixed Guide -way Project. 'These documents representing more than'one hundred
businesses and residents in opposition to the project are being turned into the city staff as
recommendations to be scanned and recorded for public review as comments on the EA/DEIR
process submitted on July 7, 2014, prior to the 5:00pm deadline.
As of today Letters describing community opposition and request for an Equity Analysis have
also been shared with:
Wendy Knowles, OCTA
Shawn Nelson, OCTA
Put hates, OCTA
John kloorlach, OCTA
Janet Nguyen, OCTA
Todd Spitzer, OCTA
A. n'1 a Tray, OCTA
N1ayarTom'1'ait, OCTA
Ituby Godinez Castellani, GT.AC
ETAC Board Members via 12nby
If you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact me at (714)
815 -2653 from 7am -7prn Monday through Friday or Saturday from 9am -3pm.
Sincerely,
Made lleeine Spenc rte' 7
e
75A -132
11 -1
7 P1
U_
DECLARO MI OPOSICION A LA "OPCION PREFERENCIAL" DEL TREN ELECTRICO, QUE LA CIUDAD DE SANTA ANA
TIENE PROYECTADO PARA CONECTAR POR ESTA VIA CON GARDEN GROVE
NAME ADDRESS Telehone
1 Glnette Sanchez 310 N. Broadway at Santa Ana CA 92701 714 - 835 -8585
2 Cirilo Martinez 2601 N. Grand Ave Santa Ana CA 92705 714 - 321 -7139
3 Andrew Ramos 450 E. 4th st 401 Santa Ana CA 92701 714- 654 -3926
4 Jose Llanos 450 E. 4th st 408 Santa Ana CA 92701 714- 285 -7982
5 Ismael Becerril 450 E. 4th at 303 Santa Ana CA 92701 714 - 910 -0080
6 Isidro Acosta 450 E. 4th at 304 Santa Ana CA 92701 949 -697 -0341
7 Juan Sanchez 450 E. 4th at 311 Santa Ana CA 92701
8 Crecencio Martinez 450 E. 4th st 311 Santa Ana CA 92701 714- 862 -6074
9 Raul Hernandez 450 E. 4th at 303 Santa Ana CA 92701
10 Hanadi Roman 2330 N. Grand eve Santa Ana CA 92705 714 -496 -6463
11 Jose Roman 2330 N. Grand eve Santa Ana CA 92705 714 -417 -5356
12 Evander Aguirre 112 French at Santa Ana CA 92701
13 Cuahutemoc Sanchez 112 French at Santa Ana CA 92701
14 Araceli Kantu 1112 French at Santa Ana CA 92701 714 -376 -5950
15 Angela Garcia 1108 French StSanta Ana CA 90701
16 Angela Mejla 113 French st Santa Ana CA 92701 714- 574 -1423
17 Carmen Ortega 922 Toddy st Santa Ana CA 92707 714- 768 -8194
18 Maria Perez 450 E. 4th st 127 Santa Ana CA 92701 714 - 395 -1901
19 Yolanda Aguirre 1114 N. French at Santa Ana CA 92701 714 - 574 -1352
20 Consuelo Blanco 2330 N, Grand eve Santa Ana CA 92705 714 -417 -5356
21 Edlyn Salazar 250 Carriage Dr Santa Ana CA 92707 714- 642 -4555
22 Mari Carmen Valencia 1714 N. Westwood ave Santa Ana CA 92706 714- 835 -2971
23 Javier Galvez 1718 Missin Rd Tustin CA 92780 909- 319 -0694
24 Edith Hernandez 5410 W 5th at Santa Ana CA 92701 714 - 780 -0030
25 Sergio Ortega 511 E Lacy at Santa Ana CA 92701 714- 787 -8237
26 Teresa Andrade 502 E. Mortimer apt A Santa Ana CA 92701 714- 410 -0050
27 Cristina Moreno 305 S Cypress apt 0 Santa Ana CA 92701 714- 835 -2160
28 Praxedes Bernal 450 E. 4th st 304 Santa Ana CA 92701 714 - 248 -3216
29 David Rey Resendiz 1434 S. Raitt apt 7 Santa Ana CA 92704 714 - 467 -1086
30 Jose Olivares 311 Oak at Santa Ana CA 92701 714- 610 -0442
31 Leonardo Moreno Navarro 26451 Via Gaviota Mission Viejo CA 92691 949- 306 -2920
32 Oscar Hurtado 703 W. Washingtong eve # 206 Santa Ana CA 92701 714 - 727 -7262
33 Juan Sacche 505 E. Pine at Santa Ana CA 92701 714 - 851 -1538
34 Hugo Rojas Hernandez 34052 Donew Park CA 949- 201 -5641
75A -133
11 -2
7
DECLARO MI OPOSICION A LA "OPCION PREFERENCIAL" DEL TREN ELECTRICO, QUE LA CIUDAD DE SANTA ANA
TIENE PROYECTADO PARA CONECTAR POR ESTA VIA CON GARDEN GROVE
NAME ADDRESS Telehone
35 Jose Hernandez 3000 Hermelinda Santa Ana CA 92707 714- 495 -2443
36 America Najera 1910 WS. Van Ness Santa Ana CA 92707
37 Marco Zeferino 810 S Cedar st Santa Ana CA 92701
38 Araceli Robles 601 E. 5th st # B Santa Ana CA 92701 714- 659 -7081
39 Rigoberto Robles 601 E. 5th st# B Santa Ana CA 92701 714- 659 -7081
40 Luis E. Robles 601 E. 5th st # B Santa Ana CA 92701 714 -659 -7095
41 Apolonio Cortes 946 Chesnut Santa Ana CA 92703 714 -531 -0161
42 Nancy Mejia 562 -213 -2513
43 Laura Pantoja 4823 W 5th st Santa Ana CA 92703 714- 866 -1251
44 Edward Garza 11181 Cherry Hills Or Santa Ana CA 92705 714 - 317 -3969,
45 Jeff Merrick 11171 Cherry Hills Dr. Santa'Ana CA 92705 526- 522 - 4241
46 Pat Aliso 775 Havana Ave Lang Beach 562 -833 -8035
47 Cinthys Sanchez 12216 Fineview St El Monte CA 91733 714- 306 -8766
48 Elva Navarrete 408 E. Civic Center Dr. #304 Santa Ana CA 92701 714 -643 -4483
49 Yohana Rojas 408 E. Civic Center Dr. #301 Santa Ana CA 92701 714 - 972 -6237
50 Venancio Chavez 408 E. Civic Center Dr. #115 Santa Ana CA 92701 714 -836 -0237
51 Angelica Flores 408 E. Civic Center Dr, #113 Santa Ana CA 92701 909 -827 -2080
52 Arnold W 408 E. Civic Center Dr. Santa Ana CA 92701
53 Luis Pantoja 408 E. Civic Center Dr. # 107 Santa Ana CA 92701 714 - 542 -3471
54 Juan Carlos Macedo 945 W Chestnut Ave. Santa Ana CA 92703 714 -650 -2109
55 Javier Roman 810 N. Garfield st # 4 Santa Ana CA 92701 714- 395 -2297
56 Jonathan Lizarraga 810 N. Garfield st # 1 Santa Ana CA 92701 714- 610 -22 -57
57 Gavino Mendez 714- 552 -94'18
58 Miguel Angel Macedo 946 W. Chestnut ave Santa Ana CA 92703 714 - 235 -5327
59 Yanet Castaneda 946 W. Chestnut eve Santa Ana CA 92703 714- 478 -7379
60 Juan Vergara 800 Garfield # 3 Santa Ana CA 92701
61 Jose E. Vega 408 E. Civic Center Dr. # 301 Santa Ana CA 92701 714 -417 -5090
62 Abrahan Hernandez ter st Santa Ana CA 92701 714 -417 -2460
63 Jorge Cabrera 714 -925 -3477
64 Mario Martinez Washintong y main 714- 397 -6688
65 Juanita Hernandez 714- 296 -4474
66 Maria Guadalupe Diaz 1001 N. Parton st# 8 Santa Ana CA 92701 714- 558 -3837
67 Nohemi Gonzalez 714- 760 -1477
68 Jose Elias Gonzalez 1007 N. Parton Santa Ana CA 92701 714 -460 -1660
75A -134
11 -2
cont.
W11
DECLARO MI OPOSICION A LA "OPCION PREFERENCIAL" DEL TREN ELECTRICO, QUE LA CIUDAD DE SANTA ANA
TIENE PROYECTADO PARA CONECTAR POR ESTA VIA CON GARDEN GROVE
NAME ADDRESS Telehone
69 Isidore Espinoza 714 -834 -06 .80
70 Felipe Chavez 714.860 -0591
71 Victor Guerrero 714 -571 -9924
72 Crecencio Reyes 714- 209 -6662
73 Angie Tapia 615 E. Civic Cewnter Santa Ana CA 92701 714 - 704 -0458
74 Francisca Trujillo 810 Garfield st # 6 Santa Ana CA 92701 714 - 805 -2854
75 Rufino Tcchihuitl 714 -323 -3472
76 Teresa Mendez 714 -615 -9590
77 Jaime Mendez 714 -541 -2304
78 Estela Tejada 1314 W 12th st Santa Ana CA 92701 714 -760 -6851
79 Victoria garcia 11731 Wasco Rd. Garden Grove CA 92841 714 -725 -9881
80 Moices Vasquez 1009 N Spurgeon St Santa Ana CA 92701 714 -791 -3504
81 Rosa E. Ubach 605 E. Washingtong Ave Santa Ana CA 92701 714 -404 -2094
82 Maria Perez 714 -381 -7627
83 Esperanza Ramirez 2032 Orange St Santa Ana CA 92701 714 -574 -0264
84 Adrian Brindle 1321 N. Durant st Santa Ana CA 92706 714 -574 -4177
85 Celene Ponce 112 E, Edinger Ave Santa Ana CA 92707 714 - 605 - 8472'
86 Soledad Gomez 1725 Ocho Ave. Laguna Beach CA 90804 714- 794 -4770
0
75A -135
11 -2
cont.
N C
OU
9
N y 2 mW
i Uy
I giVG
Grn
a nWOjaN
O w g Q
W
Z 2 E '3 S cR' O
q LLp P 5 5
E EV c c
opU
t mWO S° 3E
RS O aap E U m 8 a ' o 0SC. w °
E
9QipaWc° 88 =EOow!e o;$
Q,
ycy
Z S O E m o
ZF
LL2'tmNOpvO aNU2 00. E frj Eln W VlN Y
U o Rn a6 E: Hme in m'n a
N
OU
O y
n p
o
1
r aW 8
6z
j Ozr
OE
lt
0
a.az,
too
low
UU OaG E
yp0
F
o c9 2 iiN9
y
o- 11.—1: o
7 E —',ScK,' uCl J U J u cE4...: 3" 4} COT
0 c W
75A -136
C
o
CC 4
0& rz
fu — a
B2,
Y
a g tx AuS'a N I .
2
eo
gyp.
daS
75 0 2
ci
p
Z3 zu
x
Uo ;
5
s
WEn0E! v; =! > CU<
0 C12 i
Or 0:2 -
2
u
A alp
75A -137
O
2
7-r
2 4172
C.
I
6 >
Tl
C;y
oeo
cn
L Z
z Q go,
a . s LGM7pc293
5q
u
P4 q
C) C/
3r u u u u A
i7" ",- p -m2 C) Iva
lz U z 59 L1 W
75A -138
2 E ti
zw
28
K
0
8
Z
ZM v'
M4 V 8
t -ga.9 's Tj0
V1, :2
cl
U Vjig
K IR
Ei
a- TB ° > 71Ut
OZ
00, z 2
am
L, 00J
ed R'F,
M-5 —
Af
12
75A -139
asp
boo
e Q KCQQ
rQ
2 moo log z v
OV2 & v N' •'0 a g
R 4! 0 , w 4 4,n "S moo to q
142 E 2
00
tit, p 40 1 Z. 00
0
q t,.M
Kc
A 0 2 -i t01i
z 14 Ul aa.
I, Wfl - Fj
u 8 L! 1! p
75A-140
Ell
Nu
I 17
12
z 0
7, A
41 - 90
J.,
g",8
lq 9
ib
Tj
0 .N 0
F3Fj
o
zo
W 0
75A-141
O
3ZZ
0707a -,jF,
Q z
Z aka
2p< -g it
C
8
cl
6 X0 too QMudv 0
70
0
M. 99
iJ
z e0<0
p L7 Fj C.
9
E:i
71
0g o._ A
20-
CJ u K
75A-142
C`3 o RL
oA
OU<
O.j n v
a 00
an n
r4l"
wo
71
07.
02
7,
50 S
11 Ri 1-1 q- I-
i Z
75A-143
z
T
z 9 Kq
ce
0 aW
ale
Wl t 4 as 7,
Cul
al o2 v 0
ou, p
0
CYO V Al
L) ul
WWI -Z
0
Giz
rn
4 R:M
a. c E u N
C
f. rz w OF,
Iz 7 C: 0
o
vg
p ,Z Lid -a
1F.5ao0 3 2 UGU
rw,
Z 47 0 12
Fcuz1MEl <
75A-144
eu
WO Q
01
C7
oz
rl
O cy Ci 6J a 0 Q 1,14
im . . .
N
0rd
M2
ELQ
ol 6
40 a.ng4
gg >
IR
c>
Ml
0 oY,' . —a O
on
n,a P
z
75A-145
N t
O
to
U IrU2aVU -u a.. FIN0 'o to V-2
UJ
to
u z, o K 2 U w
19P- I A
0
a A 4
P > .2. u
EL
U g
174,
u IN 0
El >
aj
iz" G,
14 u u z ME w
75A-146
O
Rl
CY
00
z
pzp K ;d .2p
mz
z n
UO
q M'904. g, m
u U a. K' i5
o
a C'2 0 9 -A O.g
0
F4 e E
0
a r
0
g Q
Z
C,
o
0,
5 RA
6 A
4.- J§
g
U C3
i5
az!
3 5 E; 6 F>2 g
19 11
u Z z
75A-147
N t
0
q is
2 .9 9
80
Ou<
0 6,
A
me.
vi
z A4P4
441
zOR
7G
fwn)
n X
z
UO
fbl 0 IR
0, .12 e:
CIE
40,2uR.a
2
Ej
75A-148
21
1
W)
0 all
IE 4. 4' 5
U all,
Opp 0 r
Q 0) z z
00
20
o
IP
C7PZ1
a oil l
K Sm a
6P %
tic I Q : 11 R .1 2'
1gyp
Aw 1 [lU Agm 11
rl
uu
914 :2 LA t-
is
At
75A-149
0i
pu
0
N2
z Q
cz)
On<
01-
6
PA C, ao 0 vUCl e: 5
12
lt;
on
30z
Bo
H ;- 0 6 ly
ti P,
g 5a. 2b
gip' VZ >
AA
F, 0.6
O o Cc
a
O O'
C5 dd
2,5;
Ei G,o 15
75A -150
O
q r3
u O' § , k.g
26 9
C)
z Q
80
cz 04. r-2
u L) 0A0. 01 9 2 i024O's 6 '
NAo
U
V z
2 ta vj
lu
3 v;
Im uu M's
v
a A
Et Oj
67 gr. l F7. 0
UN
rL 5 E
u 0 0
75A -151
04
oJa" 77 E!
00
80
UPI 4 <
TO
C) cyo LO
2
0 N.
FU o v
Fi
AT
rig
13iq
xr-
0 cya 4p
Ulu z A 'I x 3 r
G luo 2I.R 'R0 , 0 H- u -
zLOW
75A -152
O
cy
0P -i , 0
0 n Z r4
7 O
go
r
0 PA jilri
O(YO IE PO 0, 421 W, C, X N d 6 8 3 qV00
Ei
al
O
z
01
Cl
C5
A 9Un 2
Cc <
V,
6u
gFA
94 um ."Y ml
75A -153
C\j
r I1, :---
0,4
Km
zz
i- S
iq
20 f2
c Ell
N uc.n..5Qo of
a E. W Q wuuuu —9F- ; ; 9 : , .
v
5 On z
Gss
5 0
Q1 a o
9 Ei
Ir
z z
2A
2z
Je -2 IS 5I,
u u m 7Z
vi
U 7
75A-1 54
N C
Z >
1) 0
ORO
Cz E 3
7c) 0 0 T W.90 Z;
tjo 43
Alol
43
Al
rd
ig 4S F
IK
ks tia
c
r Z
t.
0.'.
9
k; E
MAA
7
75A -155
N C
o
A on
07 A
go a.
0 CY p 1,
S 07
S2uU,
z Z gg
on
tS
5i
I'z
6 0UU
u U 242 m 2 2WuW01 '4 'i . 3
2 El
u z
75A -156
Q
Or
of
It
X It
Z V
yp rj filApo
a gr pr. t2 0
sGp 2
4i
14o, F 2, tou A I
121
to
VU >
75A -157
E 0
r.
a.
qu Z!
as
I
N— w
zoc r 0 g
oll
05
0 Id- F ---4J-R - . -!Ib
ZWu
2 .
L
p Z u
75A -158
t t q
Ei
S L gN -
S NJll
I N, 2
p 'PtiW19 mi S
vpj
75A -159
N C
z R,
zo b0 o - lu :2 v 5
k E .4i
aWWU tea "I u ki
iz
rU
62
22 R:
F—Dr - V- A.
z 0 21
Ei
oll
rs. I
F
z4
71
75A -160
i.9 p 0
v
o zi
ILI,
0 p
2, v
O A
75A -161
zw
fj - OZ7no W:2 A2Z
CY9 -
6a
moan722'
E -1 . ..j A O.'s
1aJo
2
U <7,
j 0Qz tL
i32 ` . " 1 4 9 .0 A
a"Al .:a
0 CC. 0,2
H
W
5.3 800.2 li
g F 2E v dg
2 mu (]Mr
75A -162
N t
oU
Y
A -P
J Q
O
o Z
5
oo
Ou c
o 0 44 'a nnu 2.-SAN 'I- , I -
u lz
fj
o uz
WU lwuu
H
Uff 21
N C
Ol
o
w 26
75. a A 8
U <
z 0
Sq
u 02
w F2 uF. aau
X0
44
75A -163
C
Z. g
goziG -9 --
L6
tl"
si
21
F, A
Ez 4;, Iz G p 00
i5 E
i5
C ZC) "!
0 U C U 2`3 0
Ir
60 5 22
g v
iq o w u :5 L -:Cc 2
UUUk. z
75A -164
z R
zl
4
U<7
O zmo
99
it
g 8u
o cyo '-
Ep V 'g yy 0.9
4,
3 Aufj801 al
Kc,
O qo
sl
g a
u Lj
3 4 13
u u C)
12
75A -165
H
Cy rl o 7-
05
2 d g
o VNV 24 IndN
Q0
M, I-v
Ei
cv
IZ
j o
Ot
ito c V 9 U
rJ QZGPO
rl
5 E
U Ei
16o0 MA0
i3
U u v 3C)
75A -166
vi
0 2
0
r',m ZmC, u , Wr"L
2 > o
00,0 72 0 n
wo
S,6 0 A
10 g r-O
p 2
4:1
0
Q.
0.1
Ci < 0 Z
y.
4 7QO
77
J j Zo
5 g
09UU
F3 2:2 -2
cz -L-o
d d
U <
0 '
5z 15UUS
no
75A-1 67
u F
is
U 0
v C, V
z zo
Mt
z
0 nz
zQ0 o4
El
5, V
u c,
a, ,n75o fraa
2
u
o
Z> o RR
13
0 Z 1p 9
00
Fl
C.) 7, z E2 ri , u uu
i4 u t2
75A -168
SP
1&0
is
71 P& EpdWWEi0
oza N
m 7
0,9
C)U< U jj.- j
Z. w
O.S a 9 5
f4
In 1
w,vw n.2
orS
fg w
in m ova
V M iF
ys 5 s
i 8Q 140,
z
r) u z
A A 't
FZ i ,
75A-1 69
z z,
z ZQ, 'A 2 S .0 & 0
Umilz
B,5 CY 94 C. 0 P
sl019A 13
0
U0
E5 mo
S2 I-
Fwr4
it
SR
ou, 8.6
o 0
0 d 670 goV'; 0 X1
75A -170
C
0
o L
ce
z z7; .;; cl ro d' az u 0
7-A
M7zno 0
All
f2 F 150
g
E 2:Q 5
5 9 1 8,MQ,, 0-:2 54 0
ZO
f4 SE
R,
rj e. L7, q F
a g.
0
Cy
to
0 CY Aj . s p ul
all
UW
36
iq q G ,: OS0 , 9 ei
75A -171
S,
CY
2
6i
M; > 5 >
7N 0, n go -A
g Q8
71 .29
o?o
7no
jc
Z, ., V
jg,gCoZ — 6 .0
z ,
0
o -5 0
L
75A -172
O
C> A
PZ
0 Q
OS "O 12
O.
07.
31
CO
Ad, 6 z :91
g Eji
0
z! P u u -
v A
Z:2 'Av14 'V 0 A 0-4
T.' EL!
75A-1 73
N t
9q
1 z
gA
Ml
2 >
2
F i Re
U3
IP
E ij
w n.2 t2 2 2 cl
7.
75A -174
Z> MOE2z
baua
O
z Z 7 ef
U<Z
OZO y rip ro I
zu
cq ajip > 0 IR
z p 0 c?
g:s W A A
9 to
0 5,2 taal0 .9
W,U
K E I
A! to
0
Z WUU 0
Z2
ru
0
Ci
Pi
0
4 p
Nz
Cl
0
05
2 &.7;
R2
to
z 0 cvO 6 z
C5 t' uZ4 u i5
vi :211
J2 12o'l
ell
W Ll) w z t, z
75A -175
N C
o
0
go
F_ CY A
g. s
4
07znn
12 g
cY2o VU and
0 0 4d Us
u
F 2o2
0
E LicacaLi
P-A
10
zz- 0
M_
07 R,
E5 1'2
oc
it
Uu e o
U z
75A -176
cq
io z
4 z
C Z
Ll I? g:5 pp m A
0 R'a
J 4F U EL
Z
0 CO d8.—V 0
5:2
v -0
C7 Z E a
Z 7
P i 223
t ;5 v
TJ
Z5
lap u
75A -177
O
EiV
s
CY
Z a
07
Q '13 R > C, P >
A 0
0 cc) FSOm a]
E! ZIAC4
u
0 pgT M 0 1!!
r.
0 12
Lv0
EdE.
z 7*
0 vi 15
Ca a 0 Z
r) Q '6 1
41
ZI
13 n go
2:2
2
A
2
E 'A At !E i 2 q n M ilIj >
C Eil
75A -178
N t
0
r. ri
pzm
t Ia p
6 Q 0,3 9.6 F, 0 .
VHF
Zi-
Zi
z M " ZO i 13
r.
S012
PZ 0 9
z7w "
no
P 2 'R 6 u
7 OU
2-n
71, a0
43
A :z CO 0 m -,3
75A -179
N C
o
r.
og!
CJltU
J 0nz
S 5 go
lz m .5 go1Own :as g
ao -'6-1
ad iq 0 -8 1
r,4 0
W,. F12 :2 :6
w U 1 9 - .. w U u U d
o 2iviv
ni
In, W ZQ
L471
Z z
E5go
z z C40 , Cl mmZInz
n Z
7 C),O A W2,
S
ou? 0
u
oaO
vop
t5
ou n-.2 1-2 :2 6t4
E! 16
42 V, 9 u u Q -9
ei
1 3 u 1) ff 0 tizP 7 1 z — i l
m z
75A -180
Letter 11
Santa Ana Community & Business Alliance (SAC -BA)
Madeleine Spencer
333 East 9`h #303
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Response 11 -1
The Declaration of Opposition from 89 individuals from SAC -BA, listing the same reasons
included in Letter 8, was forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. See Responses 8 -1
through 8 -5. The comment letter is not directly related to the content or adequacy of the
EA /DEIR, and no further response is necessary.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAiFEIR P a g el 123
January 2015
75A -181
Comment Letter No. 12
STATEMENT OF OPPOSIL TION TO SANTA ANA'S FREFERIED OPTION" ON I'HE
FIXED GUIT)FWAY STREEXAR) PROJECT CONNECTING TO CARnEN GROVI-
1 Perla Veronica Alvare? Veronlca' Brklal
2 Elma Vazquez lma's Boaully Salon,
21 Qsecrge Hansen RlicAcs Jewelry & Loan
4 Arran 141, Tran
5.%N'TA AKA RUSTNTS5 COUNCII, WE:
40 E" 70i 1115 i Sub 7
as wu AN4 uslnftnov,4-317 71,4 743-6pu
Pfirnavera's Bridal
7 Jose M. Sobdo La Zapat-eria Mexico
6 Marra Hernandez Belinda's Bridal
9 lierAor R-tjiz Rul7 jewalry and Loan
10 Pauhna Fuenles Jevatry Gold & Silver
I I Palm-Lra Asuadlillo
DECLARATION OF OPPOSITION
STATEMENT OF OPPOSIL TION TO SANTA ANA'S FREFERIED OPTION" ON I'HE
FIXED GUIT)FWAY STREEXAR) PROJECT CONNECTING TO CARnEN GROVI-
1 Perla Veronica Alvare? Veronlca' Brklal
2 Elma Vazquez lma's Boaully Salon,
21 Qsecrge Hansen RlicAcs Jewelry & Loan
4 Arran 141, Tran 0s an M. Pan O.D. Oplarne4
15 Guadatupe Moto as Rota's Bridal
6 Martha GaIllen Pfirnavera's Bridal
7 Jose M. Sobdo La Zapat-eria Mexico
6 Marra Hernandez Belinda's Bridal
9 lierAor R-tjiz Rul7 jewalry and Loan
10 Pauhna Fuenles Jevatry Gold & Silver
I I Palm-Lra Asuadlillo Mexicana Travel
1,2 Susan Chan ATs 1:1~ap
t3 cmlm; R009UPT AB Con-putars
14 Patricia M4sno7 0 ueen'si BOUIlqU G
15 Jose Rodrujuarz Calano Insurance
16 Su=1 Cabaffos MUSIC & Wfoless
17 Daniel E-8%0a 1- hybrid Synergy
18 Nlarllha 1it4a 1 Rayna Ei-- Mirl-lopcon
1<1 Ad an Radrguarz CuncHila 111IC And More
20 lEfinn Jacob- Fota y Video
21 Rayriond Ranqal R&R'j'.r--SteTn Wear
22 Aeorubn Tiujiflb LFt,,% Ilociones Widal
23 Laura Heniandez Laufrj'i Beauty Sijr PhFfs
2 F.Vrarfa EqtelVos Gvadalaprn
26 Gerardo Bahena Mjrg. i r itn's 0ecoi a1toa
2r Fdil erto Fcifexo NLjev Guadalajara Bc-auty salon
27 LL.pe 5,9nn'n-Val KV S, v-,er
2 P qnl 10, Galen leco
2q Michael KaFislra La M, ula
30 R;caidtj Cxflez TH T r ou wD Am] t a uvol
1 Elvin vjkwa Atfl-,ZILU Tirric
75A -182
12-1
01
E3 S,,N-TA ANA SUSIKV:54 COUNCIL WC
449 ttag T4Nrfh der Sullm
WORN: (jL4%7Aj,-d34j
rxc
STAT5 MENT OF OPPOSITION TO SANTA ANA'S PREFERED OPTIOW ON THE
FIXED CUDEINAY(STREETCAR) PROJECT CONNECTING TO GARDEN GROVE,
NAME BUSINESS NAME
32 Irma Agullera lyma Salon
23 Mariano fstandoea Rancho Mendoza
34 jorga Vital Dental 4
35 Sal Nawarru Acapuko, Travail
36 Aduro Lomeli Artwo J Lorneli DDS
37'Tonwq% Valp-Rztiela Valnet Serylims.
38 Jaime Nungavay Don Roberlo .14hvalry
39 Jnseph G Elias Fiesta Juice
40 Aulth Gerardo Mi Cellular
41 Mike, Husaia United begat Services
42 Jawn Pool Cheri Angers
43 Lee Gornay jvihtlal Assigns
44 E-11a Gastelton Fiesta Flowers
45 Aracely CWdefon FiesLq Lauggage y Party Supp;y
46 Donica Edwin Mexican irnpolls
47 fterw Otero Todo Sormo%
48,14e-clatr Silva H,gaii 13tauly Salon
49 A06a, S,91 mdo cprli:-af Travel & "touts
50 Guillerm de la Pima Sigue colp.
51 Abdul Amoudi Alfa Insuranou Seavir-es
52 Nam FlyeYun Nana 17,15—
52 Mantle Rfudo Rodfiguez Holiday Tea & Tours
b3 hAarcula Rodriguez Ohhay Travel 11
1-4 Adan llnrtandoz5w 01189ala 8eavly Salon
55 Ruben Puebla Paclianna,, D,J Mimic
56 Ru brim Alya i oz Star Connected OC
57 Grace Yanaz Grarr.Y Er lenpf ces
58 Mary Lorrea C' 10.@ Azvl Trawl
Fig Rosa Webi?i w"I `7alord
60 wa PA Lira Apuieci %Inrjoex
til :ilvia Hurnma Ts :u
75A -183
12-2
JSAMC:
MUMA BV5IREU CUINCIL iK
SANIA AN, A MINUt-StOINK-1, INC
4% FDUt Founh 9"e SlEVA 7
Sanjw Ari, CA InTel
Tjtrye^ (1 4)741-4,Ul
Fax: I714) 972-1614
coo
PR UPTUp -Ru#1ph%
STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO SANTA ANA °S PREFEREQ OPTlQW ON THE
f IXF0 GUIM WAY (STREETCAR) PROJECT CONNECTING TO GARDEN GROVE-
62 VVIlor Cobena
433 ForlUnata P0y06
64 Turosa Saldivay
US Nam Hye Yijn
66 Sandta Ceff -pas
67 Shay Patmer
68 tely Qvrmz
69 He th, Rase
70 Frank Chaver
71 Barbora Y Rookef
72 Mark] Guerrow
7:3 ArturoAfellanos
74 53amUel kori*ro
Cobena Gardan's
Jljssyca'a Bddal
Tweswa jaweters
La r5avtote
Cassandra Brid'al
Tovq h Timez Apparal
11'etys perfuw
Labell Exchange
PiO-Jiig Co. of America
Prest)ytenian Church Sanin Ana
TNT Tours & Tfavog
Metpa 11 UrIll"Ura Superstore:
Sabo Relj,.
75A -184
12-2
cont.
I %
75A -185
1 4
to 11 4."
jltt
17
It
to
75A -186
4
7E 4
7f j a
Z h
zi
sk,
75A -187
yi
4 J,
75A -187
A 7 H
A" Z
Zt
W 114
t-6I
R dig
rl
75A 188
Ux°j
75A -189
n g
i.
gS
j
1ae0
u r 7,
75A -189
i.
I
75A -189
v Lv
qJ
74 i r 4
zt
E-3 I
75A -190
I
M rfi
JI 'g" E
4 f
47
75A -191
i ', )A`
17
F ry f
U k3
6
r 5
a'
e
5 ^
1 r G. 4 •i a .-
F
F 1 1
1
75A -192
41
lit=
j
7 f ki,
i
17
33 I
75A -193
V 7
d a V q
f
IF
UI
75A -194
75A -195
IN,
Jr
IN
IN
IM
V a 14r3 , K
qb
L Y- a i. n a f`% j
NY
75A -195
Usly N
A
Olt
hillof
Ll A ii
MA,
TAN!",
75A -196
1 A
Jg
a L
2ONE
75A -196
1 A
Jg
75A -197
e R
u
tj
7j
75A -197
u
75A -197
u
dt
I
YA
75A -198
ie
L 0 74
st
T V
75A -198
ie
14
L u r
U L
AL r
tj
a1 ij{
75A -199
i'
b d 6 PG 1
IV r
a
a Rq
7
3
i
i'
75A -200
ul
Y 'W
66
Sy t
75A-201
fit+ « : a i ' d a g. L i t +?'S i
J
Iz
m3 ",
tee
5. t
I i-
C fr
I Ef'
a A
1
1
r i
r '3
I i t
A G+ t
r
75A -202
75A-203
Wan
illy 1 1
f Ij
E f
I
ASM!
is
iz-
iz
AL
0 a
E3
75A-203
rc,
frl
x1
5 y"
id
g
s
d
4i
i e WF
ul
1 14
A 2 Fp• Y i> .. id1
t R
M
try1Fii°ry+F
ira,
15jf
L— V, tJJ
fA
L
1 i
1
i
f 1
e
p
1 S
ti
5k yr 1
Lo 7i
ST
75A -204
75A-205
V
75A-205
r
i
y.
re 1
4 aj
R jp j 4i k P3 4•_ ka i'1 F. '.
c'.
rii
z L
4i F
fu9
1.
a;
t vs
75A 206
75A-207
aft
em
75A-207
aft
F.
ud
14
Ull
tz t
Y.
u
Li
Ul
75A-208
n4 u
i-5
T4
be
E i
7 k7
el
Ln
75A-209
IM,
U l
kJ
iA
mli
Aj
75A -210
v Ll i
A J,
N, N
J R
Aga
r
Ll
75A-211
JI
C
74
i,4 I P
VITi,
1-7
Y.
75A-212
ZIN
11
71
7.4
iR
L 17,
ij
Yj
75A-213
ij
i o
1. iGA:;
x
ni IT y; i
T.i
IT
s d
yy 9
ft
IN
i p u'fi
1r
Fr
1
T 4 3 A Z
I P a i I
S
e f pCA
rs
i t
ry
r
1 f
f
t
75A 214
ii -
p of L S? 4 r
x
14
yi
k
t
3 L .
f ' '
a i
x•
f I
l °1
75A -215
iLL:. 9 Y i
a S 3
FY
q
Ll
M& T83q' 4
a:
Si S n'
il
Ol
a3
t
i
I
i E E ry x41,
F
4
4
x4
1 i x
a
75A -216
IT
5 -li
41
ry
7 -J,
75A-217
75A -218
iti y
p
y
x g
4P
f L 4 i
a it
it
1
it
t t S
Si V
i E 1
1 i E
1 i 9
F
75A -218
u
m
UY I
75A-219
4i L'
Zl
ri
e-EIN w
75A-219
4
Wrt M . kk331 ap jgg?.4 s
e
mAN
7
z
MCIJ '
1
9
j yY
3
3
k
e t"
j t i
1( E 2,
y
f
i
r
75A -220
Ni
mZ Q V
71
75A-221
22
Ell
j
6.
75A-222
75A-223
Letter 12
Santa Ana Business Council, Inc. (SABC)
400 East 4`h, Suite 7
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Response 12 -1
The Declaration of Opposition from 74 business owners from SABC, listing the same reasons
included in Letter 8, was forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. See Responses
8 -1 through 8 -5. The comment letter is not directly related to the content or adequacy of the
EA /DEIR, and no further response is necessary.
Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g o1166
January 2015
75A -224
Comment Letter No. 13
From: Dennis Dascanio rmailto:ddascanioCa)sbcolobal .net]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 2:38 PM
To: Fixedguidewaycomments
Cc: Ryan Chase; Gil Marrero; Jon Gothold; Joe Duffy; Davin Gumm; Michael Weisman; Jack Jakosky
Subject: Comments on proposed routes by Downtown, Inc.
Dear Proposed Route Comment Committee,
This comment is being submitted on behalf of Downtown, Inc. (DTI) members. DTI
represents the Downtown and Artists Village merchants and property owner's. DTI
does not endorse the bus option, option number three. Of the 2 fixed guide options,
option number one is the preferred route so that the fixed guide will stay closer to
the Downtown and Artist Village business districts. Option number two's west
bound route stops at Civic Center at Main and Civic Center at Broadway and leaves
the riders too far north of the Downtown and Artist Village. DTI is a strong
supported of the fixed guiideway project and we stand willing to help as needed.
Sincerely,
Dennis Dascanio,
Board member Downtown, Inc.
75A -225
13 -1
Letter 13
Dennis Dascanio
Board Member Downtown, Inc.
Response 13 -1
The support for Streetcar Alternative 1 was forwarded to the decision makers for consideration.
The comment letter is not directly related to the content or adequacy of the ENDEIR, and no
further response is necessary.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR
January 2015
75A -226
Pagel168
Comment Letter No. 14
I Proyecto do Alineaci& Vehicular Santa Ana - Garden Grove
oireccl6n
Ciudad /Estado /Cadlyo Postal Ntimero de tel €(ono
COMENTARIOS
por favor escriba con tetra
de molde claramente)
14 -1
gg aalYl
C w .wcx 51 esnecesario,canYlntle al reverso
75A -227
Letter 14
Jose Rodriquez
312 E. 4`h Street, Suite A
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Response 14 -1
The support for Streetcar Alternative 2 was forwarded to the decision makers for consideration.
The comment is not directly related to the content or adequacy of the EA /DEIR, and no further
response is necessary.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR
January 2015
75A -228
Pagel170
Comment Letter No. 15
Ana and Garden Grove Fixed Guidewav Corridor
Your written comments YOURCOM NTS ARE IMPORTANTTO US
will be shared with
Name .LZ E -mall r':,1•AYVt d)trt i`'PG.'A° -. (,„41 , ,!?M
project decision- makers Address f ?' ` - —
City /State /Zip !-PVV4CS / Phone No,
A'. µe..
75A -229
We 9adtoConOm e
15 -1
Letter 15
Jose Diaz
1 502 W. 9 "' Street
Santa Ana, CA 92703
Response 15 -1
The EA/DEIR analyzed the environmental impacts based on conceptual engineering. Design
refinements may occur as the project's engineering plans are finalized. The evaluation of changes
to the proposed project would be conducted in compliance with FTA implementing guidelines for
NEPA (23 CFR 771.129) and CEQA Guidelines (PRC Section 15162). Project changes that would
not result in new significant or adverse impacts as compared to what has been evaluated and
disclosed in this FEIR would be evaluated and documented in an Addendum to the FEIR and
possibly an Environmental Technical Memorandum as a supplement to the EA in compliance with
FTA and NEPA requirements. Project changes that would potentially result in new or adverse
significant impacts as compared to what has been evaluated and disclosed in this FOR would be
evaluated and documented in a supplemental or subsequent environmental document. A
supplemental or subsequent document would be subject to the same noticing requirements as the
EA /DEIR and public outreach would be conducted to allow community input and participation. For
project updates, visit the proposed project webpage at http : / /santaanatransitvision.com or
contact Jason Gabriel with the City of Santa Ana Public Works Department at 20 Civic Center
Plaza, M -93 P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el 172
January 2015
75A -230
Santa Ana and Gordon Grove Fixed Guidewav Corridor
Comment Letter No. 16
Your written comments YOUR C MM NTS ARE IMPORTANTTO US
will be shared with }
Project decision- makers Name _,:.r" „- wa . ,y Email
city /state/zIp _J7ndn, Phone No. ,_ i ` _i- z_a-T..
Comments (please print)
ewou cli a you to consider the effects It wou _causF'9nd how It would affect businesses,
schzMIT, --c arks— antrthuttsabl d.
CCTA Sn nrv
75A -231
UseUaekto ConQnue
16 -1
Letter 16
Adrian Munoz
407 Vance Street
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Response 16 -1
The EA /DEIR comprehensively assessed the potential for community impacts. The relevant
analysis for each of the land uses noted in the comment can be found in the following sections:
Business — 3.3 Land Acquisition and Displacement, 3.10 Traffic and Parking, and
3.16 Construction
Schools — 3.5 Community Effects and Environmental Justice, 3.10 Traffic and Parking,
3.11 Noise and Vibration, 3.12 Air Quality, 3.15 Safety and Security, and 3.16 Construction
Churches — 3.5 Community Effects and Environmental Justice, 3.10 Traffic and Parking,
3.11 Noise and Vibration, and 3.16 Construction
Pedestrians — 3.10 Traffic and Parking and 3.15 Safety and Security
Parks — 3.4 Section 4(f) Resources, 3.5 Community Effects and Environmental Justice,
3.11 Noise and Vibration, and 3.16 Construction
Disabled — 3.5 Community Effects and Environmental Justice
Table ES -3 starting on page ES -17 of the EA /DEIR summarizes the potential adverse effects
associated with the proposed project, as fully analyzed in Chapter 3.0 of the EA /DEIR.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el 174
January 2015
75A -232
Santa Ana and Garden Grove Fixed Guidewav Corridor
Comment Letter No. 17
Your written comments YOUR COMMENTS ARE IMPORTANTTO US
will be shared with Name rs A411efF z. E -mailprojectdecision- makers Address ZLed S /*V/1E 5T'E'1"
City /State /Zfp. 7A ,'AA 4, C,4 9Z0a¢ phone No.
ww,Ct/a/ E VErtrr -V G —/ 7: FStt rN.,, U%Vy` /9 2a /,
Comments (please print) Z /_ y s % RO( ! r ! / " L GI' .r. f r,nr -ar aiovl- P21<ivn,Fx r
F',VA r
r kIfRlE trC /R/ Sdi f7.. AXIA. 17' ,AfS OAF d.f/ Ftb,VeWfC au,.-sr..
atiYJ /u,7Y1'(SE/'OU. B.Pdu /A/ REIJ /ClJ6GLS ?.'P'F'4 Y.G'k'- /Jh'.ArN ru4"bLL,Ell77/4 /,I! ".
A Hlw
4-A _V,
75A -233
17 -1
17 -2
Letter 17
Frank Mitchell, III.
1920 S. Greenville Street
Santa Ana, CA 92704
Response 17 -1
The support for the proposed project was forwarded to the decision makers for consideration.
The comment letter is not directly related to the content or adequacy of the EA/DEIR, and no
further response is necessary.
Response 17 -2
The Study Area is generally bounded by Harbor Boulevard to the west, 17`h Street to the north,
Grand Avenue to the east, and 1s` Street to the south. A connection to Old Downtown Garden
Grove is beyond the scope of this project. The suggestion to extend the alignment to Old
Downtown Garden Grove was forwarded to local agencies for future consideration. The
comment is not directly related to the content or adequacy of the EA /DEIR, and no further
response is necessary.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR
January 2015
75A -234
Pagel176
Public Hearing No. 1
1 SATURDAY, JUNE 14th, 2014,9:25 a.m.
2 •e
2 3 i
3 4 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: We are going to go ahead and
5 get started. 5
6 6 So we have an excellent presentation that we've
rRxNSCaxex oe: 7 been working on for weeks. This is acombination ofyears
e Santa ana- card¢„ Grove 8 ofplanning. We have an amazing leadership in the city
9 Fixed Guideway Project Hearing 9 with the mayor and the council. Theyunanimously supported
10 Saturday, June la, 2014 10 this project. We have Fantastic consultants. We have an
11
12 11 amazing partnership with Garden Grove and the Orange County
n 12 Transit Authority. We want everybody to know that, i
It 13 The bottom line is, wiry we're bore, we want your
la 14 input. We want your input. So ifyou have information and
16 15 you want to share it with us, that's what this is for. We
11
16 have a 45 -day review period. We've been at this foryears, is
19 17 but we have a 45 -day review period, and we have three
20 18 public meetings, one right here by the train station, one
al Reported ay: Josephine C. Nokee CSR No. 909a 1 19 in the central city, and then one on the west side, and
2a 20 we'll go over all those dates.
23 Gob No. 1875692
21 I want in make sure that everyone here is an24
22 ambassador. I want to make sure that everybody knows that25Paaea1 -4a
23 we did an extensive outreach, lots ofpublications. So
Page 1
24 what I thought I would do, maybe Jason can come on up andfivedsanNaaanalD,rolma a wpweoa
866 sm.5¢7 25 Tanya andjust explain a little bit aboutthe outreach we
Page 2
1 did so everybody knows how we got to Communicate. 1 CITY MANAGERCAVAZOS: Also newspaper articles. Do
2 JASON GABRIEL: Absolutely. I'm Jason Gabriel with 2 you want to add anything Tanya?
3 the Public Works Agency, and to get the message out on this 3 T'ANYA LYON: We also posted all ofthe documents, the
4 project, we wanted to make sure that we bad a very robust 4 postcards, also atevery single community center and senior
5 outreach. Throughout the process ofdeveloping this 1 5 center that we lurve in the city, as well as 1 believe some
6 environmental document, we've had extensive neighborhoon 6 locations in GordonGrove, their city hall, our city hall.
7 meetings with all the stakeholders along the corridor that j 7 And ifanyone is interested in reading the actual EDA, ifs
8 we could find. We've looked at business owners. We've 8 listed right them an believe six different locations
9 looked at public agencies, schools. We looked at everybod 9 within the city as well as on -line. We also did send out a
10 we can. 10 press release and will continue our outreach efforts to
I I And then leading lip to the release of this 11 communities and businesses along the route and we're
12 document, we focused on identifying all of the folks within 12 matching out to other businesses as well.
13 500 feet of the corridor of all ofthe potential alignments 13 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: 'Thank you. Thank you so much.
14 of the corridor to make sure that we get that outreach out t4 Does everybody have a cam? Ifyou want to give us input,
15 there. That's based On the tax roles from the county, 15 use one of these cards. They're in differentlanguages.
16 identifying each address, whether it's the property owner, 16 Whom is our naoslao,e) We have the
17 and in a lot of cases we tried to identify individual 1 17 hanstaton as set up fo.. Hythady who needs h.
18 tenants Of apartment complexes at least, if not the pCCSOtt, is UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We don't have anybody.
19 but at least the relit, so that the notice could go to all 19 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Okay, your¢ good today. You
20 of those folks. 20 getpaidanyway. Don'tworry.
21 So from that regard, we did print that postcard 21 All right I'm going to try to make this full and
22 out several Weeks ago, just at the release of the document 22 entertaining. Thank you for beinghere. It's a Saturday
23 and we feel that we've dole a lot to get out to the 23 morning, but ifs very, very important.
24 community and gave a lot of opportunities to provide input 24 1 havea lot oflightrail experience, alot of
25 throughout this last four of five years, so. 25 transit experience. I'm a big believer to publictransit.
Page 3
75A 235
Page 4
I I took the bus for nine years and I took the train for two 1 submit commons.
2 years. The bottom line is, I took the bus because I had 2 We really want to getthe word out. Today is
3 to. I couldn't afford two cars. I took the train because 3 June 14th, 9:00 o'clock, Garfield Center, here. Tuesday,
4 I wanted to. So I'm very, very excited about light rail 4 June 17th, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m, Santa Ana Police
5 So we'll go through this. I well try and Speak 5 Department community room. And then Thursday at night,
6 loud so everybody hears me. If anybody cannot hear me, le{ 6 from 6:00 to 9:00. So ifyou couldn't come on the weekend,
7 me know, but I'm going to go slow because there's 7 you want to cone during the day, you want to come atnight,
8 translations that may be occurring and we want people to 8 there's three different times for people to give their
9 have an opportunity to hear that. 9 input.
l0 So the purpose ofthe meeting is to get your 10 And by the way, there's not a lot ofpeople here.
I 1 input. Someone asked me, what's your preference? I don't I 11 Its not a bad thing, We've been at this for years. We've
12 have one. My preference is going to be the one that the 12 had a lot ofcommunication. We've had a lot ofcouncil
4 13 public supports that makes the most sense for a variety of 13 meetings. It doesn't mean thatit's bad. I had budget !
14 reasons and we'll talk about that. 5o after a 45 -day 14 hearings in Phoenix where there's 1.6 million people and
15 review period, we'll make a recommendation. It's 15 five orsix people would show up. Why? Because they liked
16 inappropriate to make one now. It's very inappropriate. lb the budget. They were happy with it. They had [hinge to
17 So we want your input. 17 do. When wewere cutting the budget my first year, 5,000
18 We do have other meetings. We have two more. I 18 people showed up, okay. So not having a thousand people is !,
19 reallyworked hard to make sure we had multiple meetings D 19 not abad thing. I want people to know that. I
20 everybody has an opportunity at different locations, 20 Next slide. We have the environmental assessment
21 different times. I don't want anybody to say that they 21 andthe DEIR available at several places. Do we have a
22 didn't have time to come to the meetings. There's three 22 copy here?
23 different meetings. We'll talk about the locations where 23 TANYA LYON: Yes.
24 the environmental assessment, the Draft Environmental 24 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: And then, Tanya, why don'tyou
25 Impact Report is located, and then we'll talk about how to 25 pass them around so people can thumb through itjust to see
Page 5 Page 6 '.
I it, but we have this available ifyou want to go look at 1 and Santa Ana - Garden Grove of course is what we're here ti:
2 it. We have it available on -line. We have it available 1 2 talk about today.
3 all these different locations, right. 3 When I went to visit OCTA, I noticed that every
4 It's a very interesting document. There was a 1 4 single element of the vision was being fulfilled except for
5 lot ofwork that was involved, a lot of work that was 5 one, no light rail. So here we are today. Ifwe can do
6 involved. The consultant and due team did a great job, but 6 this, that hull vision will be achieved. So here's the
7 these are all the places you can go to. You cango to the 7 vision, an integrated and balanced transportation system
8 public library, Rosita Park, the transit stamen, Garden 8 that supports the diverse travel needs and the character of
9 Grove City Ball, Orange County Transportation Authority, 9 Orange County, and then we have the mission, develop and
l0 and then it's on -line, and so those are all the places that 10 deliver transportation solutions to enhance quality oflife
11 it's available. 11 and to keep Orange County moving.
12 Next slide. This project background is something 12 Next slide. So it started in 2007. Modem
13 that the voters wanted. This is an initiative that was 13 streetcar system was one ofthe two rail projects selected,
14 approved by the voters and it was Measure M and it was 14 as I mentioned, and then we began the analysis,
15 voted on and it was initiated in 2006. It's a partnership 15 environmental review, five years ago in 2009, and we
16 between Orange County TransitAuthority and local cities. 16 finished that in the fall of 2012.
17 We have to foster transit connectivity and expand the reach 1 17 This is a study area. We have a nice map here.
18 oftransit so everybody can use public transportation to 18 We've got lots of places to see it. But if you look at the
l9 gel to their place ofworship, to their job, to where they 19 boundaries, 17th Street/Westminster Avenue on the north,
20 work, all different kinds of things. And we wanted to, the 20 First Street on the south, Grand Avenue on the east, and
21 goal was to identify the best projects for consideration. 21 Harbor Boulevard on the west. It's about 4.1 miles, 8.2 if
22 There are 35 submitted. 31 of them related to buses and 22 you take it back and forth from the farthest points.
23 shuttles and there were fear rail projects. 23 Three different alternatives were considered.
24 Next slide. Two of them were selected for 24 One was the bus, rapid transit, and then of course, the
25 further consideration, Anaheim and Santa Ana- Garden Grove 25 streetcar. You do have different alternatives and we want
Page 7
75A 236
Page 8
I your input. Jason, show them the card again. 1 smaller amount ofparking, but you can still have parking
2 JASON GABRIEL: Here are the cards. ! 2 in the vast majority of cases on both sides of the street.
3 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS; Tell us what you want. ]want 3 so there are options there for us.
4 streetcar one. I want streetcar two. I don't want any 4 No. 2, it will operate westbound on Civic
5 streetcars. Whatever it is, just tell us. We want your 5 Center and eastbound on Fifth Street, but there are some
6 input. We need your input. And you don'thave to do it 6 challenges. Longer, more circuitous route. The longer
j 7 today. You can think about, have a meeting, talk to your 7 route means greater costs, about seven percent higher
8 friends, take a vote, and then send it in by email, fax, 8 costs, and it does have a little bit of a more significant
9 etcetera, at cetera. 9 rider impact for streetcars.
10 And here are the challenges and the benefits for 10 And then there's the bus option. Of course, your
11 streetcar alternative one. One benefit, it serves the 11 capital costs are going to be lower up front because buses
12 greatest number of transit dependent households. There's a i 12 are cheaper than the light rail vehicles. It doesn't
13 lot ofpeople that depend on transit. Highest daily 13 require any additional right -of -ways. There's really no
14 ridership. One experience I have is that whatever your
15 ridership projections are, they're usually overachieved.
J 14 adverse impact on the environment. But the challenges are,
15 it's the lowest daily ridership, so the impact on ridership
16 ifthey say they're going to do this, it's going to be much 16 is not positive. Buses are smaller, less capacity.
17 greater. People are always worried about ridership. I 17 They're less efficient. The boarding is not as convenient
18 guarantee you, its going to be full. The people are going 18 and it provides very, very little economic development.
19 to use the Hain, the light rail. Operations and 19 In general, economic development should not be a
20 maintenance costs are one ofthe things that we focused on 20 driving force, but if you live along the light rail or have
21 to keep those costs low, and ofcourse what is the best 21 a business there, the economic impact is usually five to
22 land use. 22 one. So for every dollar invested in infrastructure, you
23 Some ofthe challenges are, it does impact some 23 get about a $5.00 return. That's a general role ofthumb.
24 parking. The good news is, the streetcar, because it'sin 24 Some places are lower. Some places are higher. But that's
25 the traffic lane, you could still have parking. Maybe a
Page 9
25 in my experience what I've seen.
Page to
I So why the streetcar? They're very reliable. I 1 1 director. I don't think halfof them knew it, bill when you
2 remember when I lived off the streetcar in Phoenix, I told 2 look at this, there's two cities in America that are among
3 someone out ofmy bedroom window, I actually could see the 3 the top 15 in density. They're both in Orange County and
4 station and I wouldsend a text and they would say that a 4 they're the only ones that don't have a streetcar or light
5 streetcar would be there in five minutes. I'd look in the i 5 rail. And Santa Ana's No. 4. Almost 12,000 people per
6 mirror, go like this, walk down my stairs, go down the 6 square mile. This is a very dense city. Poster child for
7 stairs and across the street, and the train's waiting for 7 a streetcar. We're in between Boston and Chicago. Very,
8 me. Isn't drat beautiful? 8 very interesting. So there it is, density.
9 Who takes the bus here? Nobody? You do. I used 9 How do the costs compare? Well, when you look at
10 to waitat the bus. It was like an eternity. When's it 10 a house or look at something over the long tern, you have
I l coming? When will it get here? You never know. But the 11 to take all the costs into consideration. What you £tad
12 trains, they run on time acrd it's awesome. Very friendly 12 out, for what I believe is a very, very high level of
13 environmentally obviously. It does foster walkability, 13 service, the cost for the streetcar is right in line with
14 more pedestrian. 14 the cost for the bus. So the total cost over 25 years
15 Again I mentioned the economic development. And 15 capital, O & M, for the bus is 363. You can see the
16 it's very compatible with the scale and the characterof j 16 streetcar one is 361 and the streetcar two is a little bit
17 the city. Especially Santa Ana. Santa Ana used to have a
18 streetcar. I remember working at the library, and it had a
1 17 higher. And that's our study and analysis, and so we
18 believe that when you look at the costs, the streetcar
19 nice streetcar, a red streetcar. It used to go down Fourth 19 actually can come in either the same as the bus or in some
20 Street. j 20 cases even lower.
21 This is something that's really, really 21 Next slide. One of the things that we did with
22 surprising. Who's seen this chart? Density. Density is 22 Orange County Transit Authority is we said, we're partners.
23 like the driving force behind mass transportation. The 23 Partners meaning that you have a partnership of
24 higher density, the higher need for mass transportation. I 24 participation and so we agreed that 10 percent ofthe net
25 showed this to the Orange County Transit Authority board 25 cost that Santa Ana world participate in is estimated at
Page 11
75A 237
Page 12
I between five or 600,000 once this isup and raining, and I National Environmental Policy Act and the California
2 the city council, based on my recommendation, voted 2 Environmental Quality Act requirements. That's why it
3 unanimously to support that. We sent that to the OCTA. 3 takes five or six years to get this done. You have to do a
4 They're doing a studyright now to look atimplementation 4 really goodjob in analyzing all ofthese impacts.
5 options and also a financing plan, but it's really good for 5 So when looking at the route, we want to make
6 them to have a commitment from the City ofSanta Ana for 10 6 sure that we serve the people, especially those that are
7 percent of the costs, so there it is. 7 transit dependent, people that need a bus, people that need
8 We also are looking at options. Ofcoursewe're 8 a train. Not everybody can afford a car. Cars are
9 working with the Transit Authority. We're looking at local 9 expensive. Gas is like, wow, forget about it. It's really
10 Measure M2 monies that come in, federal fiords. Again, this 10 expensive. I was talking to someone this morning and they
11 is a very, very desirable project from a transit I 1 were telling me they bought an electric oar, and lie goes,
12 perspective at the federal level, state funds, the fare 12 wow, my electric bill went up, but my gas was four times ash
13 box. We can get advertising fees and also we can look 13 high. So it's really saving money. This train system's
14 towards developer contributions. A lot oftimes they will ( 14 going to run on electricity.
15 contribute to the projects, which is really good. j 15 Ease ofuse and ridership, nice stations. People
16 So what is the purpose ofthe environmental i 16 can put their bike in there, people that have accessibility
17 analysis? We want everyone to know that the environmental 17 issues, it's better for them. We want to get people's
18 input from the communities, and of course the economicl8analysisisfocusedonthefollowingkeyareas. What's the j
19 effect on the community? What abort cnvironrnentaljustice, 19 development potential.
20 visual quality, cultural resources, parking, noise and 20 So what's happening in the future? We've got
21 vibration, air quality, and construction. All ofthese are 21 more action. After we get your input, we're going to
22 things that we are considering and getting input on in 22 review it, we're going to look at all your comments, and
23 terms of what we look at. And all of this, and everything 23 then we're going to make a recommendation to the city
24 thatwe're doing, that's why it takes so long, its taken 24 council that this is the local preferred alternative. This
25 years, years to do this, and it's in compliance with the 25 is the route that we're recommending and here's the reasons
Page 13 Page 14
r
t why. So that will happen in August. 1 you want as to be to get your comments. You can give it to
2 And then we're going to go back to our partner 2 us today, just hand it to as, right. Who can they give it
3 with the Orange County TransitAuthority and acknowledge j 3 to?
4 that we've completed the step to make sure that they're 4 JASON GABRIEL: Just leave them here and we'll collect
5 also in agreement, and then right now it's scheduled for 5 them.
6 October. Maybe we can do it sooner, and we can go ahead 6 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: You can mail them to us. You
7 and certify the DEIR based on the input that we got. And 7 can email them to us. You can fax it to us. You can give
8 than our goal would be in October that the Federal Transit 8 it to us on-line. And they can give it to us now. We'll
9 Administration would find no significant impact, and rhea 9 take thorn verbally eightup to speed, perfect. Does
10 based on what else we picked up determine the schedule, 10 anybody want to talk to the court reporter?
I l financing, and implementation and we go to work. 11 MADELEINE SPENCER: Yes. Also are we having public
12 Now, I will tell that you we have done such a 12 comments or is that not happening bare right/ now?
13 goodjob that the Federal Transit Authority tools three days 13 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: So who wants to make public
14 to review our environmental document and said, go aheadand 14 comments? Okay. Can you do that? Can you take her
15 release it. So that's a good, good sign that we've done a 15 comments? Okay. You first, Madeleine.
16 lot ofgood work. 16 MADELEINE SPENCER: Okay. You want me to give my
17 We're going to address every single comment here 17 public comments?
18 in the public review process. We will certify the 18 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Yeah.
19 environmental document, again posting TAa and a finding 19 MADELEINE SPENCER: I'mjust going to start withjust
20 plan, and wa71 do a fending agreement to make sum that 20 where we are right now, which is in this room. So this
21 there's no confusion. We'll do construction and then 21 meeting today has about probably 10 people in it. You said
22 operations ofcourse will occur probably a couple years j 22 that there's not a single person in here who needed
23 later if everything goes according in plan. 23 translation.
24 So we want your comments. Give us your input. 24 There is -- 1 see one of the property owners who PHI -i
25 IC's a quarter to 10:00. We'll be here until however long 25 have a business downtown mid there's a new person hero who
Page i5
75A-238
Page 16
I I spoke to from Oregon, and I live in the French Park 1 I took the actual transit system tour withJill
2 community. I know that this guideway's going to come 2 Arthur before she was fired and I heard exactly what the
3 through. I never received and I know that multiple people 3 idea of this transit system being for was, ajudge from
4 in my neighborhood never received any kind of flier for 4 Dana Point -- these are her words -- coming down to Santa
5 this meeting, and I got mine from a community center, so': 5 Ana and that being judge being able to go to work from,
6 that part is also tine. 6 first come down the Metro Line, come to work, get on the
7 Many of the people in this city it's known are 1 7 transit system, go up and work at the courthouses. Then be
8 renters. They're not actually property owners. So. unless 8 taken back downtown to go to hmch and then be taken up to
9 you guys are doing outreach to property owners, you said PHI -+ 9 our, which we don't have now, Wihowick GolfCourse to play
10 that you guys went to neighborhood associations. There's 10 a round of golf.
11 64 neighborhoods in this city, and ofthose there's 11 Now those things -- oh, and Tallahassee, j
12 probably about 15 that are active neighborhood 12 Tennessee, she says if there's people who come in from
13 associations. So I'm curious to larow specifically what 13 Tallahassee, Tennessee, to Disneyland, that maybe, you
PH+a
14 were the neighborhood association groups that you guys 14 know, one day they don't want to go to Disney. They just
15 spoke to on this fixed guideway. 15 want to come to downtown Santa Ana and have a good time at
16 The other questions that I have have to do with, 16 the nightlife. So this transitory is notspecifically
17 we'll start with the article that came out recently that it 17 being made for the people who actually live in the City of
18 was talking in the Register ofthe differences between this 18 Santa Ana and it's not going to connect to what's happening
19 project and the project that actually is being done in 19 in Disneyland.
20 Anaheim or is being talked about. And I want to know for 20 And it says it's for bus averse riders. Now the
21 the same reasons that Tate described how that's not going 21 demographic ofthis population here, everybody in this
22 to be happening here which is, he said, years of disruptive 22 room, one person said that they're a bus rider, but the PHI-a
23 construction, traffic congestion, mostly empty streetcars, PH1.e i 23 population ofthe City ofSanta Ana, there's a vast number
24 injured residents and a money pit residents cannot afford. 24 ofpeople that ride buses and none of them are in this
25 Vintage trolleys that cater to tourists. 25 room, so, and there's a lot ofthings that could be done to j
Page 17 Page 18
1 actually help our bus systems here. 1 here.
2 We have -- it says, spur economic development. 2 This also creates a safety issue. They've shown
3 Now you know, for big buildings like Mike Comes's 3 that these guideways lots of times are hitting people and
4 building, downtown you have to have a certain number of 4 there's an actual school. In one ofthe routes that you Pa
5 occupancy before you can actually make that building. I 5 guys are describing, there is actually a school that
6 would like to know the number of businesses that are 6 children are going to be walking across this line. So 1
7 planning on coming in according to the plan that Mr. Polido 7 have questions about that.
8 says are going to be along this transit system because if 8 And then the other thing is -- oh, another thing
9 we don't have occupancy, I don't know in what way all thes j 9 is properties. In this city, talking about businesses, we
10 businesses are going to flock to Santa Ana to come up aloe t0 have about 242 properties with 781 spaces that are vacant
11 this rail. Pn1> t 11 in the City of Same Ana and chat's commercial, retail, and
12 Tate said, I worry about seeing empty streetcars. 12 industrial spaces. Those spaces are not filled now. We're PHI$
13 Streetcars are fixed, and once you put them in, you can't 13 losing money and tux dollars on those spaces and we're
14 change the route to meet the demand. Morlock says that 14 talking about bringing in new businesses. Why not fill up
15 it's novel. It's not safer than a buts. It's not more 15 the spaces that are already vacant in the city with
16 flexible than a bus. 16 businesses so that we can actually take care ofthat,
17 240 million dollars in investments is going to 17 And in San Francisco, there was something called
1.8 help to shape the quality of life in Santa Ana. Now 240 18 the Six Big Winds with breakthrough communities and one of
19 million dollars in investments, we were at a meeting to get 19 the things that they were required to do when they put in
20 STIP funding so that people would stop getting hit because 20 their transit system was an equity analysis. And I'mjust
21 people are regularly bit on streets here, on body their
PHi -5 PHI -T
21 going to tell you guys, an equity analysis, what exactly is
22 bicycles and in walking, and they said in Orange County, it 22 that? It's an executive order that was codified with a
23 was Lucy Dunn said, I'm sorry, we are broke in Orange 23 renewed concern about the effects ofgovernment activities
24 County, and WC cannot actually give STIP funding to help 24 on minority and low income populations. It states that
25 the number of people that are dying walking across streets 25 each federal agency shall make achieving environmental
Page 19
75A 239
Page 20
I justice part of itsmission. You said that there is an 1 documentation showing that that is in fact the case, and to
2 environmental justice component in this, but specifically 2 prevent the denial or reduction in a significant delay in
3 these would be qualitative measures, but the renewed 3 the recipients ofbenefits by minority and low income
4 concern for equity impacts ofgovernment actions -- 4 populations.
5 THE COURT REPORTER: Pu sorry. Canyou slow down 5 So there's nobody in this room, although the city Poi-7
6 just a little bit. j 6 is 80 percent Latino, there's nobody in this room that aom.
7 MADELEINE SPENCER: Yeah, actually you know what, I i 7 needs the equipment that's in the back, which shows thati
8 willwrite in specifically what I'm saying so that you have 1 8 there's actually something wrong with the way you guys are
t 9 it i 9 doing outreach, and ifthere's about 10 people in this
A ] 0 THE COURT REPORTER: Okay, thank yon. Fin-7 10 room, it's not because everybody's happy. That's all
11 MADELEINE SPENCER: But a renewed concern for equity I I CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Thankyour so much for those
12 impacts ofgovernment actions has strong resonance in the 12 comments, and if you can put those on a card, that's great,
13 transport policy arena because in transportation, 13 Otherwise we'll do the best we can to capture the
14 throughout history, it's been used to affect minority 14 information and that will be pert ofthe record and then
15 populations, and this actual study would help to avoid and 15 well respond to each ofthose comments. Thank you very
t6 minimizeand mitigate disproportionately high and adverse 16 much.
17 human health environmental effects, including socioeconomic 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Ijust want to say one thing,
18 effects to the minority population and low income 18 that I agree with the one tiring Chat Madeleine said was
19 populations to ensure full and fair participation by all 19 that I also live in the area and I never received anything PH1 -8
20 potentially affected communities in transport and decision 20 in the mail and I am a property owner. I did get
21 making processes. 21 everything by email So ifthe outreach is by mail, just
22 This transit system actually goes in the opposite 22 try to stay a little bit more on top ofthat.
23 direction ofwhere most people in this city go to work, 23 But I would like to know if you've already
24 which is the other way. So ifthese things have been 24 figured out how much it would cost forpeople to take the I PHla
25 checked in those neighborhoods, there would actually be 125 lighttransit because I thinkthe majority ofthe people
Page 21 Page 22..
u
1 that will be using it will be the ones that take the bus. i I respond to as partofthe Environmental Impact Report. She
2 And then also the stops along the route, I think it would 2 had dozens ofquestions in that statement, Some ofthe
3 benice ifthey were all in conjunction with the normal bus 3 information we don't have. For example, just as an
4 stops so then that way people will know. 4 example, I don'tknow what the costis going to be. We
5 1 personally think it's a great thing. I like 5 don't know that yet. That's part ofthe financingplan '..
6 No. 2 better than No. 1 because it's going in go down PHLBlit 6 that OCTA is doing. I will tell you that historically it's
7 Fourth Street. And I think the reason why a lot ofpeople 7 been a little bit higher than tie bus, but it's not been
8 aren't here is because it's Saturday morning mid I 8 something that has been a detrimentfor people to use. So
9 straggled to get here myself. 9 go ahead.
10 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: We have three different 10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'mjust saying, this is kind
It options. 11 of the first real experience I've had with this plan, so 1
12 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You said you liked No. 2 12 was curious ifthere's going to be a Q & A session
13 because it goes down Fourth Street? 13 afterwards because I had a couple questions.
14 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, No. 1. 1 don't like the 14 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Oh, you can stay afterwards am
l5 one going down Fourth Street, 1 15 we can do that. Itjust can't be part of the public record
16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. I1 16 because this is input.
17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have a question. i i 17 Yes, sir.
18 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: And we would love your 18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I did receive the notice in the
19 comments. Let's go in order. Madeleine first. You're 19 mail.
20 next. 20 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Good, Congratulations. We gc
21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Ijust wanted to know, is there 21 a hit.
22 going to be a Q & A after this? 22 SEAN POUCH: 1 live right on Smrla Ana Boulevard so I
23 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: There's no Q & A. We've been j 23 would be directly affected by this. I grew up in San Diego Puh -w
24 at this for five years. Any kind ofquestion that you j 24 and I'm a big Fan of the streetcar system down there. I
25 have, we're going to document and then we're going to 25 went to San Diego State and the streetcar was finished a
Page 23
240
Page 24
75A
I year after I graduated, soI never got to take advantage of 1 talk to you after themeeting. I have a lot of experience
2 it, but it was a great tool because parking there was 2 with these projects midhow well they've done and I'll
3 hysterical. I 3 share that with you after the meeting. Here we're just
4 My statement or Iguess my question or however, 4 getting input. Anybody else have input? Yes.
5 as thisproject develops, there's opportunities for retail 5 RUBY CARDENAS: My name's Ruby Cardenas. I'm on the
6 to develop jobs. One ofthe main reasons I moved here was 6 Environmental and Transportation Advisory Commission, and I
7 the Center Line project, which was a predecessor of this 7 mean we've talked a lot about this project. I have
8 one, but the opportunityfor retail along Fifth Street, if 8 pemonally some concerns. I live on Santa Ana Boulevard,
9 Fifth Street is the corridor for return, that could 9 and I know there's two schools right next to each other
10 activate a very dead street as well as the train station PHI -to 10 Romero, and I can't remember die other one.
PHI -11
1 l which is -- and you've heard me say this -- its our most
L0fu.
11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Harvard.
12 under-utilized asset. So I'd love to see retail, and you 12 RUBY CARDENAS: Yeah. So its a concern with safety,
U know, biggest level ofaffordability homes there, justto 13 you know, how fast is this transportation going to be going
14 create a sense ofactivation, 14 through that street, and also the parking. Parking is also
15 The problem is, one ofthe comments I've heard 15 already an issue. You have to schedule in your visitors,
16 about this development is that it's a streetcar to nowhere. 16 so that way you have parking on that street.
17 1 would definitely use it to go downtown. By the time it's 17 Also one ofthe major concerns with this j
18 completed, I will probably qualify for the senior discount, I
18 transportation is, like Madeleine had pointed oat, is it
19 but I don't know anybody who is like, hey, let's go to 19 going to help thecommunity that's taking the public
20 Garden Grove, right. I rmderstand it's going to be a 20 transportation? And something to take into consideration
21 transportation hub, but ultimately I would love to see the 21 is, ifyou pay, for example, abus pass, is that going to Pal -12
22 city, at least our end, capitalize as we're putting down 22 help you be able to use this, that it's interchangeable,
23 the effort to create tax revenue over at the train station 23 because ifit's an extra cost, I really don't see how
24 as well as at the past stops. So thank you. 24 people can take advantage of it if its to get to work or
25 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Again, not a response, but I'll 25 to get to whore they need to go to.
Page 25 Page 26
1 I would also prefer if -- I would prefer a whole F in conjunction with those events because Fourth Street is
2 other option, but thaPs not one of the alternatives, ifit
PH -t4
2 usually closed off due to the awesomeness that happens
3 would havebeen Civic Center since it's already astreet ji 3 there.
4 that's pretty open, there's no parking on parts of the 4 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Sure, those are all operational
5 street, but alternative to going through FifthStreet. 5 issues. Again, I can't answer questions. I'll be happy to
6 Like you had pointed out, there's so much of Santa Ana 6 talk to you after that.
7 that'snot utilized, like even having restarunms in front 7 SEAN PULICH: And these are just things that Pm surePNid3I
8 ofrlte courthouse, you know, ifs a beautiful courthouse, 8 slot ofpeople wouldjust be curious about Ihave no
9 and so I would also prefer that option. 9 idea.
10 1 know with the committee I'm in, with ETAC, 10 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: In my experience we have had,
I I we've been wantingto have a meeting where we could voice I 1 again, in Phoenix, we had parades, we had marathons, we had
12 our opinion about what altemative we prefer. I would like 12 NFL games, we had NBA basketball, and we were able to
13 to -- I know because we were having these meetings, we 13 manage all that It works.
14 didn't want to confusethe public, but if there's a way we 14 Open comments about the options and the transit
15 could have this meeting after these meetings are done, l 15 authority?
16 thinkunit's arequest thatI would like to have. I speak 16 RUBY CARDENAS: I forgot something, too.
17 probably for the group because in our lastmeeting, it was 17 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: And your name again because
18 something we really wanted to do. 18 this is all official
19 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Thankyou so much. Anyone else 19 RUBY CARDENAS: Again, it's Ruby, last something to
20 that wants to make their comments to the public, we do have 20 also right now that you brought up Fourth Street, if
21 a court reporter that will take your comments, and again, 21 there's construction and how long it's going to be, I PHl -15
22 you canonmil, fax, 22 really think its going to impact the businesses there,
23 SEAN PULICH: I did have one concern. With the 23 rather Fifth Street that's not as much used or there's not
24 (inaudible) and the Ciaco De Mayo events, ifyou guys do go PHI 14 24 a lot ofbusinesses. 1 don't think it would be as
25 down Fomth Street, I wasEut curious how that would work 25 impaoted.
Page 21
75A 241
Page 28
1 Also, l don't know Ifits misleading. On a lot 1 nice about it. So who hasn't spoken yet? We want to get
2 ofthe advertising, it already has it on Fourth Street, so 2 your comments,. Because the real goal here, this is a very
3 it gives flits impression, like the picture that you used at PHl -19 i 3 scientific approach. This is not a meeting to get applause i
4 the beginning ofthks power point, that was also utilized 4 and snaflike that. We want to get yourinput. We've
5 in the newspaper and that was also on the web site, it has 5 spentmillions and millions ofdollars W get the
6 iton FotvM Street So people when they seethat, they 6 environmental assessment done. This is a very serious
7 already assume that its already setup. 7 project. Sown have to get the input. We have a court
8 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Do you notice anything? We had 8 reporter and we have to respond to it, and all of those
9 to pill apicture somewhere. Historically they had a 9 comments will go to the federal government as part ofout
10 streetcar that was once on Fourth Sneer so we chosethat, 10 submission. Yes, sir.
I I but it's one ofthe options, but all of the options are 11 PAUL YANEZ: My name is Raul Yanez. I'm a business
12 whatwe want to bear about Rom you today. 12 and properly owner here in downtown Santa Ana for 35 years.
13 RUBY CARDENAS: And also making it a little bit mom 13 You were talking about meetings that you already had with
14 attractive. I don'tknow ifit'sjust like a generic one 14 the associations in the community. I never seen any Parts
15 that yodre using for advertising, but making itmom PHI -17 15 information about those meetings like Madeleine says. This
16 attractive for people to want to rideit. A lot of people 16 is the first time that I hear about this meeting and that's
17 don't want to ride public trmhsportation because they have 17 why I'm over here.
19 negative connotations ofpeoplewho have never taken it. 18 My concern is that, I'm concerned about the j
19 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: So make the train more 19 streetcar going on Fourth Street. Back in the eighties we
20 attractive? 20 had remodeling on the street. Itjust mined the business
21 SEAN PULICH: Make it gold. 21 for whatever time it takes. But back then in the eighties, j PHI -19
22 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: We can vote on colors later 22 the economy was really good. These days the economy's
23 once the train Is done 23 really, really bad. It's getting better, it's there, but I
24 Okay, anybody? Hold on a second. We got to go 24 think it's not the righttime. Well, if you choose --
25 m order here. So we want your comments, and that's what's 25 which one is the one on Fourth Street, No. 2, No, 1?
Page 29 Page 30
I CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Just tell us what you want. Wei 1 years? Five years. How many millions ofdollars?
2 just want your input. 2 Millions ofdollars. And we've gotten all the input and
3 RAUL YANEZ: I would like No. 2.
PHt -r9
3 now these are the options and this is what we're presenting
4 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: No. 2? 4 forward and we want to have three of these meetings to get
5 RAUL YANEZ: No. 2, yes. 5 people's input. Do you like No. 1? Do you like No. 2? So
6 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: You want No. 2? 6 we have to take all ofthat and then put it in a body of
7 RAUL YANEZ: No. 2, which goes on Third or Fifth 7 paper and I can't do the Q & A because I don't have the
8 Street. 8 answers to all the questions. We actually have to sit
9 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: That's what we wanted. We 9 around a table and document it. You mentioned 400
10 wanted your input. Okay, who hasn't spoken yet? 10 vacancies, 300 this. I don't have all the information.
1
11 All right. Now we're going to go to people who t 1 I. After this meeting, Fm willing to stay with
12 spoke already if they want to talk again, Go for it. 12 anybody to have a friendly conversation, just to talk to
13 TISH LEON: I'm actually in the downtown neighborhood 13 people about their questions, and I will do the best I can
14 association and I was actually involved with this at the 14 to answer, but it's not part ofthe official record.
15 very beginning when they called certain community leaders 15 Because we've been doing it for five years and we had
16 to be in the steering committee when this was just a 16 public meetings, we had public hearings, we've had several
17 concept. I forget what year. And I've been to numerous 1 17 council meetings, and we'll have more, but it's just not
18 Q & A's, but what's really bothered a lot ofpeople is like i PH'-20 18 part of this process. This is for public input.
19 because many ofyou, this is the first time you've been 19 TISH LEON: Right. Well, that's what I was saying,
20 here and so you can't get the answers W your questions 20 because I was part of it at the beginning when we had the
21 during this, and I know that this bothered some people when 21 round table at the community center, but it's really
22 itwas at the Amtrak station a couple of years ago, and so 22 unfortmrate because Santa Aim, I mean so many people com
23 hopefully you can have another Q & A. 23 and go and then there's new people and then they have these
24 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: I can't really -- so what's 24 questions and concerns.
25 happening here is that we've been doing this for how many 25 CITY MANAGER. CAVAZOS: Absolutely.
Page 31 Page 32
75A- 42
I TISH LEON: And so, you know, I'm jus0looking at 1 I'm relatively new to Santa Ana, I don't know all the
2 their point ofview because I did have that opportunity, 2 details, you're talking about prefer alternative No. 1 or
3 you know, being a resident of downtown, and knowing that 3 alternative No. 2, but the thing that's always been a
4 its going to impact me, favorably I hope, but you know, 4 question in my mind is Santa Ana Regional Transportation
5 I'mjust thinking of those few that say that they've never 5 Center is like die transportation hub closest to John Wayne PH1 21
6 seen it 6 Airport and I justnever understood why the two haven't
r.
7 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: That's why we have the book. 7 been connected. Every major airport in America has a train
8 All ofthe -- excuse me. Pm not done talking. 8 conning into it because it'sjust connecting those urodes of
9 The book talks about all the options, the 9 transportation and it's always baffled me that we've never
10 concerns, the alternative analysis, the environmental 10 had that. Maybe John Wayne like was a project and then it
I l impact, and there's hundreds of pages here on comments, 11 got killed, but I'm just curious why this was kind of put
12 demographics, socioeconomic data. It was all captured as 12 forward instead oflike an alternative to thatproject.
13 part of those meetings mid now it's available for public 13 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: So I'll talkto you about that I
14 review. 14 afterward because 1 can't answer that question now. We
15 And 1 was a huge proponent of having those 15 don't have an option to go to the airport right now.
16 meetings. We wanted more meetings to give land 16 Madeleine?
17 opportunities for people to give us their input and I'm 17 MADELEINE SPENCER: There was three other things.
18 willing to meet with anybody, any stakeholder, and sit 18 There's three other questions that I have. One ofthem has
19 around and talk to them, but what we really need now, now 19 to do with, I actually went door to door to the businesses
20 that we have the alternative analysis and the DEIR and the 20 on Fourth Street and every single one of60 ofthose places PHI-22
21 options, we need your input on which option, ifany, you 21 had never heard anything about the possibility of this
22 like. That's what welts doing. But ifwe wait five years, 22 project going down Fourth Street, which would potentially
23 we have to do a whole other book 23 impact those businesses a lot and already many of those
24 Who hasn't spoken yet? Yes, sir. 24 businesses are impacted because the daytime traffic has
25 SEAN PULICH: One thing I'm thinking abort here, and I PHI -21 25 slowed down, and I'm curious why exactly, those business
Page 33 j Page 34
i —
1 owners, it seems like they would be flocking to hear about PNt,22 1 in that neighborhood as well and spoke to people and they
2 the potential oflike this kind of constnictiou work ou i.
2 had received letters from the city saying that they had
3 these streets, 3 five years to move out oftheir homes and that was really
4 The second question I have is about parking, and j 4 interesting to me because that's a use ofeminent domain. PHI-24
5 on Fifth Street, when we took that tour, we saw that 5 So the question is where are -- I think that
6 there's these small houses andthere are no back areas for 6 there's some serious things going on here that I have a lot
7 them to park, and we asked her specifically, where are 7 of questions about, and if we need to bring all of this
8 people supposed to park down further on this line where 8 stuff in as proof to the city so that you can take a better
9 there's these small houses? And I live in a neighborhood PHl -23 9 look and do this equity assessment, I think that that would
l0 where we get ticketed regularly. Ifwe have friends over 10 be great.
ll -- I actually have a garage, but if there's friends over, 11 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Yes, sir.
12 they get ticketed on our streets in Santa Ana for visiting, 12 SEAN PULICH: Sean Pulich again. I think all this
13 so it makes it like, oh, we don't want to come over and 13 information would be very useful on the web site. I think
14 visit your house because we're going to get ticketed. And 14 the web site could probably use some updates. It's still
15 then on top ofit, you're going to be taking awayjust the 15 using flash. It's not very mobile friendly.
16 parking that is there for the houses that are there. 16 But in terms of adding value to this
17 And then the third thing is the Willowick, this 17 transportation, I've regularly taken Amtrak or Metrolink PHH 25
18 piece of land, I know it belongs to Garden Grove, and I'm 18 to L.A. or into downtown San Diego and Metrolink transfer.
19 really curious how, I know it's within our jurisdiction, 19 to the red line or any ofthe subway cars in Los Angeles.
20 but what are the city's plan in terms ofdevelopment and 20 Adding value as traffic, as more people start moving to
21 how is also this development going to impact the Santa PHI-24 21 Orange County, if we can also work with Amtrak and
22 Anita neighborhood which is adjacent to it, which has a 22 Metrolink to make sure that we increase ridership on the
23 gang injunction. The only gang injunction in this area is 23 streetcar and make sure like Metrolink transfers to the
24 on that neighborhood and how is this whole process going t 24 streetcar as well, and even Amtrak, I'm not sure if that
25 impact that neighborhood? And I actually went door to doo 25 would work out, but just the idea ofhaving those two be
Page 35
75A 243
Page 36
PHt -25COOLItransferable, instead ofhaving to go to a kiosk or. So 1 until about 200 o'clock in order to bring back and take
2 that's just suggestions. 2 people from the nightlife in Santa Ann. If this is going
3 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: More ofa statement than an 3 to occur, l think OC'fA needs to really look at doing that
4 answer to your question, We have Orange County 4 with all the bus systems. There's people that getout of pl '27cant
5 Transportation Authority and that's one of the .'..sons why 5 work at 11:00 and they miss the last bus and that's it.
6 the citywanted them to be the lead agency so they can 6 Youknow, l wouldn'tfind it fair that we have a light mil
7 coordinate all ofthose issues. j 7 traveling at the lasq you know, batch is at 2:00 o'clock,
8 Questions about the project or comments abort the g but all ofthe othertransportation around finishes at
9 project? Input, public input? Yes, sir. 9 1 h00, so it's something to consider,
10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: How long will it take from I PHI -R6 Ill CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Thankyea. Any other comments
11 startto finish? 11 for the public so wa can include it in ourEnvironmental
12 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Well, we don't -- I can tell 12 Impact Report?
l3 you that afterwards, but we wanted your input. Ifyou want 13 Also, the next meeting again -- let's go through
14 us to answer that question, we can, but 1 can give you an 14 that schedule. Lars put that back up, whoever's doing the
15 idea afterwards, We want input on the options and the 15 schedule. I think its like the second or third slide.
16 alternatives. Ifpeople have questions, we'll document 16 There it is.
17 them and well answer them as part of the report. And 17 So our next meetings on June 17th, and firers at
18 what's good about that is everybody sees it, everybody sees 18 the Sane Ana PoliceDepartment, and three on Tuesday at
19 it, and the answer is a professional answer that is based 19 9:00 o'clock in the morning. So if people didn't want to
20 on information, and whenwe answer the question, we'll have 20 come on theweekend, they cango on Tuesday, and then again
21 better information, j 21 on Thursday, June 19th, for people that couldn't come on
22 RUBY CARDENAS: Ruby Cardenas again. When 1 took the 22 the weekend couldn't come during the day, want m come at
23 tour with one ofthe consultants, I can't remember her 1 11 23 night, they cancome at night. We have three meetings.
24 name, but when I took a tour ofthe different alternatives, Pal-27 24 Thank you. And I'll slickaround ifpeople want
25 she had mentioned that this light rail would be in function
Page 37
25 m chat and talk. Again, ifyou still have more comments,
Page 38 it
1 we have cards and you can talk to the court reporter .tier I 1
2 the meeting. 2
3 (End of transcription.) 3 1, the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand
4 (TIME NOTED: 10:20 a.m.) 4 Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify:
5 5 That the foregoing proceedings were taken before
6 6 me at the time and place herein set forth, that any
7 7 witnesses in the foregoing proceedings, prior to
8 8 testifying, were placed under oath; that a verbatim record
9 9 of the proceedings was made by me using machine shorthan
10 10 which was thereafter transcribed under my direction;
I 1 I I further, that the foregoing is an accurate transcription
12 12 thereof.
13 13 1 further certify that I am neither financially
lq 1 14 interested in the action nor a relative or employee ofany
15 j 15 attorney or any of the parties.
16 16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have this date subscribe(
17 17 my name.
18 18
19 19 Dated: 06/28/2014
20 20
21 21
22 22 Josephine C. Nokes
23 23 CSR No. 9098
24 24
25 25
Page 39
75A 244
j Page40
13:915:3,1328:15
nnlhorlt ij
asplmlize 25:22 ehlidren 20:6
37:5 21',622:2224:7 enpture 22:1)
lanfhority- commercial)
nveilnUle 6:21 81,2 29:13 capluretl 33:12 drone 29:10
2,11 33:13 Loard 11:25 ear 14:8,11 elnao 27:24
q add A:2 22234:1,435:12
averse 18:20 body )2:6 aardenas 26:5,5,12 clllee 7:16122
sash) 2015
aJtling 36:16,20 38:2,Ifl
city 2:4,8,194:1,5,6
asvaxme 11:12 Losmn 12:7 37:22,22 4;fi,9,13, 196247:9
awev+menese 28:2 Lxthend 31:Ifl,21
Latmm 2:135:2
bought 14:11
12:1523:22,2] 4 ]2:5
L
24:1231:18,2332:] 4.1 8:21 additional IO:II na1 12:5
18:2320:9,1],15
38:1,14 24:2226:8 case 22:1 21:2322:5,1123:10
background 7:12 Laundaries 8:19 ruses 31]10:2
400 329 edtlrem 3:1615:17 anaheim ]:2517:20
1220 2522,2527:1918:4
30:23 brevklM1mugM1 20:18 cater 1]:25 28:10,1729:9,19,22
LnOetl 34:9
p
eveeoa 2:44:1,13c4:19
45 2Ifi,17514 adjacent 3522 annlyale 8:1412:1]
b:149:31fi:6 33:]34:1336:2,8
Lveetl 3:1513:2 broke 19:23 16:13,1822:11 36:1137:3,6,12
15:],1037:19
061282014 40:19
9:Ig18,2324:14 8:10
adminialraHnn 15:9 IJa],1820:20,21
24:20252527:19 city4 35:20
butch 38'9 building 19:4,5 28:4,10,1729:8,19 clvlc 10:427:3
beanOPUI 11:827:8
I
29:2231:1,4,",9,24
5 edvunlage 25:1 3:10,20
322533:734:13 aloaes[ 34:5
Legan 8:14 11:9,1012:14,15,19 36;1137:3,1238:10 codi0ed 20:22
Iregi:tniue 29:4 14:718:20,2319:1
5,000 fi:17 2fi:24 annlY+ing 14:4
19:IS,Ifi 23:1,3 V;59927:J ealore 29:22
relieve 4:5,812:12 24:7262158:4,5 122154:5 aomhinatinn 2:7
1 23:6,1430:2532:5
Luaea ]:2210:1 I,ifi
34:2 5.00 10:21 ntivene 10:149afi angeles 3fi:19
ttrmin 19:431:15
forte 10:2011:23
Lelongn )518 bvainese J:0 1021 eertived 40:J 17:2 18:6,6,12,15
Lane@ 9:11 142530:11,20
9 -40 1:25 500 3:13 advertising 13:13 nnim ]5:22
40:13 38:20,21,22,22,23
bmf 7:219:2122:13 bualneaan 411,12 cetera 9:9,9 coming 11:11194
32:13
fi
ahalleneee 9:10,23 19:7
Lb 6:14 29:2,15 rover 28:5)2:14vJ4:1437:4,14,17,19
comment 15:1]
30:2)36:83]:21 424 eXenge 19:14 comments fi:114:22
a
60 34',20
chareafer 0:B II:Ifi
10 12:2433:616:21 etivleory 1fi:6
big 4:2519:320:18 chart 11:22 Ifia 722:12,15
24:24 nlifornla 141404 chat 38:25 23:1925:152]:20
biggen[ 25:13 culled 20:1731:15
22:9 600,000 13:3 effect 21:14 3]:19,20
rLecisetl 2125 30:2933:1137:9
6111 14:12 capital IO:II 12:15 chieago 12:7 38:10,25
goes 14:11 15:23emu
10;00 15:25 64 17:11 afford 53 14:8 w n 31:2032:8
13:22 36:151fi:18
10:20 39:4 6A0 66 17:24 an)budY 4:17,185:6
711:00 )X:9,9 anonlnhlllly 25:13 5:2116A025:19
32,000 12:5 efmrnartl 34:14 26:429243212
12:00 fi:4 791 20:10 egenrin 3:9 JJ:18
8 agency 3;320:25 anYm'sy 4;20i4I:ID14ih.2:16:] 7:fi npanment 3:188.2 8:21
IS 12:3 p:12 AO 9:fi ago 3:228:1531:22 aPPiaase 30:3
917th6:48:19]8:1] agree 22:18 approach 30:3
1875692 1:2) 9098 1:2140:2] agreed 12:24 pprovetl T.14
9tM1 38:21 9:OU 60,4,E )8:19 r t 15:5,20agsemen ree 8:1]32:19
9'15 2;1 ahead 2:415:6,14 5:2J224:9 area 13aA 35:fi210;421:fi,123025 elr 13:21 na 21:13
m. 216439:431:3,4,5,6,732:5 airport 34:6,7,15 armor 18:2
340 3:13
2006 815
able 18',526:22 alignmems ardale D:V
yg;12 elternvtive 9;11 nrHeim 4:11007812ebenlutely3:232:25 14:2427:5,12)3:10 arkeJ 5:1135;720098:15 eeeeNllity 14;Ifi 33:2034:2,3,12 arxenamen[ 5:2420128:16 ntturnte 40:11 vlternvnvee 8:23,25 6:2030:6 3fi:920141:102:1 aeXlevetl 8:6 27:237:16,24 nmet 25:1224U19:17,18 echleving 20:25 mxzing 2:8,11 modxnnn 17:14
31:1424220:10 acknowledge 15:3 amLaendor 222
2S 12'14 set 14:1,2 ameden 12:234:] saoclnllone 1]10a181330:142:00 38:1,7 eetlon 14:2140:14 ant 10:1
1 ec[lons 21:4,12 emirvk 31:22 Jfi: nmume 29:7
300 32:10 ecfivvle 25;10 3621,24 attorney 40:15
91 7:22 atlivelion 25:14 nu 1:86:4]:258:1a1Li7,1]12:2513:6 atlrotllve 29:14,Ifi35 ]2230:12 netive tl:12 29:20
361 12:16 eetivitlm 20:23 18:5,15,18,2] 19:10 eagmt 15:1
363 12:15 ectnal 4:718:120:4 19:Itl 20:1124:22 authxrlly 2:12]:9
21:15 2fi:827:fi 30:12 7:3611:2512:22
Page 1 Pege 2
Veritext National Daposkivn Litigation Services Veritext NationalDeposition Litigation Services
86fi 299-5127 86fi 299 5127
Icommbsinn - eaall earm +u.A -goes]
commission 2fi:fi construction 13:21 d mnerenens V:18
mmlLnent 13:fi 15:21 :2328:21 different 4:8,15dairy9:1110:15committee27:10 352 dons IN:4 5:20,21,23 6:8 70
31:Ifi consultant 7:6 data 3512 20823,259:10
nnnicvte 3:1 comnlmnte 210 data 4016 3724
communication 37:23 dnrotl 40:19 direction 2113
6:12 annlLme 4:10 dates 220 40:10
mnnitlev 411f°14:1820:1821:20 mnlrikute 1315 day 2:Ifi,l]5:146:7 directly 24:23wnlriLntiane131410:1430:22 director iL1
rnmmnnity 3:244:4 annvenieni IO:I7 date 15:1330:22 discount 25186:513:1917:2,5 nversallon 3212 daytime )4:24 tlBney 18:14
2h:19 )0:1431:15 coordinate 37:7 a° z7;24 tllaneylvntl 18:13,19
3z:z1 copy 6:22 dead 2510 diaprxportlo m[e1y
compete 12:9 corridor 3:7,13,14 tlec4ion 21:20 2116
rompaHM1le II:IE 25:9 dunnihly 15:17 disruptive 1]:22
completed 15:4 test 12:13,14,14,25 deir fi:2115:]3320 divmae 8825:18 22242442fi23 delay 22:2 document 3:6,12,22
complexes 3:16 eosin 9:211,21109,0 deliver 8:10 7:415:14,192325
cnmpiinnee 1325 IO:II 12:9,11,18 demand 19:14 32937:16
component 21:2 13:7 demngrnphie 1X:21 doeumenmtlon 221concept31:17 council 2:96:12 demographics 33x2 documents 4:3
concern 20:2321:4 13:2141432:1] denial 22:2 doing 13:4,241]:9
21:1126:1227:23 county 2:113:15]:9 dome 11:6 22:924:fi 31:25
30:18 7:Ifi 8:9,1111:25 density IL22,22j4 3215 332238:3,14eoncemetl10:18 12:3,2215:319:22 dollar 10:2212:3," roncerns 2fi:8,i7 19:2436:21 Jk4 tlepnrlmnnt 6:5 Jolters 19:1],19
32:2433:10 couple 15:2224:1) 30.10 20:1330:532:1,2
confuse 2]:14 31:22 depend domain Ifi:4
confnsinn 15:21 course 8:1,24921 9:13tlepavdent9:1214:7 door )4:19,1935:25anngesllon17:9 10:1013:814:18 3525
11 tleongmnaone 1522189 JmrrlUed 1]21
demrihing 2U:5 dawnlmvn Ifi:25
24:20 court IE:1021:5,10 deslreLle 1111 Ik8,15194251]
aanJnnetlov 92 27:2130:739:1 delelle 34:2 30:12)1:1333:3
1B:1 contlLauee 2]:8,8 determine 15:10 36:18
ennnact IA:18 cnurihousex B:9 detriment 248 dxzene 212
pacted 34:7340 ream 2514,23202 develop tl:925:fi draft 5:24driving10:2011:23neclingravinedeveloper13:14voonomivity7:17 car 12140:23 aerNonmg 3s due x02
commtetlone 2218 cnllurol 13:20 development 1018 dnnn 19:23consider38:9 curious IT.132412 10:1911:1514:19 dying 19:25
ecomidernlion7:21 27:2528854:11,25 19225:1635:20,21
a 14:157:2512:112fi20823 3Y.19 fi: Saratoga 25:5
onsitleretl rufling tllego 24:23,25 cart 820
considering
page 3 Page4
Mast Nadeaal Deposition&Unti tmn Service VariantNational Deposition& Litigation Se:vicea
866 299 512] 75A 245 866 299 5127
13:915:3,1328:15 bit 2:2510:812:16 asplmlize 25:22 ehlidren 20:6
37:5 21',622:2224:7 enpture 22:1) ehome 30:24
nveilnUle 6:21 81,2 29:13 capluretl 33:12 drone 29:10
2,11 33:13 Loard 11:25 ear 14:8,11 elnao 27:24
xvenpe 8:19,20 L+arding 10:17 anN 4:149:122:12 circui[om Ip;G
averse 18:20 body )2:6 aardenas 26:5,5,12 clllee 7:16122
sash) 2015 Laok 33:7,9,23 26:16,1929:13 city 2:4,8,194:1,5,6
asvaxme 11:12 Losmn 12:7 37:22,22 4;fi,9,13, 196247:9
awev+menese 28:2 Lxthend 31:Ifl,21
Latmm 2:135:2
bought 14:11
aarda 4:159:239:1
care 20:16
carrea'e 19;3
9:311:1712:fi 132
13:614:231fi:6,13
16:1817:],1118:1]
L
back 8:22152189
22:])0:19,2135:fi Loulavard 8:21 ran 5914:83fi:19 18:2320:9,1],15
38:1,14 24:2226:8 case 22:1 21:2322:5,1123:10
background 7:12 Laundaries 8:19 ruses 31]10:2 23:1$2324:14,20
bad 6:11,13,19 Lox 13:13 1220 2522,2527:1918:4
30:23 brevklM1mugM1 20:18 cater 1]:25 28:10,1729:9,19,22
LnOetl 34:9 bring 36:738:1 eveeoa 2:44:1,13c4:19 31:1,4,6,9,2432:25
Lalanced 80 Lringing 20:14 b:149:31fi:6 33:]34:1336:2,8
Lveetl 3:1513:2 broke 19:23 16:13,1822:11 36:1137:3,6,12
15:],1037:19 braugM1[ 28',20 9:Ig18,2324:14 8:10
Uaelmm+ll 2812 budget 6: U,IG,V 24:20252527:19 city4 35:20
butch 38'9 building 19:4,5 28:4,10,1729:8,19 clvlc 10:427:3
beanOPUI 11:827:8 bullJings 19:3 29:2231:1,4,",9,24 alined 28:2
bedroom 113 bin 5:1,28:2410:10 322533:734:13 aloaes[ 34:5
Legan 8:14 11:9,1012:14,15,19 36;1137:3,1238:10 codi0ed 20:22
Iregi:tniue 29:4 14:718:20,2319:1 center 4:4,563105 eallem 16:4
31:1532:20 19:IS,Ifi 23:1,3 V;59927:J ealore 29:22
relieve 4:5,812:12 24:7262158:4,5 122154:5 aomhinatinn 2:7
12:18 Luaea ]:2210:1 I,ifi aenfni 2:19 Dine 2:245:226:6a6:7,712:191Y.10bullaver4:25 18:24 ttrmin 19:431:15
forte 10:2011:23
Lelongn )518 bvainese J:0 1021 eertived 40:J 17:2 18:6,6,12,15
Lane@ 9:11 142530:11,20 cerlifY 15:7,1840:4 19:1032:223Y.13
Lenanm 9:1022:3 3425 40:13 38:20,21,22,22,23
bmf 7:219:2122:13 bualneaan 411,12 cetera 9:9,9 coming 11:11194
32:13 19:6,1020:9,14,16 ahalleneee 9:10,23 19:7
Letter 14:1723:fi 28:22,2434:19,23 IO:fi,14 comment 15:1]
30:2)36:83]:21 424 eXenge 19:14 comments fi:114:22
aMeyciee19:22 chareafer 0:B II:Ifi 15:2416:1,12,14,15
a 12140;22big4:2519:320:18 chart 11:22 Ifia 722:12,15
24:24 nlifornla 141404 chat 38:25 23:1925:152]:20
biggen[ 25:13 culled 20:1731:15 cXexper 10:12 27:2128',142925
bike 14:16 eepeelly 10:16 rLecisetl 2125 30:2933:1137:9
6111 14:12 capital IO:II 12:15 chieago 12:7 38:10,25
goes 14:11 15:23emu
cM1lld 12:6 commercial 20:11
yL222Ja331:] emrnlly 11:1013:22 36:151fi:18
13:915:3,1328:15 bit 2:2510:812:16 asplmlize 25:22 ehlidren 20:6
37:5 21',622:2224:7 enpture 22:1) ehome 30:24
nveilnUle 6:21 81,2 29:13 capluretl 33:12 drone 29:10
2,11 33:13 Loard 11:25 ear 14:8,11 elnao 27:24
xvenpe 8:19,20 L+arding 10:17 anN 4:149:122:12 circui[om Ip;G
averse 18:20 body )2:6 aardenas 26:5,5,12 clllee 7:16122
sash) 2015 Laok 33:7,9,23 26:16,1929:13 city 2:4,8,194:1,5,6
asvaxme 11:12 Losmn 12:7 37:22,22 4;fi,9,13, 196247:9
awev+menese 28:2 Lxthend 31:Ifl,21
Latmm 2:135:2
bought 14:11
aarda 4:159:239:1
care 20:16
carrea'e 19;3
9:311:1712:fi 132
13:614:231fi:6,13
16:1817:],1118:1]
L
back 8:22152189
22:])0:19,2135:fi Loulavard 8:21 ran 5914:83fi:19 18:2320:9,1],15
38:1,14 24:2226:8 case 22:1 21:2322:5,1123:10
background 7:12 Laundaries 8:19 ruses 31]10:2 23:1$2324:14,20
bad 6:11,13,19 Lox 13:13 1220 2522,2527:1918:4
30:23 brevklM1mugM1 20:18 cater 1]:25 28:10,1729:9,19,22
LnOetl 34:9 bring 36:738:1 eveeoa 2:44:1,13c4:19 31:1,4,6,9,2432:25
Lalanced 80 Lringing 20:14 b:149:31fi:6 33:]34:1336:2,8
Lveetl 3:1513:2 broke 19:23 16:13,1822:11 36:1137:3,6,12
15:],1037:19 braugM1[ 28',20 9:Ig18,2324:14 8:10
Uaelmm+ll 2812 budget 6: U,IG,V 24:20252527:19 city4 35:20
butch 38'9 building 19:4,5 28:4,10,1729:8,19 clvlc 10:427:3
beanOPUI 11:827:8 bullJings 19:3 29:2231:1,4,",9,24 alined 28:2
bedroom 113 bin 5:1,28:2410:10 322533:734:13 aloaes[ 34:5
Legan 8:14 11:9,1012:14,15,19 36;1137:3,1238:10 codi0ed 20:22
Iregi:tniue 29:4 14:718:20,2319:1 center 4:4,563105 eallem 16:4
31:1532:20 19:IS,Ifi 23:1,3 V;59927:J ealore 29:22
relieve 4:5,812:12 24:7262158:4,5 122154:5 aomhinatinn 2:7
12:18 Luaea ]:2210:1 I,ifi aenfni 2:19 Dine 2:245:226:6a6:7,712:191Y.10bullaver4:25 18:24 ttrmin 19:431:15
forte 10:2011:23
Lelongn )518 bvainese J:0 1021 eertived 40:J 17:2 18:6,6,12,15
Lane@ 9:11 142530:11,20 cerlifY 15:7,1840:4 19:1032:223Y.13
Lenanm 9:1022:3 3425 40:13 38:20,21,22,22,23
bmf 7:219:2122:13 bualneaan 411,12 cetera 9:9,9 coming 11:11194
32:13 19:6,1020:9,14,16 ahalleneee 9:10,23 19:7
Letter 14:1723:fi 28:22,2434:19,23 IO:fi,14 comment 15:1]
30:2)36:83]:21 424 eXenge 19:14 comments fi:114:22
aMeyciee19:22 chareafer 0:B II:Ifi 15:2416:1,12,14,15
a 12140;22big4:2519:320:18 chart 11:22 Ifia 722:12,15
24:24 nlifornla 141404 chat 38:25 23:1925:152]:20
biggen[ 25:13 culled 20:1731:15 cXexper 10:12 27:2128',142925
bike 14:16 eepeelly 10:16 rLecisetl 2125 30:2933:1137:9
6111 14:12 capital IO:II 12:15 chieago 12:7 38:10,25
goes 14:11 15:23emu
cM1lld 12:6 commercial 20:11
evemountl 105 evenh 2]:2428:1 Mal 33:16 friends 9;83510,11
economic ]0:16,19 everybody 2:12,22 nnanalally 40:13 franl 10:1127:]
10:2111:1514:18 3:1,94:145:6,10 Mnncing IJ:S fu1011etl 84
19:2 1814;618:21 15:1124:5 full 8'.69182119
vmny 3022cummyca 3]:18,16 Md 3:812:1] 13:9 Nn 4:21
30:22 verybody'e 9;10 38:6 function 3]25
eda 47 xarlly 16220:21
3425
Onlsh 37:11 funding 15:19,20
effect 1319 Onishetl 8:Ifi 24:25 19:10,14
eneam 2025211] example 24:3,4 nnleLen )Aa tondo 13:10,12
21:18 26:21 aced 182 further 72535:8
eONent 10;17 xrellent 2:6 Orsr 6:196:2016:15 40:11,13
ettotl 25:23 exaiteJ 5:4 18:69:1924:11 furthest 8:22
en+[m 4:10 xe 9:6 30:Ifi 31:19 Pature 14:20
el6hties 90:19,21 eculive 20:9 Ova 3:256:158:15 geltLer12:19 expand 7:17 0:211L513:1 gabriel 3:2,29:2electric14:11,12 expenalva 14:9,10 14:39:1432:1,15 Ifi:4eleciririty14:14 expetlente 42A,25 33:223X:)
element 6:4 9:14 10:252401 OxeJ 1:917:15 gamer 2A:12
amail 9:8 16:722:21 26:128:10 1913 gong 3523,13
2722 exPlaln 225 OasM1 3fi:15 gnrago 35:11
eminent 36:4 extensive 2:233:6 OexiLle 19:16 garden 1:62',114:6
employm 411:14 extra 2fi2) Oler 17:4 7:8256:125:20
empty 1]:2319:12 Ooek 19:10 35:18
f
enhance 8:10 Mrking 35.1 gxrneltl 6:3
feel 121mir21:1938:6ro11:U focused 3:129:10 gee 14:9,12genara110:19,2)
entertaining 4:12 toll B:IG 1318 generIc 29:14
onviromven[ 10:14 fan 2424 mlln 3:12,20 gelling 13221920envlromvenml3:G fxnlaatic 2:10 follmving 13:18 24430:239:24,246:208:15 fore 11:12 forte 10:2011:23 give 4:14 fi:815:24
13:16,1$1,914:1,2 fast 26:13 oregaing 40:5,],11 16:1,29,A,1619:2415:14,1920:25212 Invnrably 33:4 forget 14:931:1] 33;]6,1737:1421:1924:126:6 fax 9:81fip 27:22 forgot 28:16 gives 29:3JO:fi 33:1038:11 retlernl 1310,13 forth &2240:fi go 2:4,203:195:5,]
envimnmentvlly 15:8,1320:253P.9 fnrnard 3243412 81,],71P,6,Q1911:13 feel 123 f+emr P,1711:13 15:2,fi,11,1418:5,] e I 1 22:] qu pmev fen 13:11 four 3:257:2314:12 16:6,142D239:fie0oity1028921:4 feet 313 fourth 11:199] 9:1924925:1],1921:1136:9 nnM1 Ins zs:a9 23:13,152]:25281 z6:zs 9:za 9:z4eaneaayiv11:17 29:52821317 26:20292,410 30:931:11,12322314635.5 3U:19,253420,22 34:1539:138:13,20esmnnled12:25 Ognred 1224 Iranrleco 201] goal 7:21158301
et 99,92T.10 fill 20:14 henrL IZI
friendly goes 14:11 15:23emuOiled20:12 11:1232:12 yL222Ja331:] emrnlly 11:10 36:15
neIBFFarhmtl 36
6a@g -know]
p perfect 16:9
17:4,10,12,14 31:13 oNelul 281812:14 Pednd 2:16,175:15
Iimnw- negauva]
35:9,22,24,2536:1 ah 18:1120:814:14 P.M. puges 1:1533:11 Person 11616:22
nelghLOrhooda 3413 pall 4:20 161518:22
going 2:44:215:7 hall 4:6,6 7:9 hysterical 259 31:1032:2,5,18
neither 4013 16:14,15,162110 purndee 28:11 perspee live 13:12
net 12:24
512916,16,18,18 hand 16:2 i 311$2137:9,9,1)
nnre 11119:13 parking 9:24,25 2811
221925:129:16 291c,23 10:1,113:20 25:2 picked 15:10
30:1411:3 34:6,9
10:1114:14,21,22 happen 191 3'115
3421 upon 2]:42814 35:4,16 Place 35:18
n ry 16:2520:14 operate 10:4 1]:621:12114
idea 1X32fl:936:26
32:23341
14:23152,1716:19 happening 14:20 Integrated 0:7
own 9:24 oPervlinns 9:19 2:14,18,20 3):13 pieced 40:8
newspaper 4:119:5 15:22 37:17 1 621]:],10Pucex
17:2,2118:1819:8 Ifi:121T.2218:IX 215 interchangeable
nlm 8:1711:19 opportunities 3:24 participation 11:24 plan ]3:515:20,21
14:152 }9301 25:5311] 21.19 19:924:5,1135:20
19:10,1]20:6,21 3125 Identify 3:177:21 2622
nigLtllPe 1816183 25:8 33:2 a ! 15:1 Play 18:9
opposite 21:22 partners 12:22,23 Paint 18:429:433:2
23:6,15,22,25,25 M1uppuns 282 identifying 3:12,16 lateresed 4740:14
nukes 1:214022 33213415 21512:23 Paine 8:22
noel 23:3 optlnna I0:3115,8 Parts 27:4 Police 6:438:18
24:4,1225:202fi:U happy 6:1622:10 impact 5:259:23 interesting ):412:8
noted 39:4 29:11 32:3 33:9,21 pay 26:21 polidn 19:7
no &e ):191418 37 15 11:14pedestrian I flan 1821,23population
2413,19,212]:5 265 109,14,15,21 159 36:4
vallcwl 83 8:9.11112512:3 6:IS,IB,IA,19,25 populations 20:14
novel 19:15 12:2215:319:22,23 9:13,1],1812:5 21:15,1922:4
28:21,22 3019 harbor X:21 24128:2233:4,11 Invested 10:22
19:4,4,25 order 20:22 23:19 1621 1]:3,]18:12 possibility 34:11ue31:17 292538:1
Oregon 17:1
outreach 2:23,25
18:17,241920,21
192520:321:23
229,24,25 234,]
Post 25:24
Pns[caN 3:21
postcards 4:4
31:1133:4 3422 M1vrvl 5:19 3423 1521,25 InvesltnenH 191]
24:8 26:242X:8 ported 49
38:19 22:9,21 29:6,16,16,18 31:11 Porter 12:6
oath 40:6
35:14,15,21,2436:6 harvard 26:11
39 12 19'19
vner 3:162220 322333:1]35:8 pnfenHd 3:131419
nccopnney 195,9 30:12 361,203]1636:2 352
r 1522383
302 health 21:1] Imparted 28:25 Imvolvetl 7:5,6 31:14
17:By 35:1 people's 14:17 325 34:22
nets 831]:324:6 Percent 10]1224 Power 294
38:3
gold 2911 hear 5:6,929:12 3424 issue 20:226:15
22:23
golf 18:9,10 30:16 341 ImPeeH 14:421:4 suns 14:1728:5s3]:7goad4:199:2413:5 M1enrtl 18:225:11,15 2112
1315 14:415:13,15 34:21 implementation
1
15:15,16 1R:15 Fondog 1:9 13:415:11
mPadavt 4:23 jm"n 2:243:2,2):124:21130:223]18 hearings 6:1432:16 imnreminn 29:3 9:2 16:4gotten322hence5:6 inappropriate 4.16 jilt 18:1government2023help19:1,18,24 5:16 1:237:6,19144
21:4,1230:9 21:15 26:19,22 1 ^L
gmtluemd 241 hey 25:19
inaudiLle 27:14 15:13
grand 8:20 high 12:1214:13 include 38:11 jnLx 25:6
great 7:62212235 21:16 Including 21:17 john 34:1,10
25:236:10 higher 10:7,24 income 20:142L18 Josephine 121
greater 9:p 10:7 11:24,2412:1124:! 220increase 36:22 40:22lntlge 183,5
greatest 912 highest 9:13 individual la] June 1:102:16;3,4
grew 24:23 historically 24:6 Industrial 20:12 38:17,21
group 221] 29:9 Information 214 jtniatliciinn 3519
groups 1214 history 21:14 221424:33oa5 justice 13:1921:1,2grove1:62:114'.6 I@ 19:20,2124:21 32:1036:1337:20 k9,25 k125:20 hitting 10:] 3]21 keep X:119:21P35atlhold29:24 infrastructure
guaranteeke 918 Lomax 25:U 36:3 1012 key :I8
guess 25:4 hope 334 initiated ]:IS killed 34:11
guideway 19 1]15 hope(nlly 3123 Initiative 213 kind 17:4 23'.24
guidmvay'a 17:2 bonne 12103514 Injunction 35:23,23 241034:11352guideways203houaeLOlJs9:12 Injured 17.24 kinds 7,20
guys 17:R.10,1420:5 Louses 35:Q9,16 Input 2:14,143:24 klnek 37120212202]24 hub 2521345 4:145:11,1]6:991 knew 12:1
p huge 33:15 9:G,G 13:2214:18 knew 2:12596:1921:17 14:2115:22424:16 11:1113:1] 172,3M1elr12:1 undreds 33:11 26:4,430:4,9 31:2 121310181419:)
19:6,9 21:7
Page 5 1'nge 6
Vedtext National Deposition Litigation Services Vedtext National Deposition Litigation Severna
866299 512] 866 299 5127
pteipinflu ad- pradme mej Prefer - same]
Pit, 7 Page8
Verimxt National Denositm. 866299 Litigation Services5127 7 5A 46 VedtextNational Deposition966299 Litigation Services5127
neIBFFarhmtl 36 ac[nLer IS:fi,e p perfect 16:9
17:4,10,12,14 31:13 oNelul 281812:14 Pednd 2:16,175:156:435:9,22,24,2536:1 ah 18:1120:814:14 P.M. puges 1:1533:11 Person 11616:22
nelghLOrhooda 3413 pall 4:20 161518:22
17:1121:15 okay 4:19618 pope r 329 Personally 13:526:8
neither 4013 16:14,15,162110 purndee 28:11 perspee live 13:12
net 12:24 23:14 29:14 31:10 park 7:8 1]:135:],8 Phoenix 6:1411:2erII:II 1]9,4 nnre 11119:13 parking 9:24,25 2811
221925:129:16 291c,23 10:1,113:20 25:2 picked 15:10
30:1411:3 34:6,9 ties 12:423:1 26:14,14,16 27:4 Picero 29:3,9
3421 upon 2]:42814 35:4,16 Place 35:18
n ry 16:2520:14 operate 10:4 1]:621:12114 pit 17:24
32:23341 oPerntenal 2814 Part24:1,5,15 30:9 pines 21940:6
own 9:24 oPervlinns 9:19 2:14,18,20 3):13 pieced 40:8
newspaper 4:119:5 15:22 37:17 1 621]:],10Pucex
n0 2812 pinion 17:12 participate 12:25 8:1810:24,24)4:20
nlm 8:1711:19 opportunities 3:24 participation 11:24 plan ]3:515:20,21
14:152 }9301 25:5311] 21.19 19:924:5,1135:20
night 6,5,]38:23,23 opportunity 5:9,20 parties 40:15 Planning 2:R 19:7
nigLtllPe 1816183 25:8 33:2 a ! 15:1 Play 18:9
opposite 21:22 partners 12:22,23 Paint 18:429:433:2
noise I3:20 option 10102]:2,9 par[narehlP 2:11 Pointed 26:18226nukes1:214022 33213415 21512:23 Paine 8:22
noel 23:3 optlnna I0:3115,8 Parts 27:4 Police 6:438:18
north 8:19 23:112M,129:11 Pays 6:25 2821 Polley 14:1 21:11
noted 39:4 29:11 32:3 33:9,21 pay 26:21 polidn 19:7
no &e ):191418 37 15 11:14pedestrian I flan 1821,23population
29:0 orange 2:117:9,16 People S:A 6:8,10,14 2118
vallcwl 83 8:9.11112512:3 6:IS,IB,IA,19,25 populations 20:14
novel 19:15 12:2215:319:22,23 9:13,1],1812:5 21:15,1922:4
umber 9:1210:23 36'.213]:4 14:6,7,215,14 positive 10:16
19:4,4,25 order 20:22 23:19 1621 1]:3,]18:12 possibility 34:11ue31:17 292538:1
Oregon 17:1
outreach 2:23,25
18:17,241920,21
192520:321:23
229,24,25 234,]
Post 25:24
Pns[caN 3:21
postcards 4:4
0 12:15clock 6a )0:1,1 3:5,14 4:10 I7:9 24:8 26:242X:8 ported 49
38:19 22:9,21 29:6,16,16,18 31:11 Porter 12:6
oath 40:6 ve recLieved 9:15 31:18,2132:1),22 pooling 15:19
obviously 11:13 vner 3:162220 322333:1]35:8 pnfenHd 3:131419
nccopnney 195,9 30:12 361,203]1636:2 352
r 1522383 v ere 3:816:24 38:4,19,21,28 Potentially 21:20
occurring 5:8 17:By 35:1 people's 14:17 325 34:22
nets 831]:324:6 Percent 10]1224 Power 294
38:3 13:] 226 predecessor 15:
22:23
neIBFFarhmtl 36 ac[nLer IS:fi,e p perfect 16:9
17:4,10,12,14 31:13 oNelul 281812:14 Pednd 2:16,175:156:435:9,22,24,2536:1 ah 18:1120:814:14 P.M. puges 1:1533:11 Person 11616:22
nelghLOrhooda 3413 pall 4:20 161518:22
17:1121:15 okay 4:19618 pope r 329 Personally 13:526:8
neither 4013 16:14,15,162110 purndee 28:11 perspeelive 13:12
net 12:24 23:14 29:14 31:10 park 7:8 1]:135:],8 Phoenix 6:1411:2erII:II 1]9,4 nnre 11119:13 parking 9:24,25 2811
221925:129:16 291c,23 10:1,113:20 25:2 picked 15:10
30:1411:3 34:6,9 ties 12:423:1 26:14,14,16 27:4 Picero 29:3,9
3421 upon 2]:42814 35:4,16 Place 35:18
n ry 16:2520:14 operate 10:4 1]:621:12114 pit 17:24
32:23341 oPerntenal 2814 Part24:1,5,15 30:9 pines 21940:6
own 9:24 oPervlinns 9:19 2:14,18,20 3):13 pieced 40:8
newspaper 4:119:5 15:22 37:17 1 621]:],10Pucex
n0 2812 pinion 17:12 participate 12:25 8:1810:24,24)4:20
nlm 8:1711:19 opportunities 3:24 participation 11:24 plan ]3:515:20,21
14:152 }9301 25:5311] 21.19 19:924:5,1135:20
night 6,5,]38:23,23 opportunity 5:9,20 parties 40:15 Planning 2:R 19:7
nigLtllPe 1816183 25:8 33:2 a ! 15:1 Play 18:9
opposite 21:22 partners 12:22,23 Paint 18:429:433:2
noise I3:20 option 10102]:2,9 par[narehlP 2:11 Pointed 26:18226nukes1:214022 33213415 21512:23 Paine 8:22
noel 23:3 optlnna I0:3115,8 Parts 27:4 Police 6:438:18
north 8:19 23:112M,129:11 Pays 6:25 2821 Polley 14:1 21:11
noted 39:4 29:11 32:3 33:9,21 pay 26:21 polidn 19:7
no &e ):191418 37 15 11:14pedestrian I flan 1821,23population
29:0 orange 2:117:9,16 People S:A 6:8,10,14 2118
vallcwl 83 8:9.11112512:3 6:IS,IB,IA,19,25 populations 20:14
novel 19:15 12:2215:319:22,23 9:13,1],1812:5 21:15,1922:4
umber 9:1210:23 36'.213]:4 14:6,7,215,14 positive 10:16
19:4,4,25 order 20:22 23:19 1621 1]:3,]18:12 possibility 34:11ue31:17 292538:1
Oregon 17:1
outreach 2:23,25
18:17,241920,21
192520:321:23
229,24,25 234,]
Post 25:24
Pns[caN 3:21
postcards 4:4
0 12:15clock 6a )0:1,1 3:5,14 4:10 I7:9 24:826:242X:8 ported 49
38:19 22:9,21 29:6,16,16,18 31:11 Porter 12:6
oath 40:6 ve recLieved 9:15 31:18,2132:1),22 pooling 15:19
obviously 11:13 vner 3:162220 322333:1]35:8 pnfenHd 3:131419
nccopnney 195,9 30:12 361,203]1636:2 352
r 1522383 v ere 3:816:24 38:4,19,21,28 Potentially 21:20
occurring 5:8 17:By 35:1 people's 14:17 325 34:22
nets 831]:324:6 Percent 10]1224 Power 294
38:3 13:] 226 predecessor 15: 7
23:4,21 24:4,5 located 5:25 mein 25:6 mlla 19:3
2413,1926.9,13 Ineadonx 4:6,85:20 malnlemnce 9:2o mile 12:6
2]:8,10,13 29:1.14 5:23 7:3 major 26:1] 34:] miles 8:21
31:2133:1,3,4 34:1 lone 12:101):24 maloritY 10:2 22:25 million 6:14 19:17
35:18,1956:0,7 152526:213]:10 making 21212913 19:19
knowing 33:3 longer IP.6,G 29:15 milllonr 10:5,532:1
known 17:7 look ]:18:1811:5 manage 2R: 32:2
knows 2:22 3:1 12:2 „9,10,1813:4 atmger 2:A4:1,13 minU 34:4
1 13:13,2314:2236:9 nt4:19 @24 9:3 16:6 mine 17:5
La. 36:18 38:J 14:13,1822:11 minimize 2116
land 91235 19 looked 3:8,9,9 23:1Q1R,2324:14 minority 20:24
lane 9:25 looking 13:9,9 14:5 242023:252):19 21:14,1822:3
languages 4:15 33:1 28:4,IO,I] 29:8,19 minutes 11;5
lalino 22:6 Ins 3619 29:22 31:1,4,6,9,24 mirror 1t6
lead 37:6 losing 20]3 ]2:2533:]34x3 mivlevtliug 29:1
antlers 31 13 lot 3:1],23,24424 34:113]:],1238:10 mission R:921:1
leadarehip 2:8 4:24 6:10,12,12 ]:5 nmp B:LI miligvte 21:16
lending 3:11 ]:59:1313:14 tmmthnna 28:11 mobile 36:15
leave Ifi:4 1416 10:2523:] toes 11:23,24 modern 8:12
loan 31:1332;19 26:1,728:8,2429:1 ma n 2]:24 motlea 340
351 191631:183423 mayor 2:9 money 14:13 V:24
leHem 362 38,6 unv 6; 1326] m20:13oval12:1213:12 Iola 22381820:3 m32:22 monlee 13:10
2513 lontl Safi meaning 12:23 modonk 19:14
IihmrY ]:811:18 love 2):IN 2512,21 ns ID:7 morning 41314ao
1{@ 8101918 low 9212024 aorta 7:1415:10 23:8)8:19
light 4245:48:5 2LIS 220 vures 21'.3 move 34:3
Y;1910;12,2012r4 Inver 10:11,24 net 19:14 )3:IR nvetl 25:6
22253J:253tl:E 1220 meeting 5:109;] moving 8:11]6:10
liked 01523;12 Invent 10:15 16:211]:519:19 multiple 5:191]:3
line 2:13495:222 Ivny 1923 26:1,327.11,15,1] n
1012:13 1fi;A lunch IR:N 30:3,16 32:11 38:13 me 2R:V 30:11Inn434:23 39:218:620:625935:8 )7.2440;1] aeling's 38;173fia9r^ name's 26:5meetings2:1N 3:] listed 4:8 m ]141215 national 14:15:1$19,22,23 6:13little22510:8,18 m2 1310 2]:13,15 30:13,15 be 281212:1621:622;22 mncLLm 40:9 32:4,IQ173313,1fi need 9:G 112414724:]29:13 madeleinc 16:11,15 33:1638:23 14:]26:253):19,21
live 10:2017:1 16:16,19 21:7,11 mentioned N:14 36:7
1817221924:22 22:1823:1926:18 neetletl 16:22
26:8 J3:9 ]015 3416,V 11:15 329 3]25 needs 4:179;822:7
lived 11:2 we 16:622:20,21 esaage 39 38:3metro18'.6lace) ]:Ifi 13:9 24:19 metmlink 3N.17,18 negative 29:18142436:22,23
prefer 221,1,9,12 16:12,12 recipients 22:J retail 20:1125:5,0
34:2 purpose 5:1013:16 recommendation 25:12
preference 5:11,12 put 14:16 19:13 r 5:15 13;2 14:23 return 10:23 25:9
preferred 14:24 20:1922:1229:9 recmnmending to 25:23
presentation 2:6 32:6 34:1138:14 14:25 review 2:16,1] 5:15
presenting 32:3 putting 25:22 record 22:1424:15 8:1514:2215:14,Ifl
press 4:10 q r3114408 33:14
potty 27:4 red 11:1938.19 ritle 18:2429:16,17
proven qualify 25:10f22:2 reduction 22'.2 rider 10:918:22qualitative21:J
print 3:11 regard 1:21 elders 18:20gnnntyNaqu:10prior40:1 raglans) 34:4 ridership 9:14,15,1]
pmlruFly 15:22 13:2114:219:18 register :1R 10:15,1514:15ryvm[er 15:2514:21 012 25:18 regularly 19:21 3612
27:1]36:14 question 23:1].24 15:1036:1] right 2:IR 4:8,217:325'.4 344,14 35:4pmLlem25:15 )6,537:4,14,20 related 7:22 10:13111313:4
proceedings 40:5,] 1]:16 relative 40:14 15:5 16:2,9,12,20questions40:9 relatively 34:1 24:2225:2026:9
process 3:5 ISaR 207 24:2,1] 2N:5 release 111,22 4:10 28:20 30:24 11:1131:20 32:8,13,24
32 18 35:2d 34'1836:732X,16 15:15 311934:15
processes 21:21 reliable lla robust 3:4
prefesxionel 3219 remember 11:2,18 roles 3:15
project 1:91103:4 rail 4:243:47:23 26103]23 rnmem 26:10
1213:11 I]:I9,19 8:5,139:1910:12 remodeling 3020 room 6:316:20
25:5,726:]30:] 10:2012:519:11 awed 202321:) 18:22,2522:5,6,10
34:10,12,22 17:8,9 3]:2538:4 ...
it
rositn ]:8
projections 9:15 rapid fl:24 renters 128 round 1811032:21
praJeets ]:21,23 mul 30;11,1131:3,5 report 5:25 24:1 route 4:11 IPfi,]
13 131526:2 31.'1 37:1]38:12 14:5,2519:14 23:2
proof 36;8 each 7:17 reported 1:21 roufev 20:4
properties 20:9,10 reaching 4;12 reporter 16:10 21:5 ruby 26:5,5,12
property 3:Ifi 16:24 reading 4:] 21:102):21 30'.8 28:16,19,19 29:13
1]:8,9 22:20 )0:12 reel 24:1130:2 )9:140:4 3]:22,22
proponent 33:15 really 5:196:210:13 request 27 16 ruined 30:20
provide 324 11:21,2113:5,15 require IP.13 ode 10:23
provides 10:18 14:4,9,13 26:21 required 20:19 urn 11:1214:14
puUlic 2:163:3,9 2]:1628:2230:22 requlremenfs 14:2 man[ 111348
4:25 5:13 7:8,18 3d:23,1J 31:18,24 resident 33:3 s
141816:11,13,17 32213):193419 residents 1924,24 ea@r 19:1324:I52G:19271q 36:338:3 resonance 21:12 safety 20:226:122720291712:16 vsov 23:] resources 1320 an 20!1] 24:2),252:14,1633:13 J]:9 re asons 41414:25 respond 22:15241 a)6:IA
3811 1]:2125:63]:5 308
nuLlicaflons 2:23 rccelve 24:18 response 25:25 sunfv 18 84 725
IIM1 18222)23 received 17:3,4 rntuurnn[a 2]:] 8111:17,1]12;5
P" c 12:2513:618:4,15
2892921)1:25 22:1936:2
prefer 221,1,9,12 16:12,12 recipients 22:J retail 20:1125:5,0
34:2 purpose 5:1013:16 recommendation 25:12
preference 5:11,12 put 14:16 19:13 r 5:15 13;2 14:23 return 10:23 25:9
preferred 14:24 20:1922:1229:9 recmnmending to 25:23
presentation 2:6 32:6 34:1138:14 14:25 review 2:16,1] 5:15
presenting 32:3 putting 25:22 record 22:1424:15 8:1514:2215:14,Ifl
press 4:10 q r3114408 33:14
potty 27:4 red 11:1938.19 ritle 18:2429:16,17
proven qualify 25:10f22:2 reduction 22'.2 rider 10:918:22qualitative21:J
print 3:11 regard 1:21 elders 18:20gnnntyNaqu:10prior40:1 raglans) 34:4 ridership 9:14,15,1]
pmlruFly 15:22 13:2114:219:18 register :1R 10:15,1514:15ryvm[er 15:2514:21 012 25:18 regularly 19:21 3612
27:1]36:14 question 23:1].24 15:1036:1] right 2:IR 4:8,217:325'.4 344,14 35:4pmLlem25:15 )6,537:4,14,20 related 7:22 10:13111313:4
proceedings 40:5,] 1]:16 relative 40:14 15:5 16:2,9,12,20questions40:9 relatively 34:1 24:2225:2026:9
process 3:5 ISaR 207 24:2,1] 2N:5 release 111,22 4:10 28:20 30:24 11:1131:20 32:8,13,24
32 18 35:2d 34'1836:732X,16 15:15 311934:15
processes 21:21 reliable lla robust 3:4
prefesxionel 3219 remember 11:2,18 roles 3:15
project 1:91103:4 rail 4:243:47:23 26103]23 rnmem 26:10
1213:11 I]:I9,19 8:5,139:1910:12 remodeling 3020 room 6:316:20
25:5,726:]30:] 10:2012:519:11 awed 202321:) 18:22,2522:5,6,10
34:10,12,22 17:8,9 3]:2538:4 ...
it
rositn ]:8
projections 9:15 rapid fl:24 renters 128 round 1811032:21
praJeets ]:21,23 mul 30;11,1131:3,5 report 5:25 24:1 route 4:11 IPfi,]
13 131526:2 31.'1 37:1]38:12 14:5,2519:14 23:2
proof 36;8 each 7:17 reported 1:21 roufev 20:4
properties 20:9,10 reaching 4;12 reporter 16:10 21:5 ruby 26:5,5,12
property 3:Ifi 16:24 reading 4:] 21:102):21 30'.8 28:16,19,19 29:13
1]:8,9 22:20 )0:12 reel 24:1130:2 )9:140:4 3]:22,22
proponent 33:15 really 5:196:210:13 request 27 16 ruined 30:20
provide 324 11:21,2113:5,15 require IP.13 ode 10:23
provides 10:18 14:4,9,13 26:21 required 20:19 urn 11:1214:14
puUlic 2:163:3,9 2]:1628:2230:22 requlremenfs 14:2 man[ 111348
4:25 5:13 7:8,18 3d:23,1J 31:18,24 resident 33:3 s
141816:11,13,17 32213):193419 residents 1924,24 ea@r 19:1324:I52G:19271q 36:338:3 resonance 21:12 safety 20:226:122720291712:16 vsov 23:] resources 1320 an 20!1] 24:2),252:14,1633:13 J]:9 re asons 41414:25 respond 22:15241 a)6:IA
3811 1]:2125:63]:5 308
nuLlicaflons 2:23 rccelve 24:18 response 25:25 sunfv 18 84 725
IIM1 18222)23 received 17:3,4 rntuurnn[a 2]:] 8111:17,1]12;5
P" c 12:2513:618:4,15
2892921)1:25 22:1936:2
eant. - talk]
18:18,2319:10,18 similar 19:18 spencer 1&11,16,19 nacres. 9:5 10:9
20:1124:2226:8 share 11526:3 21:7,1134:17 17:2319:12,13
27:630:1232:22 shofth mi 40:3,9 spent 30:5 atreetr 19:21,25
34:1,435:12,21 show 6:159:1 spoke 17:1,1531:12 35:3,12
38:2,18 showed 6:181125 36:1 strong 21:12
started, 1:102:1 showing 22:1 spoken 30:131:10 straggled 23:9
4:2223:8 shown 20:2 33:24 lady 8:171299
spring 14:13 shows 22:7 spur 192 13:421:15
ry 355 shuttles T.23 square 12:6 stuff 30:4368
saying 21:024:10 side 2:19 stain 11:6,7 admission 30:10
32:1936:2 sides 10.2 stakeholder 33:18 submit 6:1
says 18:12,2019:2,8 sign 15:15 stakeholders 3:7 submitted 7:22
19:1430:15 signlgeam 10:815:9 start 111917:17 sablerlbed 40:16
scale 11:16 22:2 36'.2037:11 soon, 36:19
schedule 15:10 single 4:48:415:17 started 2:58:12 suggodan. 371
26:1538:14,15 16'.2234:20 start 13:1224:25 support 13:3
scheduled 15:5 In 24:1730:10 404 supported 2:9
ache.] 20:4,5 331436:1137:9 statement 21225:4 supports 5:138:8
schools 3:926:9 sit 32:833:18 37:3 supposed 35:8
clendfic 30:3 Hite 29:536:13,14 states 20:24 an 2:21,223:4,14
aeon 24:2227:23 six 4:86:1514:3 motion 2:187:811:4 5:1914:615:4,20
28:729:2133:25 20:18 25:10,2331:22 28:4,736:22,23,24
36:12,12 sill. 6:207:12,24 stations 14:15 surprising 11:22
second 292435:4 8:1212:2138:15 stay 22:2224:14 system 8:7,1318:1,3
38:15 slow 5121:5 32:11 18719:82020
sea 62581811:3 slowed 34:25 starring 31:16 21:2224:24
12:1516:2425112 small 35:6,9 slap 15:4 system's 14:13
25:21261329:6 smaller 10:1,16 stick 38:24 stems 19:138:4 '
seeing 19:12 xocbeeommic slip 19:20,24 t
Be. 10:2511:22 21:1733:12 W, 1920 table 32:9,2130:1433:6 solutions 8:10 slaps 23:2425:24 take 8:229:812:11m37:18,18 a..... 15:6 street 8:19,2010:2,5 16:9,1420:1622:24selected7:248:13 Burry 19:2321:5 11:7,2023:7,13,15 23:125:126:30,Asend4:99:8114 south 820 25:8,9,1026:14,16 272132:636:8color4:425:18 spacer 20:10,12,12 27:3,5,5,2528:1,20 37:1038:1ease5:1325:14 20:13,15 28:2329:2,6,10 asks. 13 :2418:8,8sent13 peak 5:527:16 30:19,20,2531:8 29:1836:1740:5serious30:636:6 speaker 4:1822:17 34: ,2235',5 take. 11:913:24sons14:6 23:12,14,16,17,21 streetcar 8:13,25 14:330:21serves9:11 1 :10,1826:11 94,4,11,2411:1,2,5 talk 5:14,23,258:2service12:13 37:10 11:18,39,1912:4,7 9:716:1026:128,6session24:12 specifically 17:13 12:13,16,16,18 31:1232:1233:19set4:1729:740:6 18:16222,8359 2,1:24,2525:16 34:1338:2539:1seven10:7 speed 16:9 29:1030:1936:23 wanted 345:41:13named
3624 7:2023:2127aN
Page 9
Veritext NationalDeposmon & Litigation Services
866 299 -5127
Iwnnted -yo.n]
31:9,1033:1637:6
37:13wanting 27:11
wants 16:1327:20
way 6:1019:921:24
22:823:426:16
27:14wayne 34:5,10
warts 3:328:13
worded 9:17
worry 4:2019:12
worship 7:19
new 14:9,12
write 21:8
wrong 22:8
yways10:13 y..,x 30:11,113117tvve2:6,163:6,8,8 31:5173:236:11,11,12 yeah 16 18 21O
1814:2015:115 2612
23:232677 27:11 year 6:V 25:131;17
30:431:2532:2,15 years 2:7,163:2532163495:1,26:118:15welt29:5 36 13,14 12:1413:25,2514! 3
waelcend 6:63820 15:2217:2223',24382230:1231:2232;1,1weeks2:73:22 32:1533:2236:3want8',314:12
transportation 7:9
17:1024:2534:19
6:23,24
3525
7:188:7,1011:23
went 2:19821
tee 15:19
westbound 104
421:1325:21
wee minaler 8:19
eta 17:2119.2
when's 11:10
6,13,18,2029:17
A ... raf 40:16
tax 3:1520;1325:23
whoever'. 38:14
4,5,936:1737:5
willing 32:11 33:18
ream 7:6
willmvick 19:9
8
35:17
tell 9:3,515:12
window 11:3
l N:8
wind. 20x8
20:2124:631:1
witness 40:16
ling 38;]
witnesses 407
3]:12
word 6:2
3:17
words 18:4
selling 14:11
work 7:5,5,2015:11
ys 17:25
15:16184,6,7
tenants 3:18
21:23 24.2427:25
Ltravellmg3g
17:6
352 36:21,25 38:5
morasses 1X:12,13
worked 5:19
4:215:52232
working 2:711:18
term 12:10
139
6'338:10
gc
Veritext National Deposition St LaigntmaServices
866 2478fifi299 -5127
talked - wanted)
talked 17:20260 thousand 618 transitory 18:16 utilized 25:1227:7
Wide, 14:1017:18 three 2:175:226:8 1.... What 4:17 294
20:9,1430:1333:8 0:2315:1323:10 16:23 v
34:2 32:434:17,1838:23 translation. 5:8 Hale. 32:10talks33:9 thumb 6251023 Iranelalor 4:16
2001:10,1,1intent5tallabuue18:11.13 tbursday 6:538:21 transport 21:13,20 let ]2mnya2:254:2,3 ticketed 35:10,12,14 transportation 7:9 variety 5:136:23,24 fime 5:2211:12 7:188:7,1011:23 east 10:210:23tee15:19 18:1525:1730:16 421:1325:21 vehicles 10:12eta17:2119.2 30:21,2431:1939:4 6,13,18,2029:17
6:9verbally16:9tax3:1520;1325:23 406 4,5,936:1737:5
verbally
40ream7:6 fimes 5:216:813:14 8 vibratim 13:21tell9:3,515:12 14:1220:3 l N:8 view 33220:2124:631:1 fish 31:133219 ling 38;] vininge V:253]:12 33:1 3:17 vision 8:4,6,7selling14:11 mtlay 4:196:28:2,5 ys 17:25 lsll 8:335:14tenants3:18 97716:2,2129:12
Ltravellmg3g
17:6 wishing 3912morasses1X:12,13 told 11:2 4:215:52232 visitor. 26:15term12:10 Inol 25:2 6'338:10 visa., 126.1terms13:2335:20 top 12:322:2235:15 20 oice 21::236:16 asasl 12:14 5:1,3,187;24
ote 9:829:228292:2testifying40:8 lor 18,135:537:23 39:412:2,16 votedtext11:4 3724 934:636:25 oters 9:13,14thank4:13,13,22 tourists 17:25 ss w211022:11,15 traffic 9:25179 ullLnalely 25:2125:2427:1938:10 34:2436:20 unanimously 2:9 wait 11:1033:2238:24 tralu 2105:1,39:19 3:20 avddng 11:7
thereof 40:12 14:8,1325:10,23 4020 walk 11:6thing211:7
mukenlgned
undermm tl 25:20 walkubility 11:1322: ,1823920:8,822:335:
173:
533:25 train's 11:] understood 34:fi w20:6 19:22,253
bou'
etrains 11:12 unforlunale 32:22 20:66:17things6:16110 hansc,4Led 40:10 unidentified 4:10 war[ 224:2,
114,
15
9:2093012520:192 transcript 1:7 22:1723:12J4,16 2:21,224:2,145;0
18:11,25734:121:2420:]34:17 transcriptionlion 39:3 23:11,2124:10,18 5:1825927,7,19 I1:11719:3,3,4,4,526:113]:10
J.k transferable unit 3:19 13:1114:5,1715:24
think 9:7 12:122:25 torinkraL3 18,2trausfere36:12,23 poison 36.14 16:211
23:2,2430:2 t,mo6l 171885,25 se 4:157:189:19 22:1718:14,1522:17
Y:2214:1524:8 27:1429:121117
36:9,
12,
1302436:5inking133X:3,15 91,16, 1,188:1A112,1311:251222 6;4114 29:2530:1,431:1,2thinking315,25 13 9 141715:3,8 useful 36.13vse[ul 36:13 31:112
third 31:135:17 15:1310;2 afuolly 9:1510:21 38il9,1338.24 3tl; 19,2238:15 22:
258
20:2021:2222:25 28:2thought2:24 20:14 wanted 345:41:13named7:2023:2127aN
Veritext National Deposition & LitigationScwtocs
866 299 -5127
P., lc
Public Hearing Meeting No.1
Response PH1 -1 — Madeleine Spencer
Section 2.9 on page 2 -29 of the EA /DEIR describes the public outreach for the development of
alternatives, scoping, and circulation of the EA /DEIR. Section 3.5 on page 3 -61 of the EA /DEIR
discusses additional public outreach in relation to targeting populations of EJ concern. Beginning
in 2008 and continuing throughout project development to March 2014, in preparation for the
public review of the EA /DEIR, the City of Santa Ana conducted outreach to the Downtown
businesses. The City's multi - lingual outreach team conducted door -to -door visits to
approximately 230 businesses in the Downtown area, including approximately 156 businesses
along 4"' Street. The purpose of the outreach was to share key information with Downtown
business and property owners about the SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project, inform them about the
upcoming release of the EA /DEIR, document questions and input, and provide business owners
with appropriate contact information for additional follow -up. A "Sorry We Missed You" letter
and information packet was also prepared and left behind for business owners who were not
available during the initial visit. The letter offered a briefing with the outreach team to review
the proposed project information packet.
Regarding public outreach to potentially affected business owners along 4`" Street, extensive efforts
were conducted to involve the public and stakeholders in the successful planning for the
implementation of a streetcar along the alignment and through the Downtown area. Prior to the
release of the EA /DEIR, numerous meetings were held with stakeholders throughout the Study Area
to obtain input and provide updates on the SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project. Community meetings
were held with the Lacy neighborhood, the French Park neighborhood, the Santiago Lofts
Homeowners Association, the Santa Ana Senior Center, and many other stakeholders. Stakeholder
comments were collected and recorded at each meeting. In addition, a series of Stakeholder
Working Group meetings were held to involve key business people and leaders in the community.
Below is a list of organizations which received presentations on the proposed project:
French Park Association
Kennedy Commission
Santa Ana Collaborative for Responsible Development
Santiago Lofts Homeowners Association
Artesia Pilar Neighborhood Association
Labor Union Members
Federal Courthouse
Santa Ana Senior Center
Stakeholders Working Group
Santa Ana City Council
Santa Ana Restaurant Association
Templo Calvario
State Appellate Court
Orange County Superior Court
Rancho Santiago Community College District Board of Trustees
Lacy Neighborhood
SARTC Community Meeting to discuss the Santa Ana Train Station
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g 01190
January 2015
75A -248
Board of Directors, Santa Ana Merchants Association
Downtown Inc
Santa Ana Merchants Association
Santa Ana Unified School District
Stakeholders Working Group Advisory Committee
One -on -one briefings with 140 Downtown Businesses
Santa Ana City College
Railway Association of Southern California
Santa Ana Unified School District Board
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
Everest College /Corinthian College
Santa Ana Resource Network
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Transportation Authority Transportation 2020 Committee
Federal Transit Administration
California Public Utilities Commission staff
County of Orange Supervisors and staff
In accordance with CEQA and NEPA regulations, the Notice of Availability of the EA /DEIR for
public review was filed and posted at the Orange County Clerk- Recorder's Office in compliance
with Sections 21080.4 and 21092 of the California Public Resources Code; advertised in the
local newspaper; flyers were distributed at every community center in the City of Santa Ana;
outreach was also conducted via social media; and a press release was covered by at least three
different news organizations. Although not required under CEQA or NEPA regulations, available
data from County Assessor and City property records were used to establish a list of property
owners and tenants within 500 feet of the alignment. There were 3,796 postcards delivered to
property owners, business owners, tenants, and residents related to EA /DEIR availability for
public review. Hard copies of the notifications and document were also made available at
different locations (Santa Ana City Hall Public Works Counter, Santa Ana City Hall City Clerk's
Office, Santa Ana Public Library, Salgado Center, Rosita Park, Santa Ana Train Station, Garden
Grove City Hall, and OCTA), as well as online on the City of Santa Ana website.
Response PH1 -2 — Madeleine Spencer
The comment lists six concerns associated with the proposed project, which are also discussed
in Response 8 -5. Each of these concerns is addressed below.
1) Years of Disruptive Construction. Construction details and associated impacts are discussed
on page 3 -197 of the EA /DEIR. The most disruptive construction activities would be limited to a
24 -month period; however, these activities would be sequenced by segment so that any one
segment would experience disruption for a portion (no more than six months) of the construction
duration. A comprehensive community outreach program would be developed prior to the start
of construction activities. For business owners and commercial property owners, the disruption
of construction activities would involve multiple construction crews operating along the corridor
simultaneously. See Responses 8 -1 and 8 -5(4) for responses to similar comments on
construction.
Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAJFEIR P a g el 191
January 2015
75A -249
Upon completion of project construction, the build alternatives would allow improved access to
Downtown Santa Ana and other high- intensity areas of employment, commercial development,
and recreational opportunities. Improved transportation service would enhance visibility and
access to existing economic activity centers, including those businesses that would be temporarily
affected by project construction and areas targeted for redevelopment.
As stated on page 3 -202 of the EA/DEIR, access to businesses would be maintained during
operating hours. In addition, the second sentence in the second to last paragraph on page 3-
202 of the EA /DEIR has been revised to state that signage would be posted to alert customers
that businesses are open during construction and wayfinding to businesses whose access is
disrupted. Signs would also be posted alerting nearby businesses of temporary lane reductions,
weekend or nighttime closures, and /or detours. Pages 3 -218 and 3 -219 of the EA/DEIR include
a Traffic Management Plan and a Noise and Vibration Control Plan to reduce construction
effects.
Construction would be completed in coordination with Downtown stakeholders and the business
community in order to minimize potential impacts from construction, such as coordinating
nighttime or weekend work. In addition, early construction plans call for the Downtown portion
of the alignment to be constructed at the beginning of the construction process to limit impacts
to businesses.
It is not anticipated that the proposed project would affect existing vacant properties and the
increased accessibility upon implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to cause
future property vacancies. Acquisitions are shown in Table 3.3 -5 on page 3 -23 of the EA /DEIR
and in Response 8 -5. The proposed project would result in three full acquisitions and six partial
acquisitions; Streetcar Alternative 2 would result in six full and ten partial acquisitions; IOS -1
would result in four full and two partial acquisitions; and IOS -2 would result in five full and six
partial acquisitions. The amount and type of private property acquisitions were found to result
in less- than - significant impacts.
2) Traffic Congestion. Section 3.10 (Traffic and Parking) of the EA/DEIR includes a detailed
analysis of potential traffic impacts. In summary, the traffic analysis was prepared in
accordance with requirements of City of Santa Ana and the Orange County Congestion
Management Plan. The traffic analysis also considered the requirements of the City of Garden
Grove. An intersection analysis was completed that accounted for streetcar operations in
mixed -flow traffic. All intersections assessed for the proposed project would operate at similar
or improved level of service (LOS) as the No Build Alternative. Intermediate stations are
estimated to have minimal traffic impacts as only the stations at the project alignment termini
provide parking. Therefore, the Locally Preferred Alternative would not result in adverse effects
related to intersection congestion.
A roadway segment capacity analysis was also completed because the proposed build
alternatives would operate in mixed -flow traffic in the central and eastern portion of the Study
Area. The build alternatives would not cause additional roadway segments to experience
capacity deficiencies beyond those identified in the No Build Alternative. Therefore, the
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el 192
January 2015
75A -250
proposed build alternatives would not result in adverse effects related to roadway segments in
the Study Area.
3) Mostly Empty Streetcars. As discussed on page ES -15 of the EA /DEIR, it is estimated that
the proposed project would attract between 3,770 and 8,400 riders per day in the 2035 horizon
year. At the low end, this represents approximately 22 percent more riders than the TSM
Alternative (3,085); at the high end, it represents approximately 172 percent more riders than
with the TSM Alternative. Streetcar Alternative 2 would attract between 3,020 and 6,425
riders. At the low end, this would be approximately equivalent to the TSM Alternative; at the
high end, it represents approximately 108 percent more riders than with the TSM Alternative.
IOS -1 would attract between 2,012 and 4,490 riders, and IOS -2 would attract between 1,540
and 3,280 riders which is approximately 47 percent fewer riders than the full alignment
alternatives. It is anticipated that additional ridership modeling will be completed as the project
moves forward.
4) Injured Residents. Modern streetcars operate similar to buses in city streets, moving with
the flow of traffic and allowing passenger pick -up and drop off at designated stops. Public
outreach and education programs would be offered to familiarize local residents and business
owners with the new streetcar system.
In addition, the system would be required to meet the federal requirements of 49 CFR Part 659
and State requirements of California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order 164D.
These regulations require fixed guideway systems to establish system safety and security
programs. Based on the establishment of the safety and security programs, hazards and
security threats would be minimized. In addition, CPUC must certify that the project is safe and
secure before the project can be placed in revenue service. Following construction, the project
would be operated in accordance with OCTA standard operating procedures, operator rules, and
the emergency plan. The EA /DEIR analyzed potential public safety impacts and addressed safety
concerns associated with schools; Mitigation Measures SAF1 through SAFE, identified on page
3 -195 of the EA /DEIR, would be implemented as part of the project. These measures include
lighting, fencing, signage and education delivered to students and parents to warn of potential
hazards. The EA/DEIR found that with implementation of mitigation measures, no adverse
safety impacts would occur. See Response 8 -5(5) for a response to a similar comment on public
safety.
5) A Money Pit Residents Cannot Afford. The streetcar funding and fares have not been
determined at this time. Information regarding possible funding sources have been identified and
are under consideration but not approved. Due to this uncertainty, specific funding sources have
not been identified in the REA /FEIR. A financing plan will be developed by OCTA prior to
revenue operation of the proposed project. The financial analysis and evaluation for the
proposed project is in the Executive Summary Section in Table ES -1 on page ES -15 of the
EA/DEIR and shown below. See Response 8 -5(3) for a response to a similar comment on project
costs.
Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR
January 2015
75A -251
Pa9el193
TABLE ES 1: PRELIMINARY
Alternative
CAPITAL COST e ,000 ,000)
Low I High
TSM
419,120
14.5
363,459
Streetcar 1
35,152
197.4
32,656
209.7
Streetcar 2
6
217.0
Annual O & M Costs $13,282,258
228.1
IOS -1
6,110,656
146.5
12.07
158.8
I0S -2
Cost Per Revenue Hour $125.70
166.2
5187.12
177.2
Source: Cordoba Corporation, Santa Ana and Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Corridor Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Report,
April 2014.
Streetcar Alternatives 1 and 2 include the same two design options for the maintenance facility and
the facilities proposed to be constructed on each of these sites are identical. The cost difference
between the options is approximately $11 million, and is related to the estimated cost to acquire
the right -of -way. Operations & Maintenance Facility Site A would cost approximately $37.4 million
and Operations & Maintenance Facility Site B would cost approximately $26.4 million.
Operations & Maintenance cost projections are important for assessing cost effectiveness and to
conduct financial planning. The TSM bus costs were estimated based on current transit cost
information provided by OCTA. The Operations & Maintenance cost projections for the streetcar
alternatives were based on operating cost per revenue hour derived from historical Portland and
Seattle bus -to- streetcar Operations & Maintenance cost per revenue vehicle hour ratios. These
ratios were averaged and applied to the OCTA bus cost per revenue vehicle hour. The estimated
Operations & Maintenance cost for each build alternative is summarized in Table ES -2 on page
ES -16 and shown below.
TABLE ES-2: ANNUAL • & M COST
TSM TSM - SARTC to
Harbor Route Only
Streetcar
Alternative 1
Streetcar
Alternative 2
Annual Revenue Miles 1,061,590 419,120 332,015 363,459
Annual Revenue Hours 105,664 35,152 26,364 32,656
Peak Vehicles 22 8 6 7
Annual O & M Costs $13,282,258 5,100,000 4,933,284 6,110,656
Cost Per Revenue Mile $12.51 12.07 14.86 16.81
Cost Per Revenue Hour $125.70 143.94 5187.12 5187.12
Source: Cordoba Corporation, Santa Ana and Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Corridor Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Report,
April 2014.
6) Vintage Trolleys That Cater to Tourists. Section 2.6.3 on page 2 -14 of the EA /DEIR
discusses the type of streetcars that would be used for the build alternatives. Two types of
streetcar vehicles have been identified for use which include the CPUC compliant and European
style streetcars. A vintage trolley that caters to tourists is not included as an option as it would
not best serve the purpose and need for the project which is discussed in Chapter 1 .0 beginning
on page 1 -1 of the EA /DEIR.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el 194
January 2015
75A -252
Response PH1 -3 — Madeleine Spencer
The Study Area is generally bounded by Harbor Boulevard to the west, 17`h Street to the north,
Grand Avenue to the east, and 1s` Street to the south, and a connection to Disneyland is outside
the scope of this project. The Anaheim Rapid Connection Project is a fixed guideway system
currently being studied by the City of Anaheim and OCTA. This project includes a connection to
Disneyland. Project information can be viewed at the following website: http: / /aconnext.com/
arc /overview /. Regarding local use of the streetcar system, anticipated ridership is discussed in
Response PH1 -2. It is anticipated that the majority of riders would be local residents, business
members, and school -aged children commuting along the alignment.
Response PH1 -4 — Madeleine Spencer
The comment states that the existing bus systems could be improved to serve the vast number
of people who ride buses. Improved transit connectivity resulting from the proposed project
would reinforce the viability of transit for workers commuting to the Civic Center and other
transit - dependent people who live in other parts of Orange County to more easily access federal,
State, and County social service agencies in the Civic Center area via bus lines from the
surrounding region. See Response PH1 -2(3) related to empty streetcars.
Regarding economic development, the streetcar would integrate well with the surrounding
neighborhood by providing frequent service with short distances between stops and fostering an
active pedestrian environment. No specific business have committed to relocating along the
alignment at this time.
Regarding flexibility in the route, it is acknowledged that streetcar routes are not easily changed
to meet demand. One of the factors in the development of the alternative alignments was
ridership and what routes would serve areas with the highest demand. As discussed on page
ES -15 of the EA /DEIR, the Streetcar Alternative 1 route was identified as the route having the
highest daily ridership after a comprehensive alternatives analysis. In addition to satisfying
project objectives, public input, and environmental considerations, ridership was one of the
factors considered when the City Council of the City of Santa Ana selected Streetcar Alternative
1 with Operations & Maintenance Facility Site B (west of Raitt Street) and 4t' Street Parking
Scenario A (parallel parking) as the Locally Preferred Alternative for the SA -GG Fixed Guideway
Project on August 5, 2014.
See Response PH1 -2(4) related to safety
Response PH1 -5 — Madeleine Spencer
The financial analysis and evaluation for the proposed project is in the Executive Summary
Section on page ES -15 of the EA /DEIR. See Response PH1 -2(5) related to costs. See Response
PH1 -2(4) related to safety.
Response PH1 -6 — Madeleine Spencer
The comment does not include any comments directly related to the content or adequacy of the
EA /DEIR, and no further response is necessary.
Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g 01195
January 2015
75A -253
Response PH1 -7 — Madeleine Spencer
An EJ analysis, which identifies minority and low- income populations and evaluates whether the
adverse effects of the proposed project would disproportionately burden these vulnerable
populations, was included in Section 3.5 on page 3 -36 of the EA /DEIR. This analysis was
completed using prescribed methodology by the FTA, which was developed in response to
Executive Order 12898 and is consistent with USDOT Order 56102(a) and FTA Circular 4703.1 .
In determining the adverse effects, the project must consider both short -term and long term
consequences and weigh them against the benefits of the project.
As shown in Table 3.5 -2 on page 3 -49 of the EA /DEIR, and presented below, all of the
communities within the Study Area are considered EJ populations. The communities closest to
the alignment would benefit the most from increased accessibility and connectivity but would be
subject to temporary construction effects. Section 3.5.2.3 of the EA /DEIR provides a detailed
evaluation of the potential EJ effects for each community within the Study Area.
In addition, the EA /DEIR determined that the proposed project would have no adverse health and
environmental effects related to land use, visual quality, cultural resources, geotechnical
conditions, hazardous materials, hydrology, traffic, noise and vibration, air quality and
greenhouse gases, and safety and security. The EA /DEIR also discusses public outreach specific
to EJ in Section 3.5 on page 3 -61 of the EA /DEIR. Extensive public outreach during the
planning process has occurred in the Study Area and included specific outreach for communities
of EJ concern, particularly LEP communities. The following activities were conducted
specifically to ensure participation from communities of EJ concern, per requirements under
Executive Orders 12898 and 13166:
Identifying and meeting with environmental justice stakeholders, including Templo Calvario,
neighborhood associations, labor union members and senior centers.
Establishing a project information hotline with outgoing messages in English and Spanish.
Translating and submitting notices for publication in the following local Spanish language
newspapers:
Excelsior (Spanish language weekly of the Orange County Register on May 24, 2010)
Miniondas (June 3, 2010)
Making notices and information available in the Public Law Center's website. The Public Law
Center is a pro -bono law firm serving low- income communities in the City of Santa Ana and
in the County of Orange ( http:// www .publiclawcenter.org /news.php ?headline=
More+ Public +Transportation +Coming +to +Santa +Ana).
Translating presentation boards during scoping meetings, which followed an open house
format. Exhibit 7, in the Community Impact Assessment included as Appendix C, provides
samples of these boards.
Making available City of Santa Ana and subconsultant staff who were fluent in Spanish and
were familiar with the proposed project and its stakeholders at the scoping meetings. Given
the open house format of these scoping meetings, no real -time translation services were
required as no formal presentations were given. However, Spanish- speaking staff was on
hand to assist LEP community members.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g 01196
January 2015
75A -254
Translating comment forms on which community members could submit any comments, in
English or Spanish.
The outreach to EJ populations shall continue throughout the environmental process consistent
with past practice.
In summary, the short -term construction effects of the project would be outweighed by the long-
term permanent beneficial impacts that would affect EJ populations. Since the EJ communities
within the Study Area would be the primary recipients of the benefits of the project, there would
not be a denial in the receipt of benefits to minority and low- income populations.
Response P111 -8 — Unknown Speaker
See Response PH1 -1 related to community outreach and distribution of notices.
Response PH1 -9 — Unknown Speaker
The support for Streetcar Alternative 2 was forwarded to the decision makers for consideration.
The streetcar fares have not been determined at this time. The determination of fares would
depend on the available funding for the project, the costs to operate the project and the
anticipated revenue received from fares. The request for fare compatibility between systems was
forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. See Response PH1 -2(5) related to costs.
Improved transit connectivity resulting from the build alternatives would reinforce the viability of
transit for workers commuting to the Civic Center via bus lines from the surrounding region.
OCTA provides fixed route bus service and a countywide shared ride service, ACCESS, in
Orange County. Figure 3.10 -2 on page 3 -121 of the EA/DEIR shows the OCTA fixed route bus
service in and around the Study Area. Streetcar stops would be located near OCTA bus stops.
A subset of OCTA's fixed route bus service is a rail station feeder - distributor service known as
Station Link. OCTA currently operates a StationLink route (currently Route 462) in the Study
Area between SARTC and the Downtown /Civic Center area of Santa Ana. SARTC is a hub of
public transit service for central Orange County, serving as a major stopping and transfer point
for intercity, interstate, and international bus services such as Greyhound and Transportes
Intercalifornias.
Response PH1 -10 — Sean Pulich
The general support for the proposed project was forwarded to the decision makers for
consideration. Regarding connectivity, the eastern terminus of the alignment is the SARTC,
which is the busiest multi -modal transportation hub in Orange County and will connect the
streetcar to Metrolink, Amtrak, and bus lines from the surrounding region. The western terminus
is the Harbor Boulevard /Westminster Avenue intersection, where connections to local and
intracounty buses operated by OCTA are available.
Response PH1 -11 — Ruby Cardenas
See Response PH1 -2(4) related to safety. More specifically, to address safety concerns
associated with schools, Mitigation Measures SAF1 through SAFE, identified in Section 3.15.3
on page 3 -195 of the EA /DEIR, would be implemented as part of the project. These measures
Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el 197
January 2015
75A -255
include lighting, fencing, signage and education delivered to students and parents to warn of
potential hazards.
As described in Section 3.15.2.3 of on page 3 -191 of the EA /DEIR, the average speed for
streetcars traveling along the proposed alignment, which takes into account speed reductions at
school zones, entering and exiting of station areas, and complying with traffic control, would be
approximately 11 miles per hour. Key roadways and their speed limits are shown on page 3 -117
of the EA /DEIR, and range between 25 and 40 miles per hour. The speed limit on Santa Ana
Boulevard is typically 30 miles per hour in the Study Area.
Section 3.10 -2.3 on page 3 -127 of the EA /DEIR discusses the potential impact of removing on-
street parking for the build alternatives. The commenter lives on Santa Ana Boulevard and states
that visitor parking is limited. As discussed on page 3 -126 of the EA /DEIR, the proposed project
would remove approximately 53 percent of the street parking on Santa Ana Boulevard between
Raitt and Flower Streets (73 of 143 parking spaces). The loss of parking on Santa Ana Boulevard
would affect residential land uses. The City of Santa Ana requires every residential property along
this segment of Santa Ana Boulevard to have on -site parking capacity consistent with City zoning
and occupancy entitlements. The EA /DEIR states that there is adequate although potentially less
convenient parking to accommodate residential parking needs along this segment of Santa Ana
Boulevard.
Response PH 1-12 — Ruby Cardenas
Three of the six stated purposes for the SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project are to improve transit
connectivity, increase transit options, and improve transit accessibility. The initial goal of
OCTA's Go Local Program was to develop projects that would extend the reach of Metrolink.
The Cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove interpreted this to mean not only providing an
additional transit connection to a Metrolink station but to also connect with OCTA's robust bus
transit system in Santa Ana. By providing direct connections with all but two of the 16 OCTA
bus routes that currently serve the Study Area, the SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project enhances
Study Area mobility and connectivity with the region and increases travel convenience for those
who use public transportation within the Study Area.
The request for fare compatibility between systems was forwarded to the decision makers for
consideration. The comment is not directly related to the content or adequacy of the EA /DEIR,
and no further response is necessary.
Response PH1 -13 — Ruby Cardenas
Chapter 2.0 of the EA /DEIR describes the selection and evaluation of alternatives for the project.
The alternatives analysis process consisted of four major steps: (1) Preliminary Definition of
Alternatives, which included creating a range of conceptual alternatives that could potentially
satisfy the Purpose and Need and meet the goals and objectives for the project; (2A) Initial
Screening (Route Options) to eliminate route options with fatal flaws and those that do not
satisfy the Purpose and Need and meet the goals and objectives of the project; (213) Initial
Screening (Technology Options) to eliminate technology options with fatal flaws and those that
do not satisfy the Purpose and Need and meet the goals and objectives of the project and
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g ej 198
January 2015
75A -256
determine the reduced set of alternatives to be carried forward for detailed analysis; and (3) Detailed
Evaluation and Environmental Impact Analysis of the reduced set of alternatives and selection of the
Locally Preferred Alternative.
Early alignment options considered Civic Center Drive as an alternative to Santa Ana Boulevard.
Civic Center Drive West provides more direct access to some key activity locations in the Civic Center
areas, including the Orange County Courthouse, the Santa Ana Public Library, and Santa Ana Stadium.
It was determined that the existing land uses along Civic Center Drive West were less dense and less
transit supportive than those along Santa Ana Boulevard or 4th Street. However, the alignment was
included in Streetcar Alternative 2 based on comments received from the project's Stakeholder Working
Group.
The request to outreach to the Environmental and Transportation Advisory Committee (ETAC) has been
an on -going effort. A number of presentations on the streetcar had been made up to the point of when
this comment during the environmental public review was received. Early presentations on the streetcar
covered preliminary alternative routes and optional transportation modes. Subsequent presentations
included the remaining three build alternatives and the No Build Alternative. The City is committed to
continued outreach with ETAC related to the project's environmental analysis.
The City acknowledges the commenter's preference for a Civic Center alignment. See Response 8 -2
for related to the alternatives analysis. In addition, as discussed on page ES -15 of the EA/DEIR, the
Streetcar Alternative 1 route was identified as the route having the highest daily ridership after a
comprehensive alternatives analysis.
Response PH1 -14 —Sean Pulich
Accommodations will be made to ensure continuous operation of the streetcar during City- approved
special events on 4th Street. The manner of operation has not been determined at this stage of the
planning process, and will require coordination between the City, OCTA, and Downtown businesses.
Regardless of the operational change during special events, advanced notice and appropriate
signage would be provided to guide streetcar patrons to the replacement service locations during
such events.
Response PH1 -15 — Ruby Cardenas
See Response PH1 -2(1) related to construction impacts. As discussed on page 3 -197 of the
EA/DEIR, the duration of concentrated construction activities would be no more than six months at
one location along the alignment, including 4`h Street. A comprehensive community outreach program
would be developed prior to the start of construction activities. For business owners and commercial
property owners, the disruption of construction activities would involve multiple construction crews
operating along the corridor simultaneously. As stated on page 3 -202 of the EA/DEIR, access to
businesses would be maintained during operating hours. In addition, the second sentence in the
second to last paragraph on page 3 -202 of the EA/DEIR has been revised to state that signage would
be posted to alert customers that businesses are open during construction and wayfinding to
businesses whose access is disrupted. Signs would also be posted alerting nearby businesses of
temporary lane reductions, weekend or nighttime closures, and /or detours. Construction would be
completed in coordination with Downtown stakeholders and the business community in order to
minimize potential impacts from construction, such as coordinating nighttime and weekend work.
Santa Ana- Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REA /FEIR P a g el 199
January 2015
75A -257
Response PH1 -16 — Ruby Cardenas
The EA /DEIR equally assessed Streetcar Alternative 1 along 4 "' Street and Streetcar Alternative 2
along 5`h Street.
Response PH1 -17 — Ruby Cardenas
The comment requesting an attractive streetcar system was forwarded to the decision makers
for consideration. The comment is not directly related to the content or adequacy of the
EA /DEIR, and no further response is necessary.
Response PH1 -18 — Raul Yenez
Section 2.9 on page 2 -29 of the EA/DEIR describes the public outreach for the development of
alternatives, scoping, and circulation of the EA /DEIR. Section 3.5 on page 3 -61 of the EA /DEIR
discusses additional public outreach in relation to targeting populations of EJ concern. The City
has confirmed that notices were sent to multiple properties owned by the commenter. See
Response PH1 -1 related to community outreach and distribution of notices for a detailed
description of how the project complied with the CEQA and Council on Environmental Quality
CEQ) Guidelines regarding noticing and public involvement.
Response PH 1-19 — Raul Yenez
The support for the Streetcar Alternative 2 was forwarded to the decision makers for
consideration. See Response PH1 -2(1) related to construction impacts. See Response PH1 -15 for
effects along 4`" Street. A comprehensive community outreach program would be developed prior
to the start of construction activities. For business owners and commercial property owners, the
disruption of construction activities would involve multiple construction crews operating along the
corridor simultaneously. As stated on page 3 -202 of the EA/DEIR, access to businesses would be
maintained during operating hours. In addition, the second sentence in the second to last
paragraph on page 3 -202 of the EA/DEIR has been revised to state that signage would be posted
to alert customers that businesses are open during construction and wayfinding to businesses
whose access is disrupted. Signs would also be posted alerting nearby businesses of temporary
lane reductions, weekend or nighttime closures, and /or detours. Construction would be
completed in coordination with Downtown stakeholders and the business community in order to
minimize potential impacts from construction, such as coordinating nighttime and weekend work.
In addition, early construction plans call for the Downtown alignment to be constructed at the
beginning of the construction process to limit impacts to businesses.
Response PH 1 -20 — Tish Leon
The public meetings during the 45 -day review period of the EA/DEIR served as a forum for
recording public comments and receiving testimony on the project and EA/DEIR, and not as a
forum in which the City answered questions or engaged in a dialogue with the public. All
comments made at the time of the meetings were recorded to become part of the administrative
record for the project; these oral comments have been included in this REA/FEIR, for which a
response to each comment has been provided.
Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g e1200
January 2015
75A -258
Response PH1 -21 —Sean Pulich
The Study Area is generally bounded by Harbor Boulevard to the west, 17" Street to the north,
Grand Avenue to the east, and 1" Street to the south. A connection from the SARTC to John
Wayne Airport is outside the scope of the project. Comments about future regional connections
in Orange County should be directed to regional transportation agencies, such as Metrolink and
the Airport.
Response PH 1-22 — Madeleine Spencer
See Response PH1 -1 regarding to public outreach and Response PH1 -2(1) regarding construction
along 4t' Street.
Response PH1 -23 — Madeleine Spencer
Section 3.10 -2.3 on page 3 -127 of the EA /DEIR discusses the potential impact of removing on-
street parking for Streetcar Alternatives 1 and 2. 5" Street, which is referenced by the
commenter, would have removed approximately seven of the existing 33 parking spaces. The
loss of parking in the Civic Center area would be minimal and absorbed into nearby parking
structures. No adverse effects are anticipated.
Response PH1 -24 — Madeleine Spencer
The Study Area is generally bounded by Harbor Boulevard to the west, 17`" Street to the north,
Grand Avenue to the east, and 1" Street to the south. Willowick is within the Study Area,
although the redevelopment of Willowick is outside the scope of the project. The streetcar
would operate within the PE ROW adjacent to Willowick Golf Course, but as stated on page
3 -65 of the EA /DEIR, no adverse effects would occur. See Response PH1 -7 for issues regarding
equity.
Response PH1 -25 — Sean Pulich
See Response PH1 -12.
Response PH1 -26 — Unknown Speaker
As stated on page 3 -197 of the EA /DEIR, the construction period is anticipated to be
approximately 30 months, with major activities to be completed within the first 24 -month period.
Response PH1 -27 — Ruby Cardenas
Your suggestion for the alteration of bus hours has been forwarded to OCTA for consideration.
The comment is not directly related to the content or adequacy of the EA /DEIR, and no further
response is necessary.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR
January 2015
75A -259
Pagel201
Public Hearing No. 2
2 I TUESDAY, JUNE 17TI4, 2004 j
1 2
y 3
s 4 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Good morning. Buenos dies.
6 5 Who (mows how to say "good morning" in
7 TRAnaCRTPT OF: 6 Vietnamese? Anybody? Say it,
a Santa naa- Gandea once. 7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Speaking in Vietnamese)
9 Fixed Guideway Project bearing 8 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: All right. Good.
10 cane 17, 2014 9 1 want to welcome everybody to the street car --
11 10 the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project, very,
12 11 very exciting. I'll try to make it entertaining foryou.
13 12 Ifyou have comments at the end, we have
14 13 different ways to take them.
1s 14 The first thing I want to do is ask Tanya and
16 15 Jason to come up here.
17 16 We haveworked really hard on this project for
18 17 years and we have done a tremendousjob in outreach. We've
19 18 mailed thousands ofpostcards, we've distribrded Viers,
z0
19 we've done Nixles. We wanted to make sure everybody has an
u
20 opportunity to learn about these meetings. We've had three
22
21 different meetings; one on the east side, one in central
23 Reported by: Miriam .alts, CSR #9704 22 Soon Ana and then one on the west side to make sure that
24
23 people have an opportunity to come. And also we did it at29Pages1 - 22
24 different times; on a Saturday morning, on a Tuesday in the
page 1 25 morning and then we're going to have an evening session
Page 2VeriastNationalDeposition & LitigationServices
866299 -5127
I Thursday night so everybody had a chance to come here. And l owners, ifthey don't live there their Downs, and for2ifyou're not able to come to this meeting, please spread 2 multi -unit commercial and residential, we identified all of
3 the word and have them call us and we'll schedule a special j 3 the units within those properties as well. So we looked at4meetingjusttomeetwithyouindividuallyandtalktoyou. 4 everybody [here.
5 So we want to make sure everybody has an opportunity. 5 We also looked at all the stakeholders we've had
6 But I would like Jason mid Tan to o ahead andiTanyag 6 throughout this proves, we've reached out to them as well
7 ive people an idea ofthe outreach that was done. BecausegPP 7 as well as resource agencies and we sent out over 4,000
8 at the last meeting there were three people in the local 8 postcards just to notifyeverybody ofthese meetings, so a
9 area and two of them got the postcard and one of them f 9 very robust outreach. !
10 didn't, but we wanted to make sure that it be known we did j 10 And, you know, Tanya will provide us some more !
11 everything we can to get the word out. So we'll start with 11 detail.
12 Jason. 12 TANYA LYON: So in addition to the 4,000 postcards we
13 JASON GABRIEL: Okay. Well, from the beginning of 13 sent out to everyone within 500 feet ofthe route, we also
14 this study process for the environmental, we started with 14 provided the EA /D1R at every single of the -- the flier at I
15 -- and the board back theca describes the study process, 15 every single community center as well as the locations 1
16 but we started with community listening sessions, we had 16 posted here on the board, so it's online at City Hall, the
17 seeping meetings, we had stakeholder meetings and now we're 17 city clerk's office, the library as well as in the city of
18 in the EA /DEIR public hearing phase. Bin throughout those 19 Garden Grove. j
19 seeping meetings, community listening sessions, we also 19 In addition to that we also sent out a public
20 reached out to a lot of the neighborhoods in the area, all le articles inWe've had multipressrelease. p20noticeandap 1
21 the stakeholders that we could find, we talked and tried to 21 the newspaper, in The Register, l think Voice ofOC .von
22 get input from everybody to provide input on the project,
22 carried it and so -- and we continue to reach out So if
23 there is anyone who hasn't heard it, it's been on social i
23 Now as we're releasing the environmental 24 media as well and we're continuing to get that message out.
24 document, we looked at everybody within 500 feet ofthe j125CITYMANAGERCAVAZOS: Thank you i
25 alignments that are proposed. That includes property I j Page 4 j
Page 3
75A-?60
I Having said that, five years from now hopefully Thank you.
2 some ofus will see the train go by and they'll go "Wow, I 2 Next slide.
3 didn't know they were going to do a train." So I wanted 3 We have the environmental assessment, and I'm
4 you to know that will still happen even though we tried 4 going to put the books over here with this ourggpyoung good
5 everything possible to get the word out. 5 looking gentleman and ifyou want to thumb through it you
6 So we'll go ahead and get started. I think that 6 can. if not, you can pass it around. But, again, I want
7 I'll talk while the screen is going on and I don't want you 7 you to feel how much work was done on this projectin terms
8 to look at me, look at the screen, because otherwise if I 8 ofthe assessment, the environmental review is very, very
9 stand in front ofit it will be very hard for you to see 9 substantial, millions ofdollars in fire making so we worked
10 it. So we'll go ahead and start. !10 really hard to cover all the different options and the
I1 We want to welcome everybody to the meeting. 11 environmental impact. If you wart to read the report
12 And, ofcourse, the purpose today is to give you 12 there's lots ofways to do it. You can go to Public Works
13 information abort the street car project, tell you that 13 with the City of Santa Ana, you can go to the city clerk's
14 Chen are other meetings and where the locations am for l4 office, you can go to the public library, you can go to
15 the environmental assessment, and a draft Environmental 15 Rostra Party you can go to the train station here in Santa
16 Impact Report and then how to submit comments, well talk 16 Ana, you can go to Garden Grove and get a copy there or you
17 Co you about how to do [hat. 17 can go to Orange County Transportation Authority, they have
is We really want your input, that's why these 18 a copy there, or you can from the luxury ofyour home or
19 meetings are so important. We've been at this for several 19 Starbncks or anywhere else you can get it online,
20 years mid I do -- do we have a copy of the report? 20 santaanatransitvision.com, the full report is there.
21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, we do. 21 We, as I mentioned earlier, have been working
22 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Can you bring it over to me? 22 hard on this for many years. In 2006 the Board approved
23 And we had a meeting on Saturday, today ofcourse 23 Measure M, was a local sales tax for transportation, and of
24 we're having a meeting this morning and then we have 24 course that's a partnership between Orange County Transit
25 another one on Thursday, Thursday night. 25 Authority mid local citieswithin Orange County and the
5 Page 6Page
1 goal was to foster transit connectivity and extend the
2 reach ofMetrolink and to took at those projects that were I feasibility to define the transit vision for Santa Ana and
3 best suited for flooding. There were 35 projects submitted, 2 Garden Grove and to move into the second step. And so in
4 31 of them involved buses and shuttles, four of them 3 earnest the alternative analysis and environmental review
4 started in the fall of 2009 with meetings like this,
5 involved rail, the two that were selected were the Anaheim 5 getting people's input, and where do you want the route, 6 project and the Santa Ana-Garden Grove project. I 6 where most people need transit, And based on all ofthat
7 When I went over to OCTA to meet with the board 7 the alternatives were identified for further study in the
8 there and the staff, I looked at the vision and will tell 8 fall of 2012 after three years of analysis.
9 you that every single part of the vision has been achieved 9 This is the study area. I wanted to make sure
10 with the exception of one major area and that's light rail 10 everybody had the boundaries; 17th Street/Westminster on
11 or street car. So this is the final step in achieving the 11 the north, First Street on the south, Grand Avenue on the
12 vision for OCTA which is to include the street car or light 12 east and Harbor Boulevard on the west, about 4.1 miles
13 rail. 13 total for the study area.
14 How many people here take the bus? All right. I 14 We did look at alternatives; namely the bus, bus
15 took the bus for nine years when I was starting my career. 15 rapid transit and of course the street car and there's
16 And the reason I took the bus is because I couldn't afford 16 pictures of each or those types ofalternatives listed
17 a car, real simple. And then one day I got a car and never 17 there. And we looked at several alternatives. The first
18 took the bus again. But later on in my career when the 18 alternative has some benefits. We believe it serves the
19 train was available, I had a car butI took the train. So 19 greatest number of transit dependent households. It has
20 I always tell people when they ask me wiry did I take the 20 the highest daily ridership, it has the lowest operations
21 train or the bus, I took the bus because I had to, I took 21 and maintenance cost and we believe that the land use best
22 the train because I wanted to and there's a big difference. 22 supports this type oftransit.
23 And I really believe that a train or a light rail system 23 There are some challenges in that it could impact
24 has many major, major benefits for people. 124 some on -street parking. Romember, though, when you have
25 parking, that's because people are coming there with cars. 25 The first part ofthe study was to look at the Page 8
Page 7
75A-261
I Ifyou have transit, they're going to be coming there by i 1 accessible. I speak from personal experieuce. When you're
2 train so hopefully there's more than beneficial offset 2 waiting for a bus, it seems like an eternity. Has anyone
3 based on those needs. 3 ever done it, "Where's the bus? Is it coming ?" When
4 Street car alternative two, you can see the route 4 you're waiting for a train, it's right on schedule. I
5 there. It provides better coverage ofthe Civic Center 5 could see it from my bedroom, I could text it and it said
6 destination, so you can see it goes up there on Civic 6 "The train will be here in fourminutes." I go down the
7 Center Drive. But there are some challenges with the 7 stairs, go across the track, wait there and sure enough
8 route. It's a little bit longer, longer route means i 8 there's the train with the lights coming. So reliable and
9 greater cost. I asked them to be specific. It's about 9 accessible, very friendly environmentally. It's got the
10 seven percent greater cost. And also there's more 10 electricity there, it fosters walkability, it's a catalyst
11 rgbt -of -way impacts with that route. 1 I for economic development and its very compatible with the
12 And, of course, the bus is also au option that 12 character and scale of a high density city like Santa Ana
13 was evaluated. Initially it does have a lower capital 13 mid Garden Grove.
14 cost, it does not require any right -of -way requirements and 14 This is one of the charts that I developed when I
15 it has no adverse effect on the environment because ofthe 15 got here. I was making my initial presentation to the
16 existing bus transit already. Some of the challenges is 16 Board ofDirectors for OCTA and i asked the staff to rank
17 its the lowest daily ridership, less passenger currying 17 the cities by density, the large cities, and to take a look
18 capacity, it's less efficient, it's not as convenient and 18 at the ones that had a rail transit system or a street car,
19 it provides very little economic development and benefit. 19 and the ones who didn't. And what I found out was there's
20 Everybody will give you economic analysis but my 20 two cities in America ofthe top 15 that don't have a light
21 experience has been that for every dollar in transit 21 rail system or a street car and they'reboth in Orange
22 investment you get about five dollars back in economic i 22 County. We got a little work to do here. And Santa Ana in j
23 benefit. So some are higher, some are a little bit lower, 23 particular with almost 12,000 people per square mile is a
24 but that's the general rule of thumb. 24 poster child for this type of transit. And we're right
25 So by The street car, it's very reliable, 25 between Boston and Chicago and you can see all the cities
L Page 9 Page 10
1 have this type ofsystem with the exception of Santa Ana.
i2Whataboutthecost? Well, over the long term 1 fare box, any useror advertising fees associated with the
3 the cost ofover 25 years has a street car actually being a 2 Hain and oFcoerao the City and developer contributions.
3 We are waiting for OCTA to do their plan. It was approved
j 4 little bit less expensive than the bus in terms of the j 4 by the 13oatU and they will be coming back in the next month
5 TSM /best bus alternative and depending on the street car 5 or so with a plan bath financial and implementation.
6 option, it's very, very comparative in terms of cost. And i 6 We want to look at the purpose of the
7 this is based on the useful life of 12 years for a bus and 7 environmental analysis is to look atpotential effects and
8 a street car, ofcourse, is a lot longer, 25 years, and you R impacts in the following key areas; die effect on the
9 look at all the different costs for O and M and you can see 9 community, environmental justice, visual quality, cultural
10 the numbers there. 10 resources, what's the impact on traffic, parking, thenoise
j 11 363 million for the bus; street car one, 361; and e 11 and vibration, air quality and ofcourse the construction
1 12 street car two, 410 million. 12 that will take place.
13 We want to be an outstanding partner with OCTA 13 We also want to make sure everybody knows that we I
14 and when they're doing a financial modeling and 14 will comply, ofcourse, with the National Environmental
15 implementation plat they need to know where the money's 15 Policy Act and the Califomia Environmental Quality Act
16 going to come from, so I recommended to the City Council, 16 requirements.
17 the mayor, that we commit to a ten percent cost share, it's 17 hr choosing a route after these years ofanalysis 1
1.8 about five or six hundred thousand dollars a year once the 18 and looking at the alternatives, these were some ofthe
1
j 19 train is operational, and that can be used for the i 19 considerations; the number ofpeople served especially f
20 analysis. And I think it's really important Co have them 20 those that am transit dependent, wewanted to look atways j
21 in the game to be a time partner and so we're able to do 21 to maximize the benefits to the community and minimize any
22 that. t 22 impacts that are negative. We want to make it easy to use
23 So when you took at all the different things in 23 and make sure that the ridership is thaw when the system
J24additiontotheCitycommitment, we have local Measure M4
24 is in place, want to minimize cost, we want input from the
25 funding, federal funding is a possibility, state funds, the j 25 community and of course we want to make sum that Santa Anapage 12
Page 11
75A 262
development, the preliminary engineering or right -of -way1benefitseconomicallysothatwehavethequalityoflife
2 that we're striving for to make sure that this high density 2 and the final design. There will be a funding agreement, i
j 3 city has opportunities to move people through the city. 3 construction will start and then after construction is j
4 We du have more work to do, We will - -after 4 completed there will be some testing and operations will
5 getting your input, this is a 45 -day reviewperiod, we will 5 begin.
6 recommend a local preferred alternative to the City 6 So how to submit comments? We will take your
7 Council. They will review that and make a decision, then 7 comments today. It's comments, it's input. IC's not a Q
8 we will go back to the Orange County Transit Authority 8 and A. We want to make sure that we capture your comments
9 Board ofDirectors in October so they acknowledge the 9 and then that will be part of the official report and that
10 progress that Santa Ana - Garden Grove has made and that they 10 those comments will be published along with the responses.
11 are aware that we completed the local program clap two. j 11 You can mail theoretics. Ifyou wanted to take time and
12 Than in October of will ask the City l2 review it, youcan e-mail it to us, you can fax it to us,
iron en13CounciltocertifytheEnvironmental Impact Report afterwe 13 you can do it online, but whatever we do we needcomments
14 review and take all the comments in. And then we'll 14 by July 7th, 5:00 p.m.
15 transmit that to the Federal Transit Administration and our 15 Thank you so much. And we have court reporters
16 goal, ofcourse, would be a finding of no significant 16 here and we have cards, you want a -- anybody want a card?
17 impact. 17 Tanya has cards.
18 So we would like to receive your comments today. 18 MR. KATZ: Comment cards?
19 And then, again, we'll certify the environmental document. 19 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Comment cards.
20 I mentioned earlier, I want to re- emphasize, that the 20 MR. KATZ: Yes.
21 Orange County Transit Authority is reviewing and preparing 21 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Right over here.
22 an implementation plan and a funding plan option they'll 22 And with that we do have court recorders and we
23 present to their board. MayorPulido is a member of that 23 have translation services.
24 board and I've been going to all their meetings, so we're 24 Does anybody want to make a public comment so
25 representing there. And then go initiate the project ( 25 that they can be recorded? We'll start on this side and
Page 13 Page 14 j
1 walk around the room. 1
2 MR. KATZ: I'm Peter Katz, a longtime, 4 5 -year I street car, he couldread the Wall Street Journal on his
3 resident ofthe oily and this is very exciting. Public 2 way to work. Jurors can use this to go to the courthouse
4 transit is an opportunity for this city to increase its 3 without having to take out their cars. And looking for
5 economic development and create jobs locally. And ifyou
4 parking spaces in those garages are a nightmare so
5 especially downtown. You wouldn't have to walk as far from6sayforpercentageofthejobsforlocalemployment, thisi 6 the garage ifyou're on jury duty or you need to make a
7 is a win -win situation and it will move people around this 7 court appearance or you're going to go to the tax
8 city from the west to the east. You'll connect Garden 8 assessor's office, So for me this is a win -win situation.
9 Grove to downtown Santa Ana, 9 1 think for seniors, for students to go to
10 And this month Orange Coast Magazine has rated 10 college, this passes right by Santa Ana College. So I mean
11 downtown Santa Ana as the number one downtown in all of 11 it's going to cut down on the transit and the traffic,,
12 Orange County even without this street cur. So this street 12 nightmare that we have in this city.
13 oar will increase the capacity in this city. 13 And for the city ofGarden Grove to connect with
14 And I'm really excited, I've traveled around the 14 Santa Ana, of some point itjust connects up to the one in
15 world and I've ridden on street oars in a lot of cities and 15 Anaheim, it will move the tourist district further south.
16 they're successful everywhere they've been built. As a c"2-1 16 Like Las Vegas Boulevard in Las Vegas, it will stretch out
17 matter offoot USA Today last month had ,in article on all 17 to the highway. I envision Harbor Boulevard being a
18 the new street cars that are going in in Atlanta and ether 18 tourist mecca center, bringing all the tourists here
19 cities that are taking advantage ofthe density of the 19 stretching from Anaheim to Costa Mesa.
20 population because our freeways -- there's no room to build 20 So I think this is awin -win situation for the
21 anymore freeways. 21 cities, it's going to bring bond revenue, and I think if
22 And the thing about street oars, it doesn't have 22 it's built right and the stops are designed right and the
23 the socioeconomic stigma ofbeing for the poor class, for 23 fare is reasonable, I think people will benefit
24 the lower class or for the minority. A lawyer will ride a 24 tremendously from this project, So I'm all for it.
25 street car, he will not ride a bus. The CEO will ride a 25 Anyone else?
Page 16Page15
5A 26
I CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Anyone else out here? Anybody I UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have a question
2 on this side? 2 Where's the parking lot going to be?
3 Thank you. All right Here we go. 3 MS. WOO: Its going to be on Rain and Fifth Street, I
4 MS. WOO: Yes. I'm Ruby Woo with the Artesia Pilar 4 that area, it looks like you could stop andpark there. I
5 Neighborhood Association. I'm also in favor of it but I'm 5 was just looking at it really fast so I just wanted some
6 also concerned about the landscaping because its going to 6 information on that
7 go through my neighborhood, Santa Ana Boulevard.,' 7 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Okay. We're here to get input
8 One of the things that I'm upset about right now 8 and comments, not Q and A, but I will be here afterwards
9 on Bristol is the bus shelters. I want better looking bus 9 foranybody that has questions. This can't be part ofthe
10 shelters and people are kind ofhiding under the bushes and i 10 official record.
I1 stuffbecause ofthe shade so I wish you would consider 11 Who wants to give input or comments?
12 that, the shelter area being a little bit better looking. 12 Yes, sir.
13 Also I notice there's oin be ark and stopggtoaPP 13 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have a comment.
14 area in Artesia Pilar and I would like to invite you to a 14 How long will it take from the start to finish of PH22
15 . neighborhood meeting July 16 to explain that park and ride 15 theproject?
PH22
16 shelter. 16 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: So I'm going to refer back to
17 And so I'm really concerned how it looks in the 17 the comment I made earlier because it's part of our
r 18 community, landscaping, also what they're going to be doing 18 presentation so I'll ro- emphasize it.
19 about some businesses because of -- the businesses on Santa 19 We are currently working with the OCTA, they are i
20 Ana Boulevard arc not — the landscaping in that street 20 the lead agency and they are developing a financing plan
21 area, how that's going to be paved and look better. I know 21 and a implementation plan. And as soon as that's done and
22 i@s going to look better but I want it to really look 22 the Board approves it, we'll have a better idea of how long
23 good. 23 it will take and how it's going to be financed. But right
24 Thank you. 24 now we don't have any real concrete estimates.
25 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Thank you. 25 Anybody else?
Page 17 Page 18
I UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What's the earliest it would I UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We have a question over there.
2 Start?
3 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Ifyou wrote its a check today
2 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Onemore.
P 3 1 wanteverybody to hear. Ifyou could stand up
4 personally, we could probably have it done in about four p,3cot
4 too.
5 years, So it all depends on the plan. I'm not being 5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Grant. They can hear well
6 facetious. 6 over the speakers.
7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So iffunding came in -- from 7 CITYMANAGER CAVAZOS: By the way, how come you're not
8 the point funding comes in, it could be four years? 8 wearing nHe?
9 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Yes. 9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, I'm very casual today.
10 Usually it takes about 18 months for design, two to Thank you.
j 11 years to construct, there's sonic testing, I've done two or 11 Flow are you going to handle or how is it going to
12 three ofthem, some ofthem take ten years, ten years goes 12 be handled the businesses that ore going to be in the -- PH24
13 by fast, Some ofthem take five or six years, But, again, 13 that are whomthe street car is going to go? Fouryears,
14 to re- emphasize the reason I'm answering yew question is 14 it's a long time for businesses to survive thatprocess.
15 because I presented it earlier. 15 How are you going to handle those people that are going to
16 Kelly, what's the schedule for the work that's 16 be affected economically?
17 being done with implementation and financing, when is that 17 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: That's agood question. Again,
18 due back from the Board? 1 S not related to this specifically, n n relates to thepy, gam
19 KELLY: We have an item that's tentatively scheduled 19 implementation plan.
20 to go to the Board in August. 20 In my prior experience we have people assigned to
21 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: When? 21 different segments of their rout. working very close with
22 KELLY: In August.
22 the businesses cad residents and then minimize the impart
23 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: August, okay. So we'll have a
23 on your business or livelihood and so that's their goal
24 that they would have.
24 better idea in August.
25 I don't want to oversimplify it but in this
25 All right. Page 20
Page 19
26475A
I particular case this technology is in the right -of -way in
2 the vast majority of cases. So it looks different from a
3 situation where youh'e actually taking property from both
4 sides of the road, the impact it will have there and it
5 will be significant in that case.
6 So I'd like to talk to you afterwards.
7 So, people, we want comments not questions,
8 comments. If you have questions, we can take them and
9 respond to them in writing. So everybody has -- you can
10 ask any question you want and we'll respond in writing.
I 1 Anybody else?
12 Have a wonderful day. We'll stick around for a
13 while and talk.
14 By the way, we have lots of food left.
15
16 (End of transcription.)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 21
It -cars]
1 achleved 7:9
aehleving 7:11
areas 12:8
aroala 1]:4,14
band 16:21
books 6:411:25 22:18
12 11:7 ark..Icdg. 13:9 article 15:17 laii 10:25
12,000 10:23 act 12:15,15 aMkl. 4:20 boulevard 8:12
15 10:20 addition 4:12,19 asked 9:9 10:16 16:16,17 127,20
16 17:15 1124 a.essmant 5:156:3 boundaries 8:10
17 1:10 administer 22:7 68 Lox 12:1
17th 211 8:10 administration ma ..... 1, Iss bring 5:2216:21
18 19:10 13:15 assigned 20:20 bringing 16:18 21:7,6
advantage 15:19 associated 12:1 bristol 17:92adverse9:15 association 17:5 banns 2:4
2004 2:1 advertising 12:1 11ama 15:18 build 15:20
2006 622 affiremdans 22:8 august 19:20,22,23 built 15:1616:22
2009 8:4 afford 7:16 19N bus 7:14,15,16,19
2012 8:8 agencies 4:7 authority 6:17,25 7:21,21 8:14,14
2014 1:1013:12 agency 18:20 13:8,21 9:12,1610:2,3 11:4
22:18 agreement 14:2 aaNnriaed 22:7 1L5,7,1115:26
22 1:25 ahead 3:6 5:6,10 available 7:19 17:9,9
25 11:7,8 air 1211alignmenk 325
alternative 8:3,18
overrun 8:11
awmn 13:11
bases 7:4
bashes 17:10
business 20:23
3
31 7:4 b
35 7:3 9:4 11:5 13:6 businesses 17:1$19Lack3:15 9:2212:4
36] II:II 814elleraalives :7, 13:x18:161218 20:12,14,22
harts 10:14
JGf 11:11 8:16,171218
1:a 10:20nn1:82:10,1012a10:22
bastes 8693:3,21basedB:fi 9:3 119
bedroom 10',5
4 California 12:15
2254,000 4:7,12
41 20:12 beginning 3:13 call
112
410
10:2211:1 12:251;1 believe 7:23 0aft,21 capacitycapacity 15:13
45 11:515:23:51 13:10149,11 Ifi:10
enaheim T.516:15
I16:
14s[.7:7:51
16:19
ba est 9 9:2scant9:19,23
beneata 7:24 N:IAneat
13capitalY14: carcase 14:8
fir 2:9 5:13 7:11,12c7:17,17,19
5
500 3:244:13
5100 14:14 licks 8:3,8 9:20
11:2012:7,17 12:2113: beat 7:38211 1:5 9:25 10:1$21 51:3211 :3
IL13,2516:120:27
7th 14:14 scattering 19:14 2216 15:114:16:120:09anybody2:614:16
14:241'L118:9,25
21:11anymore 15:21
app ies n's 16:7
bM,er 9:517:9,12
17:21,2218:22
19:24big7:22
bit 9:8,2311:417:12
acrd 14:16
cards 14:16,17,18
14:19carton 7:15,18
carried 49:1
9704 123 22:6,21
tricot 12x7
ability 22:16
aLlc 3:211:211:2 approved 6.2212:3 board carrying 9:17case@le10:1,9 approve, I8:22 fi22]p IO:Ifi 12:471 :161 rs 8:251515,18
ewrate 22:15 roe 3:9,20 ]:108;Y 13:9,23,24 18:E2 13:22 16;3
continuing 4:24
8:131]12,14,21 19:18,20
16:12,1317:1,25 contributions 12:2
18:4
employment 15:618:7,1619:3,9,21
page 1
Vadtoat NationalDeposition& Litigation 8orvica, 75A 265866299 -512]
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2
3 I, MIRIAM G. BALTES, do hereby certify:
4 That I am a duly qualified Certified Shorthand
5 Reporter in and for the State of California, holder of
6 Certificate No. 9704, which is in full force and effect,
7 and that I am authorized to administer oaths and
8 affirmations;
9 That the foregoing proceeding was taken before me
10 at the time and place herein set forth;
11 That the proceedings were recorded
12 stenographically by me and were thereafter transcribed by
13 me or under my direction and supervision;
14 That the foregoing pages contain a full, true and
15 accurate record of the proceedings and testimony to the
16 best of my skill and ability.
17
18 Dated: July 1, 2014
19
20
21 MIRIAM G. BALTES, NO. 9704
22
23
24
25
Page 22
ease- environmentally]
case 21:1,5 comes 19:8 e 5:12,23624cn8:159:1211:812:2 distributed 2:18cases21:2 coining 8:259:1 district 16:15
ticarid 20:9 10:3,8124 12:11,14,2513:16 document 32
catalyst 10:10 comment 14:18,19 court 14:15,2216:7 13:19
fie 2:484:25 14:2418:13,1] gourthome 16:2 doing 11:141];18
5:22 14:19,2117 1 comments 2:12 5:16 cover 6:10 dollar 9:21
17:25 18:7,1619:3 13:14,1814:6,7,7,8 average 9'.5 dollars 6:9 9:22
199,21,23 20:2,7 14:10,1318:8,11 great. 15:5 11:18
20:17 21:7,6 ear 1:23 drooping 15:9,11
center 4:159:5,7 commercial 4:2 cultural 12:9 15:1116:5
16 18 commit 11:0 currently 18:19 draft 5:15
central 2:21 commitment 11',24 cut 16:11 drive 9:7
ceo 15125 cmamanity 3:16,19 it due 19:18
certificate 22:1,6 4:15 12:9,21,25 duly 22:4dallyN:209:17certified22:4 VaX dated 22:18 duty 16:6
ecertify13:13,19 comparative 11:6 day 7:17 13:521',12220compatible10:11 deeition 13:7 a 14:12challenges8:2347 nco khol 13:11 dente 8:1 as 3:184:149'16 14'4 del, 3:18 earlier 6:21 13:20chance3:1 comply 1214 density 10:12,17 18:1719:15character10:12 concerned 17:6,17 13',215:19 earliest 19:1harts10:14 conereto 18:24 dependent 8:19 mirmot 8:3heck19:3 connect 15:816:13 1220 east 2:218:1215:8ehicagn10:25 enme.tivily 7:1 depending 11:5 easy 12:22child10:24 concerts 16:14 depends 19:5 ec ..scale 9:19,20,22homing12:17 consider 1211 describes 3:15 1011155cities6:2510:17,17 considerations design 14:219:10 eronmnicnlly 13:1 " 10:20,2515:15,19 12:19 designed 16:22 20:161421malruat14:11 destlnathat 9:6 effect 9:15 12:8 22:6city2:4,84:16,17,17 e ... tra,lion 12:11 doing] 4;11 tricot 12x74:25 5:22 6:13,13 14:3,3 dm'nloped 10:14 efficient 9:1810:1211:16,2412:2 contain 22:14 developer 12:2 electricity 10:1013:3,3,6,1214:19 continua 4:22 developing 18:20 en,lacAm 13:2014:2115:3,48,13 continuing 4:24 development 9:19 18:1819:14
16:12,1317:1,25 contributions 12:2 10:1114:115:5 employment 15:618:7,1619:3,9,21 convenient 9:18 this 2'.4 engineering 14:119:23 20:2,7,17 copy 5:206:16,18 diRereme 7:22 entertaining 2:11male9:5,6 cost 899:9,10,14 different 2:13,21,24 curl ... most 9:15this15:23,24 112,3,6,1712:24 6:1011:9,2320:21 enviromnental INclerk', 4:178.13 costa In 19 212 3:235:15,156:3,8close2021costs11:9 dir 4:14 6:118:312:7,9,14coast15:10 c ...in 11:16132 direction 22:13 12:1513:13,19entities16:10,10 13:13 direct.. 10afi 13:9 environmentallyeome2:15,23 3:1,2 county 6:17,24,25 10:911:1620.7 1 10:2213:8,21 15:12
VeriteatNotional Deposition & Litigation Scrvloes
966 299 -5127
Pagn2
peas 6:6
Imrvislon - know)
rovl ):1)1824 tide 1524,2825
passenger 9:V probably 19:4 really 2:165:18610
known- purmuslil,j
passes I6:10 pro<eesling 22:9 231L2015:14 ridership 8:209',1)
paved 17:21 proceedings 22a1 11),22 18:5 12:23
envivlmn 161) Oref 2:14 9:25 6:11 16:2,7,9 I7:3,7 Impact £I6 6:11
9:14,20,24 8:6,25 prauess 3:14,15 0.:6 otmbie 16:23 9:1410:4,2414:1
10:23 12:19 133
especially 1219
165 0:1] Ova 5:19:2211:18 1930 20:13goal ]:I 13:16 20:23 8:23 12:1013:1J,I] 20:2221:4
prmgrvm 13:11 recommend 13:fi 1]:3,8182319:25
20:15,20 21:7 progress 13:10 reuommendud 211
people's 8:5 project 1:92:1 O,Ifi
estimates 18:24
eternity 10:2
evaluated 9aS
evening 2:25
everybody 2:9,19
3!1,50.2,244:4,0.
5:118:109:2U
121320:321:9
exception 9a0 11:1
excited 15:14
exciting 2:1115;5
existing 9:16
expensive 11:4
experience 921
10:1 20:20
explain Was
extend T.1
19:11fixed1:92:10
flier 4:14
Hien 2:18
following 12:8
bad 2414Mae22:6
foregoing 22:9.14
forth 22:10
footer 9a
Poetess 10:10
found 10:19
four'' /:4 IO:G 19:4,8
2013freeways 15:20,21
rrlenaly Id9
front 5:9
full 6:2022;k14
funding 9:3 11:25
112513:2214:2
19:7,8
hurtle 1125
Forlher K:9 lfias
8
goes 9:619:12
going 2',255:3,9 G:4
9:111:161324
IS:IB 16:7,1 1,21
19:6,13,18,21,22
I8:2,3,I6,2320:11
20:11,12,13,15,15
good 2:4,5,8 6:4
17:23 20:17
grand gat
greater 9:9,10
greatest 819
grove I:N 2'104:I8
616 tfi 8:2 10'.13
13:1015:916:13
mdmfa 1:9zoo
Impacts 9:1112:8
1222
implementation
11:15 12:515:22
18:21 19:1]20:19
Important 5:19
1120Inelutle Y.12
h¢Intles 3:25
increase 15:4,I3
Individually 3:4
Information 5:13
IR:GLd1ia1 10:15
initially 9:13
mumm v:zs
Input 122,225:18
8:512:2413614:]
18:7111invmnnont 222
invite 17:14
involved 7:4,5
Item 19:19
record 10.:1022:15 roLUSt 4:9
percentage 15:6 13:2516:2410.:15 recorded 14:26 m 15:1,20
period 13:5 projects ]2,3 2211 ruslM 6:15
personal 10:1
h
hull flafiLandln20:11,15
handled 20:12
hePPev 5:4
hnrFor ft:1216:
herd 2:16 5:96:10
622hear20:3,5
heard 4:21
M1eering 1:9 J:IN
Riding 1]'.10
facetious 19:6
teal 15:1]
fall ft:4,6
far IGSfare12:1 I623
htm 18:519:13
favor p:5
tax 1412feasibility 8:1
federal 112513:15
j
g 223,21
gabrief 3:U
game 11:21
garage 16:6
jmnn 2:153:6,12,13
Job 2a9jnFe15:5,6
journal 16:1
peter 15:2 proposed 3:25 register 4:21
feel fi:] garagm I6:4 M1IBL 10:1213:2 July 14:1417:15
rule 9'24
spictures8:16 provided 4:14 relates 20:18
pit.. 17:4,14 provides 9:5,19
lees 12:1 gartlen L8 2:10 higher 9:23 22:18
releasing 323 soots 1:82:10,22plan111512:3,5 6:12,14 14:2415:3 reliable 9:2510:8 6:13,15 9:6 0.:113:22,2218:20,21 published 14:10
feet 3 24 4:13 4!IR 6;167i6 9:2 M1lgM1eet 0.20 juve 1:102:1
report 516,20 611 15:1015:9,11 16:10please3:2 purpose 5:12 12:6 6:2013:13 14:9 I6:14 0:],19
polo! 14',1419:8 put 6:4
Hit]. iR0 10:1113:1015:8 highway I6:V jurmre 16:2
reporter 22:5 620poorI5:2I repnrrer'e 22:1 eaturdvY 2:245:23qualified224Is:2Apopulation quality [2:$[1,15
ibml ]:1114:2 16:13 holder 22:5 jury 16:6
representing 13',25 scLedule 3a 10:4
pms @le 5:5 questlmn 18119:14 require 914 19:16postcard3920:1,1] 21:10
tinancwl I8:23 general 9:24 home 6.IR justice 12:9
12:16 coping 3:19,194:12 21'8 resldenf 15:3 screenposted4:16
mentioned fi:21
Onm¢inl 11:1412:5
financing 18:20
19:17fivtl321Ontlig13:Ifi
OnISL 18:14
genlieman 6:5
gelling 8:513:5
glue 3:75:129:20
IB:IIgn365:2,2,6,10
fi:12,13,I4,14,t5,16
hopefully 6:19:2
honaeLalde 8:19
hundred 1118I
k
residents 20:22 s ee 52,99:4,fi 10:5potential12:7 nil 7:5,10,13,23 resource 4:7 10¢511:9preferred13:6
kid, 14:18,2016'.2,2
ke11Y 19:I6,19,22
key 12:8
kind 17:10
resources 12:10
idea 3',]18;2219:24
IdentiHetl 4128.7
ptelhnlmry 14:1 mitt 16:3 respond 21:9,10 gelvcretl 915
page3
rank 10:16 nnponaev 14:10 seniors 169
Pat"
rvpltl 8a5 memo 16 21 Gent 4:],13,19presentation10:15 rated 15:10 review 6.8 8:3 135
Veritest NationalDeposition LitigationServieee
know 4;10 5;3,4
ev Bag
fi:p 10:6,] 1D,8,25
VernovNational Deposition Litigation Services
services 1421press4:20 r,ad 6:11 ]fia ridden 1515
966 299 512] 866299 5129
Ipme - services) laestimn -use)
Pogo 5 Page 6
VesitextNational Deposition& 966299 Litigation Servwa, 5129 750. 266 Vernext National Deposition& 966 299 LitigationServices5129
peas 6:6 prior 2020 rovl ):1)1824 tide 1524,2825
passenger 9:V probably 19:4 really 2:165:18610 1]15
passes I6:10 pro<eesling 22:9 231L2015:14 ridership 8:209',1)
paved 17:21 proceedings 22a1 11),22 18:5 12:23
people 2:253:9,8 22:15 n ):1619:14 right 2:89:149:11
9:14,20,24 8:6,25 prauess 3:14,15 0.:6 otmbie 16:23 9:1410:4,2414:1
10:23 12:19 133 20:14 receive 13:18 14:21 16:10,22,22
ISO 1fi:2319.10 prmgrvm 13:11 recommend 13:fi 1]:3,8182319:25
20:15,20 21:7 progress 13:10 reuommendud 211
people's 8:5 project 1:92:1 O,Ifi It 16 road 21:4
pereenl 9:1011:17 3:225: 6:]9:6,6 record 10.:1022:15 roLUSt 4:9
percentage 15:6 13:2516:2410.:15 recorded 14:26 m 15:1,20
period 13:5 projects ]2,3 2211 ruslM 6:15
personal 10:1 properties 4:3 recensions 14:22 rmule 4:13 8:5 9:4,8
personally 19:4 property 3:2521:3 refer 18afi 9:8,1112:1)20:21
peter 15:2 proposed 3:25 register 4:21 ruby 19:4
phase S:IA provide 3:224:10 related 20:18 rule 9'24
spictures8:16 provided 4:14 relates 20:18
pit.. 17:4,14 provides 9:5,19 release 4:20 evles fi:23
place 12:12,2422:10 public 3:184:19 releasing 323 soots 1:82:10,22plan111512:3,5 6:12,14 14:2415:3 reliable 9:2510:8 6:13,15 9:6 0.:113:22,2218:20,21 published 14:10 remember 824 10:12,2211:112:25
19:5 20:19 pulidv I3:2S report 516,20 611 15:1015:9,11 16:10please3:2 purpose 5:12 12:6 6:2013:13 14:9 I6:14 0:],19
polo! 14',1419:8 put 6:4 reported 1:23 fanMnnnlruneitvinl...
qpollcY12:15 reporter 22:5 620poorI5:2I repnrrer'e 22:1 eaturdvY 2:245:23qualified224Is:2Apopulation quality [2:$[1,15 reporters 14:15 vevle 1012
possibility 11:26 13:1 representing 13',25 scLedule 3a 10:4
pms @le 5:5 questlmn 18119:14 require 914 19:16postcard3920:1,1] 21:10 requlremenfe 9:14 scheduled 1919
posimrds 2:1848 9uestlone 18921:9 12:16 coping 3:19,194:12 21'8 resldenf 15:3 screenposted4:16
mentioned fi:21
residential 4:2 econd R
28
poster 10x4 r residents 20:22 s ee 52,99:4,fi 10:5potential12:7 nil 7:5,10,13,23 resource 4:7 10¢511:9preferred13:6 10:18,21 resources 12:10 segments 21h21ptelhnlmry14:1 mitt 16:3 respond 21:9,10 gelvcretl 915
preparing 13;21 rank 10:16 nnponaev 14:10 seniors 169
present 13',23 rvpltl 8a5 memo 16 21 Gent 4:],13,19presentation10:15 rated 15:10 review 6.8 8:3 135 rvetl 1219
18:18
know 4;10 5;3,4
ev Bag
fi:p 10:6,] 1D,8,25
reneM1ed 3:204;6
11151921
peas 6:6 prior 2020 rovl ):1)1824 tide 1524,2825
passenger 9:V probably 19:4 really 2:165:18610 1]15
passes I6:10 pro<eesling 22:9 231L2015:14 ridership 8:209',1)
paved 17:21 proceedings 22a1 11),22 18:5 12:23
people 2:253:9,8 22:15 n ):1619:14 right 2:89:149:11
9:14,20,24 8:6,25 prauess 3:14,15 0.:6 otmbie 16:23 9:1410:4,2414:1
10:23 12:19 133 20:14 receive 13:18 14:21 16:10,22,22
ISO 1fi:2319.10 prmgrvm 13:11 recommend 13:fi 1]:3,8182319:25
20:15,20 21:7 progress 13:10 reuommendud 211
people's 8:5 project 1:92:1 O,Ifi It 16 road 21:4
pereenl 9:1011:17 3:225: 6:]9:6,6 record 10.:1022:15 roLUSt 4:9
percentage 15:6 13:2516:2410.:15 recorded 14:26 m 15:1,20
period 13:5 projects ]2,3 2211 ruslM 6:15
personal 10:1 properties 4:3 recensions 14:22 rmule 4:13 8:5 9:4,8
personally 19:4 property 3:2521:3 refer 18afi 9:8,1112:1)20:21
peter 15:2 proposed 3:25 register 4:21 ruby 19:4
phase S:IA provide 3:224:10 related 20:18 rule 9'24
spictures8:16 provided 4:14 relates 20:18
pit.. 17:4,14 provides 9:5,19 release 4:20 evles fi:23
place 12:12,2422:10 public 3:184:19 releasing 323 soots 1:82:10,22plan111512:3,5 6:12,14 14:2415:3 reliable 9:2510:8 6:13,15 9:6 0.:113:22,2218:20,21 published 14:10 remember 824 10:12,2211:112:25
19:5 20:19 pulidv I3:2S report 516,20 611 15:1015:9,11 16:10please3:2 purpose 5:12 12:6 6:2013:13 14:9 I6:14 0:],19
polo! 14',1419:8 put 6:4 reported 1:23 fanMnnnlruneitvinl...
qpollcY12:15 reporter 22:5 620poorI5:2I repnrrer'e 22:1 eaturdvY 2:245:23qualified224Is:2Apopulation quality [2:$[1,15 reporters 14:15 vevle 1012
possibility 11:26 13:1 representing 13',25 scLedule 3a 10:4
pms@le 5:5 questlmn 18119:14 require 914 19:16postcard3920:1,1] 21:10 requlremenfe 9:14 scheduled 1919
posimrds 2:1848 9uestlone 18921:9 12:16 coping 3:19,194:12 21'8 resldenf 15:3 screenposted4:16
mentioned fi:21
residential 4:2 econd R
28
poster 10x4 r residents 20:22 see 52,99:4,fi 10:5potential12:7 nil 7:5,10,13,23 resource 4:7 10¢511:9preferred13:6 10:18,21 resources 12:10 segments 21h21ptelhnlmry14:1 mitt 16:3 respond 21:9,10 gelvcretl 915
preparing 13;21 rank 10:16 nnponaev 14:10 seniors 169
present 13',23 rvpltl 8a5 memo 16 21 Gent 4:],13,19presentation10:15 rated 15:10 review 6.8 8:3 135 rvetl 1219
18:18 each 4:22 7:2 13:7114 14:12 ev Bag
presented 1915 reneM1ed 3:204;6 rmimving 13:21 services 1421press4:20 r,ad 6:11 ]fia ridden 1515
known 3',10 lots fi:12 2114 millions 69 ov 421
tomes 251213 lower 9:13,2315:24
Imvost 6:209:1]
luxury 6;18
minimize 12:21,24
2022minority 15:24
mcla ):],1210:16
11:1312:318!19
mmuLer 13:9,12
I
Iantl fl: 21
Inndsnping IJ:6,18 Ion 4:12 minutes Id;R o(Me 41]614 I6:%
14:6,11 IE:3 16:14
20 mirinm 1:2322:3,21
modeling 11:14
official 14:91&:10
nfG<[ R2m623119large1017mnnvyx11:15 okay 3:IJ IR:] as 16:16,1N m2 11:24 month 12:4 IS:IO 19:23lawyer, 15:24 magazine 15:10 15:1) once 1118levelIk2omail10.:11,12 mnn[M1e 19:111 ones ]0:18,19cum2:20 mxlled 218 morning 2:4,5,24,25 Wolin¢ 4:Ifi 6:19left2114mxinfenanee8:21 5:24 14:13IiFrvry4:196:14 major ]:10,24,24 ova 8213:315:] mIfi;15 npesstlonvl IL19life11:7 13:1 majority 21:2
Htlm 21:4
operations 8:20118L19:10,12,23 making 6:9 10:15 molt) 42 14:410:20 onager 2:4,84:25m5:22 mu111P1c 420 opportunities 133IlgLls10:6 4:19,2119:1 oppnrmNty 2:20,21
stops 16:22
listed flafi 19:251g:],Ifi 199 35 154nnlional12:14listening3:16,19 19:9,21, 23 20:2,] option 91211:6little9:8,19,2310:22 20:19 need 6:61115 13.2211:419',12 matter 15:19 14:131fi:fi uptlove 610Ilve4imuxim¢e 12:21 needs 9;J orange 6:19,24,26livelihood20:23 mayor IlaJ 13:23 neKndve 1222 10:2113:8,211510Inenl3:86:23,25 n Ifi:10 neighborhood 1]:5 15.1211:2413:6,1115:6 nn 28 19:9,1$ untreneM1 2:1]3:] Inevilp 15:5 asure 6:231124 neigM1LnrLnntls 3'.20 49loceflone415514meccaI61Nnever ]:1] outs[vndLtg II: long 11:216:14,32 medlu 4:24 nmv 15',18 verslnsPllfY 20:252n14meet34 ]:] mvspxper 421 n 4.1longer9:8,91LN meeting 3:2,4,8 5:11 nIBM 3:15:25
PIovgtLncIs259,2419:15 nightmare Ifi:4,12 p.m. 14:14look3:8,8 9:2,25 meetings 2:20,21 nine 9:15
6:14 M17 11:9,23 3:19,1],194:8 5:14 nixim 2:19 pages 125 22:14
li:fi,],20 IJ:2422 5:19 N:413:24 noise 12'.10 park 6:15 17:13,15
1]:22 memLer 13:23 nnrfM1 8:11 18'.4
looked 3',24 4:3,5 mentioned fi:21 notice 4:20 1113 parking 8:24,25
8 8:19 13:20 nnafy 4:6 12101641fl2
looking 6.512:18 a Ifia9 numLer 0.:1912:19 part ]:9,2514:9
16 319:9,1216:5 messego 4:24 all I8$19
looks I):U 18:4 metrulink 9:2 amLen 11:10 pvrficalar 1023
o21:2 mIM 10:23 21',1
Inf 3:2011:& 15:15 miles 8:12 partner 11:13,21011918:2 million 11:11,12 mefLS 229 pvrfnerehip fi:24
session 2:25 stand 5:9 20:3 t top 10:20
eeselnns 3:IE,19 vtarhuekv 6:19 total 8:1Jmlm2:137:t4,20
set 22:10 start 3:11 5:10146 10:1]12:1213:14 tourist 16:15,18
n 9:10 14:2510.:14193 14:6,11 IE:3 16:14 tourivM 16:18
sLnde 1]:11 started 3:14,Ifi 5:6 16:2319:12,1321:8 track 10:9
eLnre llaJ 8:4 talon 22:9 trn(ge 121016:11
sLel[er 1]:12,16 starting ]:IS lakes 19:10 main 5:2,3 615 ]:19
vheltere 1]:9,10 state II:2522fs felt 3:4 5:7,16 2LE 19,21,22,239:2
shorthand 22:4 etvlion 6:15 21:13 10:4,6,8 11:1912:2
shuffles 9:4 stenographically Mlketl 3:21 mvnscriLed 22:12
side 2:21,22 14:25 22:12 1vnYa 2:14 l:6 4:10 IrvneurlPf 1:]
192 racy 7:11 8:2 11:11 4:12 14:19 mvnscriplion 21:16
Htlm 21:4 stick 21:12 lux fi:23 Ifi0 transit 6:24 7.18:1
significant 13:16 stigma 15:23 ledmalogy 21:1 0:6,15,19,22 9:1,Ifi
21:5 stop 11a3 IA:4 fell 5:13 9:8,20 9:21 10:18,2412:20
elmPin 9'.17 stops 16:22 ten 11:1] 1212,12 13:8,15,2115:4
slnKle 4:14,15 9'.9 street 2:9 5:13 9:11 tenants 4:1 IN:II
elr 1812 7:12 8:10,11,15,24 len[nllvelY 19',19 Irmelutlnn 1433el[ualimt IS:91fi:8 9:4,2510:10,21 term IL2 ImnemH 13:15
16 :2021 3 11:3,5,6,11,12 terms 6]11:4,6 Iranrpxrmtlno 6;19vlx111019:13 I5: @,12,15,18,22 testimony 22:15 623
skill 22:16 15:2516:1,1 1]:20 failing 14:4 19',11 traveled 15:14e1We621812013text105tremendous2aJ
cola) 4:23 efretcL 16:16 thank 4:25 fia tremeMnnsly IR:24
eoeinemnnmle afretchinK 16:19 14:15 1):3,24,25 tried 3:215:4
15:23 striving 13:2 20:10 true 11:2122:14
gnxv 18:21 atudenb IG:9 thing 214 1522 try 2:11south61116:15 body 314,15]:25 things 11231]:8 tam ILS
spaces 16:4 0:],9,13 iM1lnk 4215'.611:20 Mesdny 21,24
speak 10:1 staff 1]:11 16:9,20,21,ZJ two 3:99:5 9:4
speaker 2:]5:21 submit 5:1614:fi thousand 11:18 1020111213:11
18:1,13 19:1,)20:1 submitted 93 ihnnsantle 218 19:10,11
20:5,9 snLemnfivl G9 throw 2:2010. 8:6 NPe tl:2210:2411a
apevkers 20',6 ecessful 15:16 1412 es 8:16
peaking 2:9 xulMtl ):3 thumb fi:59:24
special 3:3 supervision 22:13 tLUredny 3',l 525 unidentified 2.'] fpexllic 99 supports 622 525 5:2118:1,1319',1,9
specifically 20:18 re 2:19,22 1:5,10mire2:19,223:5,10 He 20:8 20:1,5,9spread3212:13,23 time 14:11 20:14 unit 4:2
equvre 1023 12:2513:214:8 22:10 units 43
stuff ):B IO:Ifi survive 20:14 times 234 upset 17:8
efvin 10:9 system 923 ID:IA today 5:12,2313:18 van 15:19stakeholderI:1] 10:2111:112:23 14:)15:1)19:3 ve 8:2112221fi2rtukeholtlera3:21 209
4:5
75A -267
useful - yaanol
usefal 11:7 word 3:3,115:5
user 12:1 work 6:710:2213:4
usually 19:10 16:2 19:16
worked 2:166.9
working 6:2118:19vest21:
2v
sense 16:16,16 20:21
vibrsdon 12:11 works 6:12
vletnamne 2:6,7 world 15:15vision7:8,9,12 8:1 wow 5:2
vleual 12:9 wrldng 21:9,10
voice 4:21 wrote 19:3
11 y
wait 10:7 year 11:1815:2
waiting 10:2,4123 years 2:175:1,20
walk 15:116:5 6:227:158:811:3,7
walkaLillly ID:10 11:812:1719:5,8
wall 16:1 19 ;11,12,12,13
want 2:9,143:55:7 20:13
5:11,186:5,6,118:5 young 6:4
11:13 12:6,13,22,24
12:24,25 13:2014:8
14:16,16,24 17:9,22
20:3,2521:7,10
wanted 2:193:10
5:3 7:22 8:912:20
14:11 18:5
wants 18:11
way 9:11,1414:1
16:2 20:7 21:1,14
ways 2:L16:12
1220wove2:17,18,19,20
4:5,6,20 5:19
wearing 20:8
weltume 2:95:11
went 7:7
west 2:228:1215:8
weet.Wasn 8:10
win 15:7,7 16:8,8,20
16:20wish17:11
wonderful 21:12
wan 17:4,418:3
Pagel
VedrextNotional Oep ,Rion Liligafion Services
866299 5127
75A -267
Public Hearing Meeting No. 2
Response PH2 -1 — Peter Katz
The general support for the proposed project was forwarded to the decision makers for
consideration. The comment is not directly related to the content or adequacy of the EA /DEIR,
and no further response is necessary.
Response PH2 -2 — Ruby Woo
Detailed design specifications for the shelters, the park- and -ride lot, and landscaping have not
been developed at this stage of the planning process. Streetcar stations were discussed on
page 2 -13 of the EA /DEIR. The stations for the build alternatives will be located curbside
adjacent to the platforms within the public right -of -way. They will consist of a shelter
constructed substantially of transparent materials. In addition to seating, the stations will
provide traveler information such as estimates of next train arrival time. The design concerns
have been forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. The project would adhere to
local established building and landscaping standards to ensure that the project is visually
consistent with the existing surroundings.
Response PH2 -3 — Unknown Speaker
As stated on page 3 -197 of the EA /DEIR, the construction period is anticipated to be
approximately 30 months, with major activities to be completed within the first 24 -month period.
Response PH2 -4 — Unknown Speaker
As stated on page 3 -197 of the EA /DEIR, the construction period is anticipated to be
approximately 30 months, with major activities to be completed within the first 24 -month
period. The duration of concentrated construction activities would be no more than six months
at any given location along the alignment.
As stated on page 3 -202 of the EA /DEIR, access to businesses would be maintained during
operating hours. In addition, the second sentence in the second to last paragraph on page 3-
202 of the EA /DEIR has been revised to state that signage would be posted to alert customers
that businesses are open during construction and wayfinding to businesses whose access is
disrupted. Signs would also be posted alerting nearby businesses of temporary lane reductions,
weekend or nighttime closures, and /or detours. As stated on pages 3 -218 and 3 -219 of the
EA /DEIR include a Traffic Management Plan and a Noise and Vibration Control Plan to reduce
construction effects.
Upon completion of project construction, the build alternatives would allow improved access to
Downtown Santa Ana and other high- intensity areas of employment, commercial development,
and recreational opportunities. Improved transportation service would enhance visibility and
access to existing economic activity centers, including those businesses that would be temporarily
affected by project construction and areas targeted for redevelopment.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR
January 2015
75A -268
Pagol210
Public Hearing No. 3
1 1 TNVESDAY, .NNE 19th, 2019, 6:20 p,m.
2 2
3 3
4 4 CITY MANAGER CAVASOG: Well, I want to welcome
5 everybody here. I'm going to go ahead and talk laud
fi 6 because we don't have a speaker. If you want to follow
TRANSCRIPT OF: 7 along on the ecm. , that'. great. You don't have to look
H Sent. Ane- ..Ides Grove S at Mr. And we have court reporters here that are taking
9 Fixed Guideway Project Hearing 9 note.. AC the and of the .....station, we will an it in
10 Thursday, June 19, 2014 10 or Commence and qu0at ions, but it's not a 0 a A. We're
11 11 actually doing this, comments, and then we'll take the
12 12 information or the questions and then we'll respond an pale
13 l3 of an environmental record then, okay. Now after the
14 19 meeting, if people have a question, we'll .tick around and
15 IS we'll answer it, kind of off the record,
16 ie Okay. The first .lids. Welcome. We-ma acing
12 17 this in three languages, Vietnamese, English, and Spanish.
18 1S Hidevenidos. I don't know haw to day "weldmml" in
19 19 Vietnamese, Who can do it far nee
20 2G CNIDENTIFIHP EPEAEER: Here, here.
21 Reported gy: Josephine C. Nok0s, CSR NO. 9090 21 CITY MANAGER CANAZOH: Give u. a Welcome.
22 22 NNIDENTIFSSG STRANGE: (Speaking in Vietnamese.)
23 Jab No. 1675706 23 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOE: Thank you.
24 29 So we've had three meetings. This is the third
25 Pace 1 -39 25 one. We had one at the depot, we had ... in downtown at
Page 1 eage 2
VeritextNvfonul D6iti &LitigntiCnServices Vttitevl Nelionxl !
2itiun
@LitigationServices
866 299-5127 866fi62Y9 -412]
1 1theCommunityroom, and this to the third one on the west outside, but you can't do it now. After we're done, you
2 aide of town. We had it a1 different time.. We had it ad 2 can talk all night long, but we really need your attention.
3 a Saturday morning, we had it on a Tuesday morning, aso no 2 So w0 have it here at the City Hall Public Week.
9 on a Thursday night, ao laulla Could have different 4 counter, the City Clerk's office, the public library,
S option.. SCme people don't have a car ao we tiled to 5 Recite Park, the tribe station. We have it at Garden Grove
6 diaper.. them throughout the city. 6 and we have It at Orange County Transportation Authority.
7 We do want you to know where the Environmental 7 We have the document and we'll pass in around in case
O Assessment and the Craft Environmental Impact Report are. people need to know what it looks like. And it's on -line.
9 We have a copy here. Leta pass it around, Tanya, so 9 You can get it on -line and look it over.
10 people know haw big it .is. We've been at this thing for 10 Next slide. The orange County Transportation
ll several years, millions of dollar. in planning in terms at 11 Authority Go legal Program We. initiated In 2006 as part
12 analysis, and we're going to talk about how to submit 12 cf a voter approved eeasure and it, kcal salsa tax for
11 comme.to. 1] transportation. When you look at the vision and the
14 Next elide. So We really, really want your, 19 reel.. for G..... County Transportation AuChori[y, you
1G input. We're very grateful that you came tonight. Thank le have eery kind of transportation except for one. N. light
16 you, Again, we had a meeting ov Entails , we had one on 16 rail or ef—te.l. This is a critical point In Orange
17 Tuesday, and today's the third nee"Is . We're going over 17 County to have this type of transportation. we do want to
16 and above What . .... in.d. It's very, very important that 18 extend the reach of Metrolink and fester connectivity
19 we do that. So we have a 45 -day review period that will 19 thronghour the regi.n.
2C end July 7th. He you have ..Ill July 71h to submit Ee We identified the best proj pots for funding.
21 tar 21 There were 35 project. enbmitted. 21 of them were rubber
22 The next slide. nv tar eyries, basically buses, and four of them were rail
23 Cult, guys. Hxcuse me. Right over here. We've 23 projects. Two of them were selected for further study,
24 get I. keep quiet because I'm Crying to speak, and it 24 Anaheim and Garden Grove /Santa Ana,
25 people want to talk and have aide conversations, go 25 I mentioned the vision for Orange County
eage f page 4
Vrvlmxt NatWnalDeposihond LitlgstionS.rvlam VerltextNWI.nnlDCpc.hk &Lhi,swnSnOn-
866299 -5127 866299-5127
75A 269
I LIran .... Istion Authority. An integrated and balanced a few people that take the buy. In my life I took ... hue
2 transportation system that yupporte the diverse travel far nine yeare, nr a year., Seca... I. coLLldn't afford n
needs mid reflects the character of Orange County. What I car. Later on in my Career, I took the train for two
4 does that Mmm7 That means if you didn't have a Car, they 4 years. I laved St. And I could afford a car. I took the
S want to get you around in A Car, they want to get you I bus bacauae I had to. I took the train became. I wanted
6 around in a bus, they want to be able to move around in a 6 to There's a big difference.
7 train and also o streetcar. Go everybody had an 1 There were two alternatives that were reviewed.
B opportunity to be mobile in Orange County. a The first one is alternative and. You can see it there in
9 The first step was the feasibility study in 2007 9 green. It starts out at the RegiWal Transit Convention
10 and it defined Santa Ana's transit edition to include a 10 station way up there on Harbor and 17th Street, and than It
11 modern streetcar system. Why moderns There wag one 11 come. dawn the ancific GI..tria right -C£ -way, which is
12 before. There Used to be a streetcar in Santa Ana many 12 very, very fortunate for Santa Ana because that's already
13 years ago, and it was again one of two rail project. that 13 there, and it comes along Santa Ana Boulevard, goes
14 were selected by OCTA to move to the Go Local Program step 14 downtown, lots of Stops downtown, and thee goes on to the
15 two. We began in 2009, a very comprehensive analysis and 15 Regional. Transportation Center where the train people are
1G alternative review whore they identified alternative$ for 16 ah.
17 further study in 2012. 17 Thera 'a the greatest number of transit dependent
IB So the study area, we re in St. This I. the 1B households along this mats. it had the hlgbest daily
19 study area. But the boundaries are 17th attest and 19 ridership in terms of these are the banefiro. It has the
20 Westminster on the earth, First Street on the south, Grand 20 lowest operations and maintenance coats and the land uae in
21 Avenue on the east, and Harbor Boulevard on the went. 4.1 21 highly supported by this transit corridor in this route.
22 miles total. We had to look at alternatives. We looked at 22 Some of the challenge. are, it doe. impact on
23 the bus, we looked at bus [slid transit, and we looked Al 23 street parking. It drawn 't eliminate it, but it impacts
24 the streetcar. 24 it. Remember, if you have people coming on the train, you
25 Who takes the bus hotel Baiea your hand, We at 25 don't need as much parking. So there's a balance there.
Page 5 Page 6
VndmxtNallonul O66
29Ron &
LityµlicnS.rvhnd
866 29R-3127 VSSilnel Nsllowl 66299 -5 &LilllallunBurvlo:m86G2YY -Sft9
1 1BeIdon't went people to think, on, when parking Greg convenient, very reliable, and very predictable. It's very
2 away. — loch CUStOmere, They're coming fn a different 2 environmentally friendly. It eaves aleCtx1.1ty. It
J way. They're Coming in on the train. 3 Eastern saleability. It's a Catalyst for economic
4 No. 2, this is a little bit of a different route. development. General rule of them, Some higher, some
5 It gees up to the Civic Center there. And the benefits 5 lower, but for every dollar, you get about a $5.00 economic
6 there, it doe. provide greater egb rage of the Civic Center 6 development investment. And St's very compatible with the
7 destination.. However, it is longer. It's more 7 roc ity character and the coal..
S cic— itou.. It means a greater Cost, about seven percent 9 When I came to Oravge County eight man the ago, I
9 higher coat, and there in a little bit of a greater 9 said, give me a chart of density. People that lived here
SO right -of -way impact, but that alternative was reviewed. 10 all their lives didn't realize how dense this city is
11 Then we had the beat bus alternative. Initially 11 We're No. 4 in the Chiron 9let... New York, San Iscariot.,
12 a lower capital Cost, does not require any additional 12 Boston, and here we are in Santa Ana, California, No. 4.
rler -al -way b...... it'd already — ...tins right -1—my, SJ Almost 12,000 people per square mile. And then Chicago.
14 basically the roadway. 'There'. do adverse Impact to the 14 That's my hometown. So density I. one of the things that
15 environment. However, it has the lowest daily ridership, 15 people look at when they're talking about mass
in There's Is m. ....City on the hues.. IC a leas efficient, 16 transportation, to move people around.
17 not as convenient, and it provides very little economic 17 And do we are the only — there are two cities in
15 development benefit. le America that don't have a streetcar or light rail and
19 6o why the streetcar? It's reliable and 19 they're both in Orange County, Santa Ana and Anaheim.
20 accedelh le. I mentioned earlier if you're weiting for a 20 Those are the two projects that are bell, reviewed right
21 bas, it ..a.. like an eternity, If you erne had 1. wait for 21 now, but every other city had a rail transit system.
22 a bus. When's it coming? Is it going to be on time? When 22 How much does it cost? As I mentioned earlier,
23 you have a train or a streetcar, you have an application 23 the initial Cost for a bus IS a lot lower, .o when you take
24 that says fu's going to be there In two mirmte., you go 24 over the life .pen and haw long bases lest Compared to
25 there, and Imes. what? There it is. It's very, very 25 light roil vehicles, you find out that the streetcar is
Page 7 page B
Voting N,ioml Delimits. & Lili,ramServices
866199 -5127
V,doolNmionel eOaxiflon& Lili,miun Services
866299 -5127
75A-F70
i 1sateelylaseexpeneive, In term. of streetcar option one, Iook at the impact on the community, what Offset. there
2 than a bus to. It's slightly, but lees axpen.iva. 361 2 are. The[.'. environmental justice fe.... to make sure
3 million versus 353. And as I mentioned earlier, the I that if we de thee, people have access to it antl It'. in a
4 streetcar two is about seven percent more expensive, and so 4 good location. We have to be careful about what the vl ... 1
5 t'. about ele million dollars. 5 quality impact 1.. Cultural rcaourcee are a factor.
6 One of the [hinge that we need to do 1s make a 5 Traffic Bud parking, Wore. and vibration, air gbtlity, and
7 commitment Orange County Transportation Authority is 9 of cour.e what is the impact of any construction? These
e going to provide the lsaderehlp, the management, will but a e are all factors that were looked at, and we are definitely
9 funding plan together and an implementation plan together. 9 following Bud complying with the National Enyironmental
10 They're working on lt. But they need to know the 10 policy all, NL+PA, and in. California Environmental Policy
11 contribution of Banta Ana. We I recommended to the city le Act requirements, CBPA.
12 council and they voted unanimously that we would pay 10 12 We don't have a recommendation right now. We
13 parcane of he operations and maintenance Caere Right new 13 want your input. We want you to tell us what you think.
19 it's estimated at about five or $600,000 a year. Go that'. 14 It's very Important not we want to choose a .cute where
15 our contribution to the streetcar system. 15 we look at lots of facto[.. One is how many people get
16 How will this be paid feri hots Of ways. 15 served, especially individuals that don't have a ca[ that
11 Measure 2 monay. It's already being Collected through the 19 need transit to get around. We want to maximize the
iB ales tax. Federal funding is a p ... lbility. Star. 10 henefiCS and manrmize the impactls. Wa want to have
1P funding is a possibility. The .are box, people paying a 19 rlderehis and we want it Co be easy for people to use the
20 portion. There'll be advertising and uaer lade that can be 20 at... We want to be careful on how we manage our costa.
31 Collected. Arta then again, city and possibly economic 21 Again, we want community input.
22 development centrihntion.. 22 And we do want to increase the standard of
23 Po why have an environmental analysis? w. Se living, the quality of life, aso generation C£ acme
24 really important. It's taken years to do thee. St's very 24 eeourceo so that we Can improve the quality of life in
25 comprehensive. We were very, very diligent, but we need to 25 Banta Ana. A lot of people will move to an area to be by a
Page 9 Page lB
VetilatNmi =aIDVusltlon &litlgnticiiSmiees VeritoxlNalionnlOmasilion& Litigation Services
866299 -5127 866299-5121
1 1t[aiu. People want to live of.. to Cransportatlon. I[ the design, have a funding agre nest, begin construction,
2 change. people'. live.. Cara are expeneive. I.. is 2 and then begin operation.. I don't know exactly how Song
3 expenefie. Insurance is expensive. And if you have good, 3 it's going to take. It d .... do on the plan. but thee. ar.
4 solid transportation, lots of times it has a tremendous 4 the .tape that are required for a our, ... ful
5 impact he people's ultimate decision on where they want to 5 implements Cien.
I live. 6 How to submit comments. Whole got the cards?
7 Bo here's what'. going Co happen in the future. 7 Tanya, false your hand. Anybody want a card? Get it from
B We're getting all this input, The 45 -day review period B ye. Here'. a .euple, Cheed, four, five. But you can
9 will cud Duly 7th. It takes us about a month to collect 9 take your time and review it -- we'll gee you one -- and
10 sit the .information, make sure we thoroughly analyze it, 10 mail it In. You can email it to us. You can fax it to us,
11 Working very closely with the SPA and the GCTA, and we want 11 you can give it to us on -line, or if yen'rei not afraid to
12 to recommend a route, what is our preferred alternative. 12 talk in public, we have court rep. rtore here. And I'm
13 Then it will go to the Orange County Transportation 13 going Co ask the people that speak to come over here and
l4 Authority board of directors in Grace— The city council l4 kind of look in this d,I -1... ae they Can hear you, if
15 will review and tariff, the Environmental Impact A ... at in 15 possible, because we want to make sure we get your record.
16 October, and then hopefully later that month or shortly 16 And we have until 5:00 o'clock p.m. on July 7th. Be don't
17 thereafter, the Federal Transit Administration will find no 17 come to me sad say I need lil]. 6:00. S:OB .'clack, July
1E significant impact and then we [e on our way. That's the 18 7th, please. All right. Let'. at them £n.
l9 goal. 19 Next elide. I want to thank you for your
Be Just to emphasize the next step., we definitely 20 interest What I'm going to do is ask people to fill them
21 want your input. We have to certify the environmental 21 out, and then maybe we'll start in the back this time. So
22 d ..... of. I mentioned ..,lies that the Orange County 22 m the last row, does anybody want to make public comments?
23 Transportation Authority is looking for financing and an 23 okay, you can still fill wt in. upplication.
29 implementation plan, and then we'll initiate the project 29 Dons anybody want to make a comment In this ,ow? Okay?
25 development, the engineering, the right -o£ -way acquisition, 25 Anybody here? How about in this row. Anybody want to make
Page it Page 12
Vermaxt Nukmal Dejewifinn &LitigationSemcaa Visited NationalDepeaition& LitigationSahwea
966299 -5127 866299 -5127
758 271
1 1aPubliccomment? Okay. CITY MANAGER CAVCCOS: You can ask me any question you
2 VNIDEflamlIO 6I.AKER: (Inc.,. Ineerpretor) 60 2 want, and anything you want to ask, we will either
3 we re now in Phase Two and he wants to Luck what other 3 reiterate what we said in p,is, meetings or answer your
9 phases there are, 9 questions, but we want year comments bacauee we don't want
5 CITY MANAGER CAVAZG6: Can you pull up the screen on 5 to make a mistake. So If you have a question, we will
6 the route. SO here we just link one of them, just like the 6 respond ae p.It o£ the envrronmental. On do you want to go
one You had there, bur 7 far it?
8 CATHERINE HIOLCY; Oh, you want the route? 6 IFINGRE[FEEO SI.Aost: ... e.
9 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Okay. Wall, there were 9 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: You at to talk laud because
to d.iacnealonm that occurred, we don't know anything about St, 3I they're taking note..
11 about certain phased, like we're going to do downtown first 11 ONIVENTIPIEO SPEARL"R: Sure. So I guess by question
12 and then we're Maine to do thin first. This is the program 12 is in terms of tours that are being given, eo there were
13 at Work. This is the cycle.. Later on, they may no from 13 tours that were scheduled for folks that wanted to nee the
19 17th Street and Harbor onto another place, Maybe Garden 19 potential routes and where it would run through and learn
15 Grove, but we don't have plane for that right now. This is 15 more about I guess the proposed alternatives. At some
16 the system thet-a being proposed, this alternative and 16 point they got stopped and we didn't get to take the tour,
17 alternative two. When It gets done for implementation and I9 no I know there's a ouple o1 folks that have been asking
10 it gets bid out by a program manager, they will make IS me, like what happened with those Issue, So my question is
19 recommendations on how to construct the project, but it's 19 if those are going to he given again and if whatever input
a. 11 one alternative. E.I. O Thank you. Go folks give throughout those touch will be considered in
21 Anybody on this row. Oh, you want to talk, 21 this whole 11....e?
22 1EENTIPIEO SPEAKER: Co. I ask a clarifying quahtiOn 22 CITY MANAGER CAVAZG6: The .newer ra, we want your
23 because I'm confused about if this is question and answer 23 input by email, by fox, at this meeting, but if you're on
Me about just the environmental impact review or comments On 29 tour and you tell something to somebody, that doesn't
25 it? 25 count. It'. got to be part it this public meeting because
Page 11 Page To
Yentas[tablonalDoposlllon &Litigation Services Voeitt tN.11onal DC osition &LitigationSeMeac
866299 -5129 866299-5127
1 1they're not set up for that. So we can have it tonight or up.
2 you can do it by email. If you want and have questions 2 IMIIGIVIFIEO NaSA.F! (Through Interpreter Okay, I
1 about the route, I would encourage you to talk to who? 3 aaw, on your presentation, I saw that we are concerned
I Right here. a about the eoitio meat, We took measures for the
WILLIAM: Talk to me, William. 5 envrrommenL My question I., how I. this going to affect
as CITY MANAGER CAYAEO6: And he'll get a hold of you 6 the equity in the properties? PH32
7 outside or he can go through it visually or he can schedule 7 IMIOENTIFIEL SPENAWS: Ie that your question?
8 a time feT you to go on the tour, but the only public S VNI ... TIFIEO EPEAHEE: Yeah, if the city'. planning to
9 sc.sent 1e holes.. now sad July 7th and It's at tc be In 9 do an equity analysis.
1. writing or verbally at the meeting or with the Count In CITY MANAGER CAVAZG6: That's part of the work that's
11 reporter. 11 been done, and we will respond to that question, but that
12 fie I got this an Do you want me to come back 12 was one of the Fatter.. Oo back to that elide where I
13 to you? You're good. Come back later. Anybody on this 13 talked about that.
1e coal Yee. 14 This In one of the factors we considered, night
15 ONIEENTIPIEL SPEAKER: (Through Interpreter) On 15 there, It. community effects.
16 Fifth Street, I travel On that street on bike. I drive. I 16 CNIDENTIFI3k SPEAKER: And environmental tactics.
1? purchase Items in CM1Oee businesses, My qua e[i On i9. M1Ow 1a
PHWI
17 CITY MANAGER CAVAZG6: And BOViYONAentai justice,
18 this going to affect the street, the busineoses7 1E that'. part Of the coneider.tien, but we'll respond In
19 CITY MANAGER CAVA2C5: So St's a Brest question and 19 failing to year quo eLfon.
an we'll answer that in Writing. If you want to get into on Okay, anybody in here? Did you want to say
Ol another dust a friendly discussion about that, we can talk. 21 se.cliin"
22 It, not part of the official YeCOnd, but we will answer 22 VNSDENTIPSED SFSAKER: No.
23 that question in writing. We will answer, how does it 23 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Okay, you're fine, How about
29 impact the busineseee? 2s over here? Anybody? You had a comment. Go ahead and talk
25 Anybody else On this [ow? Here we go. You're 2S laud. We want to hear them.
Page 15 Page 16
VehtexiNotional DCpositisn & LitiSSlion Services VentextNatiowl Depnsltian &Litigatlnn 5ervives
866299 -5127 866299 -5127
75A 272
I 1WANCHA: My name a wan Cha. I'm a property owner an then go back, and then to Fourth Street, they atop it.
2 Santa Ana downtown. In Santa Ana downtown, the buildings 2 Example, my building's right here, and a lot of
ate built I. TOBY to 1925 and 1920 have an on- suite, sad 3 my customers go to shopping for the Santa Ana downtown. If
4 then t0 the old building [ modalinge in 1925, have a 4 trailer. We to Fifth Street, antl I say, we put the
5 remodeling. And then we have seismic in 199fi. And we have PHBJ 5 business, It's not on Fourth Street, we put the business
6 my building doesn't have a foundation, and then to the 6 for the Fifth Street, and then to Fifth Street, people
trailer is coming in and out. They have a lot of impact. 9 doesn't go. And now theme people, they try to -- we need
B And Santa Ana downtown, that's a historical B to bring these people to Santa Ana downtown to shopping
9 joint. It's more than 50 years old, and the United Stated 9 area, thee. area.. So these people atop and then one block
10 and American history, vety .hurt. We have about 200 dame 10 e1 two block. go down to the First Street, they never come
it years. We have to save, you know, the old buildings, 11 down. They just straight go to take A new. for the bud or
12 older, older, you knew, cultures, and these kind of things. 12 train on harbor Boulevard, but they never stop right here.
13 SO now - and can I look at the -- can I go back to the 13 Maybe they atop, but rot major people. Major people, they PH34cant
14 alternative No. 1. So can I A. outside in a mmube9 Can I 14 need .hopping. They need station to get out Fourth Street
15 go outside? Thank you. 15 right away, if they going to put on the station right here.
16 The City of Santa son, they have a plan, and here IF But it's not, and then they going to put on the train
17 to here, these areas is the Santa Ana downtown areas, and Pl station for the Santa Ana Boulevard and go back Harbor
1B then the trailers going t0 the station, the train station. It Boulevard and then right here, and we have a parking lot to
19 to go back to this way, Santa Ana ...leveed, to 9. to the 19 Pi Eth Street and on Third Stuart, and the peoples come into
20 Harbor Boulevard, and Harbor Boulevard and they can go back PH34 20 the fleck. down there, and then this journey for the First
21 to Santa Me downtown and then go back to train station. 21 Street, we don't put the ca[ anymore. There's a problem
22 So I do not understand, and then if City of Santa Ana, they 22 joining the peoples walking in and out and they can go to
23 try to get a development and more business for the Santa 23 kernels now.
29 Ana downtown area, and then why they have the trailer go to 29 So my idea I., we just going uo vas only this
25 Santa Are Boulevard to In back to Harbor .ouleva[d, and 25 line or take out this line that looks like Santa Monica
Page 1? page SB
Votimxt National Dapneitinn &Litiptiuiikrvices VenmxMatiwsl Deposition &Litisehsv3srvimt
066299 -512) 866 299-5127
1downtown. There'd a problem joining them. So right here, By the way, I'm wearing the Gooks you sold me, right here.
2 the First Street, Santa Monica Boulevurd. And then also I 2 So go for it. Come on over here because you get a better
3 went to Demec, Colorado, the downtown areas, with no Y view. Right heed. Hexe we go.
4 parking, just the street, the trailers, and peoples walking 4 ABOLPHO GOP %2: My name Se Adolphe Lopes and I to a
9 on it. 5 property owner on Fourth Street right there by what Mr. CIA
6 CITY MANAGER I. OG: Thank yon. 6 was referring to, and we were talking about, we're very
WAN CHA: A. V. conrerning for tie problem joining PH314 concerned about the impact this is going to have on the
B right here or they can put It on, they going to change this msL B dewnLOwn and Fourth Street especially. we got buildings PHyp
9 way, and then the people, even harbor Boulevard, the 9 Over there from the 19005 and we want to ahow them ofl, o
10 peoples coming in and this right here, shopping, and then l0 we need to have some kind if one like Mr. Cha was talking
11 go to the station or these peoples come In eight here in 11 about, and we were thinking maybe later on turn that into a
12 the .hopping and then go hack to this station, and then 12 promenade. Right on Fourth Street, turn that into a
1] here, these areas, people in and out right away. 12 promenade and let the streetcars park maybe on First Street
14 Thank you. 1B and walk right to the promenade no everybody eoncenteatee
16 CITY MANAGER CAVASOB: Thank you very much. Okay, so 15 n the downtown area. Thank you.
16 I forgot where you were sitting. 16 CITY MANAGER CAVA20B: Thank you. That was short and
17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He was right next to me. 11 to the point. We gat this row covered. We got this row
16 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Okay. So we Can't. F. 10 Covered. You want to talk about it, go ahead.
19 backwards. Not yet. You can .eve if you want to. You 19 GAEL O'CAMPO: So my nemC a Saul O'Campo. 1 am a
20 wool to move. Go for ft. 20 sophomore at Godlnea High School and I'm representing
21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah, I went to mass. 21 Sacred, and I have a question and a comment.
22 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Anybody else wants to talk 22 My question is, what in the ....[unction for IH}B
23 again, move up to the front. 23 whatever the alternative is going to he going to look like?
24 Eo this row ..a already done. I know ye. came 24 Ad, by Coneal. I., if yon are a student, go to Mendez .r
25 late, so if you want to move up, I know you need to Calk. 25 middle college or Willer or any other school that's on the
Fag. 19 Ingo 2.
Vastuat NIDlenal Dopaeition& LIIlgallonsvvwau VsumdNational Depmitimt& Litlgvtlod Safaiws
9662995129 966299.5121
75A 273
I 1northaideIfGaetaMa, and live on the mouth aide of E.Cclm Street right next to or. Cha and ale. Adolph. Lopea.
2 Santa Ma, how will they he going to school through that 2 2•m mn....d about the construction if it goes is on p^`2
cona[rmtiof Or vice - Assam. If [bey live on north, on 3 cou1T Street. I pratCy much support the same idea that
the northern area .f Santa Ana, but they go to school in 4 Mr. Wall. ' said. TM1abut it. Thank you.
5 the southern area, how will they get to schOO17 Are you PH &6at 5 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Thank you. Thank you eo much,
6 guys going to provide any sort of transportation or one we 6 We're almost done here. We got a .T body in Chia mw: You
Y still gain, to be having tc ..'port ourself and pay for o t want t. speak? You're good. Madeleine?
S Own transportation going mdOmnd that Construction, or Will 8 MAORLEINR SPENCER: 'Th. question I have today
9 it just be straight through the conatnmtion? And that's 9 actually Concerns alga a question that I asked before, but
10 all I Inc.. 1g today 2'm asking a little bit different. I know that the
11 CITY MANAGER CAVA2O5: Thank you That's an 11 City ham a Nixie site that goes out to 3,000 people. I
12 excellent question, and we're going to amwer that 12 know that the city clerk's email distribution list is 150
13 question, but I will tell you right now that we will have a 13 people, and I know that if this was advertised in English,
19 very successful construction program and nobody's going to 14 Spanish, and telemedia, that would be good. I know there's
1S be imported in term. of no. to get tO "Co.. So we'll IS a ..metal web site, a gaC¢book, and Twitter.
this is lama 16 My is, out of 350 iudividualm that liveI6workonthat, and the construction on project question PHSE
17 intend. than 11 would be on a major rail 'deject, s. we 17 in this city which is just — I knew that there's more
10 don't believe that anybody's going to be impeded from going is people than that that live in this city, what is an average
19 t. school or shop or anything like that. 19 than says that the SIR report has actually done the maxima
20 Yee, air. 20 amount of outreach to this city, if especially, there is no
21 VNIEENTIFIED GPEARER: Can I speak over here? 21 acCesm to computers? We know that in the library, there's
22 CITY MAN.. CAVAZOS: NO, right here. Go ahead. We 22 16 computaie, which are for people's accaaa in the City,
23 want you to be by y1.11. so they can record your cemnenta. 23 and during the survey that the City did for strategic
21 PALL YANGZ: On, okay, I'm going tO be very short. 29 planning, the numbers of that survey are going to show youIPH &7
25 My name is Raul Yanea. 2 also have a few properties on 2G exactly the number of people who responded. The city had
age 21 Page in
V,iibt National Deposition& Litigation3srvlcmi VantsitNational DOpoeldin& Litl&etisnSaving
666299 -5127 866299 -5122
1 1tog0 .11 and do a fobo-Call and bring out truck. into the Anybody over here?
2 city to be able to get more people to understand. 2 VNIDENTIPIED SPEAWAR: My question woe, 6. thee.
to the Sunehie, Ordinance, 2 studies, de they has she's being served the most, like on3Accordingyou're PH3-10
9 seed to do outreach t. people within 500 feet of where O.M. 4 theme different routes, like is it the local residents or
5 it is that this project I., and I want to know what kind of 5 the regional for these different route,?
6 numbers because so far from the numbers I've seen at theme fi CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Well, that's why we have this
7 meetings, this does not validate the number of people in 7 study available. The analysis is in there, the impact.
E this community getting public Outrea.h. 0 It's on -line. We encourage you to read it, and if you have
9 CITY MANAGER CAVAZGS: Okay, thank You We're going 9 comments from that, please let us know.
10 to Coma hack, but we Ire going tO get everybody on thin line 10 Okay. Tha.k you. Go far 1t.
11 first. 9e with the exception - okay, I'm going tO go back 11 ISAEEL LOPE.: My came 's Imahel Lope., and I'm
PM91112toyoubecausethatwillbefourtimes. Go for it. You got 12 wondering, how do you guys notify the residents of the
13 to talk laud because they're recording everything. 13 area?
14 ONIDENTIFIEG SPEAKER: Yen. SO you mentioned that 14 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOE: ...a quadtlon.
15 it's not going to be a lot of impact as far me 15 ISAEEL LOPEZ : Because I live On Santa Me Boulevard
16 construction, but I'm concerned about parkin, then on 16 and I went all arouud and nobody got no notification about
11 the -- not in the downtown area bananas we already .poke 17 the meetings.
38 about that, but than going up. I. theme gCing to be an 1S CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Great question. go I will tellPH3 -9
19 aIt .... Cfee, Are there g.1., to be -- C. people that live 19 you that we have exceeded the requirements for notification
20 around, what's gain, to be that? And If you .hawed ua 20 and I want -- .laRan's not here, but maybe William and
21 the report, I believe that we're fourth IT the density, is Tanya, can you Came over here and talk about all the
22 there an idea of doing other than the downtown area where 22 notifications we did, and we'll start with Tanya. We're
23 folks do need transportation, the rest of the city? 23 also going to answer this question In writing, but I want
2e CITY MANAGER CAVAEO6: Okay, em we'll answer that 29 people here to know that there has been quite a bit of
25 question in writing. Good question. 25 notification. We-11 90 with you, and then we'll start with
Palle 23 Page 24
offing, Moi ...[Deposition& Litigats"n,ime VditextNational Deposition& LitigationServices
866299 -5127 866299 -5127
75A 274
I 1 I col. H3 -12afteryou, we'll balk eo William. going to go to the COST. Now do you decide which one is
2 TANYA LYON: M. the aneez to GFaC quaetfOn that youw 3 the locally p,elected albarnatlva chat wi11 go to the OCTA4
3 had is that we sent out notifications On poet C2rds t0 3 CI'£Y %ANAGER CAVAZOS, He wo re going t0 nee the
9 e try ed within 500 feet Of the route. We got con£Srmation 4 Ontario I described there. Go back to that elide.
S back that 9,500 postcards did go out. We pouted the actual 5 Ho thee. are the factor. for evaluating the
6 hard copy of the notification. ae well at sax different 6 alternatives. 6o se a going to recommend to the city
locations here, as well as posting it omllne and in the are9ex, t0 She city council. They get the final deb ?".,
B City of Garden Grove. We also posted the flyer and the a and than after that, we a going to go ahead and provide it
9 lnfoimation at every single community center that we have 9 t0 OCIA, e0 there's two or three checks involved.
30 in the City of Santa Ana. We also did outreach via social 19 Yee.
11 media and also sent out a press release and it was covered 11 VNI BNTIFIAO SPEAKER: Thank you.
12 by at least three different news organizations. 12 CITY MANAGER IMAMS: You made it.
13 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS William. 13 VNI ENTIFIEO BC.ARAR: Ee I. this procee. of in ... t£ng
19 WILLIAM: And I just wanted t0 add C0 that that we 19 n equity analysis coca the envliOnmPntal ...lyuie aspect,
15 also used our official records of the County asseesar a 1S I'm wondering if -- one of the area. is the community
16 office to send the postcards to the property owners, and 16 effect. that this will have, eight, and V. wondering if
17 then we also sent them to the tenants, obviously the 17 the term community will be broken into parts of low- income
as tenants are the addressee in that son -foot radius, but ie communitfe3, minority V,q, and aV n geographically, pH -13
19 wherever we had records available for the property owner., 3.9 rights Like how close I. It to 10w- income housing or to
EO we also sent it to the property owners. 20 areas where gang injunctions are currently cited as.
21 CPTY MANAGER COSRGO : Okay, and that will be part of 21 And in addition, the community has until only Its
a2 the official seoosd, too. Yes, a2 to give their input, and I'm wondering if there will be
23 NTIFIEO SPEAEEA: I don't know if you can onewar 23 room in the future for them to give additional input sine.
ae this queati0n right now, but it said oa that one tilde that PN3 -12I 21 that equity analysis is not currently existent.
a5 the locally preferred alternative. out of all of these I. 25 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: So we'll answer that question
Page 25 page 26
VeriestNational Depnatti0n& LitigationSorvi.rs Veritext NnlienulDeposition &Li0gan0n Smvkw
866299 -512] 8662995127
1 ISnwriting. These are the alternatives that we are using. CITY MANAGEA CAVAZOS: Okay, that's a great question,
2 Another slid., Cathy. Cathy, Can you go back 10 the other 2 so we'll answer that in writing. There's streetcars all
3 slide, class.. Sul here are acme Of the otMy impacts In 3 OVer the country. My experience has been, it'e . little
a choosing a route, right there, okay. But we'll provide an a bit more than the but, but not coat prohibitive, but we'll
5 answer t0 you in writing. 5 answer that in writing. It'. an estimate.
A to the reason why it-8 important t0 do it in 6 ONIDRNTIPIEE SPEAKER: IC's $a.00 On your FAQ-
7 writing is there are people that are not at this meeting I 1'hat'e what SC says.
B that are very interested in your question., and we want to B CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS; Pardon me.
9 make sure they have It 0n -line so they can ask, well, how 9 INIOEN"IT.O SP6AK6R: a yA— Prequently Asked
10 did people get notified? Hew do you decide the route? 10 Q... tight ..mile. on the an .Ste, it .aye $2,Oa,
11 What's the ai.11 How long have you been doing thin? So 11 CITY MANAGER CAVAZO6: Okay, you guys need to talk to
12 they Can read all those I ... cars, Including the Federal In each other. I Chink it .a15 $2.00, but I guazantee you we
13 Transit Administration will go over that. 13 don't have our financing plan yet from COCA, so it could he
to Bo we at everybody here? Ice, its le 1.75, it could be two and a quarter, but right now probably
15 UNIDMTIY12D SPEARGR: I have a question along the 15 maybe $2.00 is the answer, but I want 10 make sera we do It
16 tame lines, but in addition to that, these ie a safety -- I 16 right.
don't know if Ice a problem, but etreetcare do not have 17 Okay, I'm g.1.g to He this way again. So we're
1R good safety records. What are the accommodations made to
PHT14 15 eh the ..,
Okay,
round here. Does anybody have a question
19 avoid mistaken that have been made in other communities 19 here? This aisle. This aisle. We're here an thle aisle.
00 with .Genic.. toenail? an Go for it. Salk loud.
21 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: Glen queatiga and we'll answer Cl UNIDENTIFIED SPCARZR: S. we know That funding for
22 that one, too. Thank you. 22 active transportation projects is not -- there's not a lot
23 Yee, 23 of money, period. 6. my Vacati0n f., long term, I know PH &16
2e UNIDENTIFIED EPEAKEA: Do you know what the average pH3 -16 2M1 we re updating our circulation element An the city that hoe
a5 coat would actually be for me Co take that transportation? 25 several projects potentially for the next 20 years for mar
Page 2] Page a8
Ventest National Depealtion& Lingollun Sernas VodlmtNotlmml Deposition& Litigation Sm,hre,
866299 -5127 866299 -512]
75A 275
I 1bikelanesandalsoptteetrleaimprovemenre. Ratio this oppoeits.
L funding at all 111alt fundfag that we mule potentially got PH3 -0B11 2 THE INTER2RIITER: The oppoeice?
3 an eM1e next I gunee five, ten year, for chose project.? 3 ONINGETIFIEE SPEAKER: 'Phe oppoeice.
1 CITY MANAGER CAVA20S: 6o we'11 answer Lha, question, 9 THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry. I at It w ong then.
I.e. Yes. 5 I'm very ......
6 ONIDENTIPIEO SPEAKER: I was wondering about how 6 GNIOENTIFIEO SPEAKER: (Through Inferno terl 6o thin
you're going to have designated stops for the cars? Is it I project is going 10 have such a huge investment chat we
B going to be like a bus stop, when You thinkthink of the Cles.ic PH3 -17 0 trials the atreetca it'a going to be a project in the
9 bum stop, where you maybe have a bench and a covered area, 9 long term to help the people in City of Santa Ana. PH3 -18
10 or is it just Out in the open? 10 VNITENTIFIEO SPEAKER: net was the -- it's a
1l. CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: We have some pictures of the 11 question. Not a statement. How it's going to help the
12 stations there and they'll show you what 1t'e going to look 12 People in "at, Ana?
13 like, In if you want to ]..it .1 that when we es dead, you 13 CITY MANAGER CAVA205: Gl.... goad. All right. Haiti
19 can look at it. Gkay? Ie that fair? 19 we or. again. Anybody? Beautiful. Okay, we re oa the
15 HNIOENTIPIEB 6PHAKKR: YOS. 15 Inor row, the last raw, and we a goon, to start with you
16 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: And this 1e all on -line and 16 and than Work this way.
IY we-11 have pictures available for everybody. So that's the Iv ONIOENTIFIEB SPEAI(E R: I'm just Peacha£ng, I vet a PHb19
18 stories fight [rare. 1E walker. For disabled people, are they going to have t0 90
19 So se re done with this here and now We're on 19 in and out or tee step. or you just jump is'
20 this row. 20 CITY MANAGER CoNta : It's level boarding. I
21 ONIEFNTIEIlE SPBAKER: (Through Interpreter) So Cl enCOUiage y1. to look at the station. That'¢ one of the
22 basically do we choose a streetcar that's going to benefit 22 advantage.. They're bigger, more spacious. But I world
23 the Community, ic'e going to help the trannportacioa 23 like you to — Tate, could you help her with thane
29 especially also south. Be in other —Co., I guess -- 29 questions after the meeting real quick?
25 NW.t NTIPIEO SPEAKER: No, no She's 9ayiM1g the 25 taldglNTIPIEO SPEAKER: Sure.
Page 29 Page 30
Vet 'iFeet National Depositi art &Linnatien Semv¢n VerbalNebrand Deposition& LifigtfionSon ices
866299 -5129 86629115127
1 1CITYMANAGERCAVAZO6: Yee, air? ENIE3NTICIEO SPEAKER: August /fiepteaher time "I",
2 ENIGIVICTIEO SPEAK.: ObviOU,ly you're using 2 CITY MANAGER CAVAZO6: August /.¢,camber eY,n better,
3 el.olvicit, Have you considered using or building your 3 and they Will detail the financing plan and then that will
9 own off the id molar is to provide the a becausegridPaneenergy
PH3,20 9 be t of CIA bananas the the One. that lie giro, toPerthey're
5 solar, the panels have adyaaced eo much just is the last E be the lead. As far a. the cfly'. participaclon, it's five
6 live year.. In the last 2C year., it's inCYedible. 6 or $600,000. we axe comm.ttted to doing that. There are a
CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: okay, good questing. 9 myriad of ways to get there and we are Committed to doing
S Madeleine I. our final .,esker. B that, but it's four Or five years in the future, .o I can't
9 MMElr1b. SPENCER: I actually just wanted to ..it, 9 tell you erectly where that pet's going Lo C.ma frem.
10 though, if the funds are coming from the M -- what's it 10 MAOELEINE SPENCER: But wouldn't it typically come
11 cslled, the M] 11 rem community development fund.?
1] CITY MANAGER CAVA205; Measure M. 12 CITY MANAGER CAVAZOS: No, it could Come from
13 MAOELHINE SPENCER: Yee, which 1, capital funds, 13 anywhere. Okay. That was the final question?
Ti right, in our - it comes from capital funds in our budget. 19 VNIDENTIPIEO SPEAKER: I have a queeti.e.
IS CITY MANAGER CAVABe.: Are you getting at the .."A. 15 CITY MANAGER CAVA206: Ism, air.
16 of he fund., the Moen1610 finds] 16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: This project is going t0 go
17 MAOELSINB SPENCER: Rhere I. it going to Come frem ll through our neighborhood, and our present concern is what
16 from the city with the amount that you're talking about? PH321 16 effect it's going to have on the residents and haw many PH3-22
19 Ie It coming out of community development funds? 1P resident. a e going to be displaced if Ohio project gone
20 CITY MANAGER CAVAZO6: Community development. Be I 20 through?
21 want to emphasize that right now we're talking about the 21 CITY MANAGER I.e..: I don't think any residence
22 alternative assessment and the environmental impact review. 22 are going to be displaced Baca... it's in the public
23 OCTA is doing an implementation plan and a financing plan. 23 right -of -way, so we're not going through houses or anything
29 It should be done - when is that roughly? You said 29 like that. And in terms of your question, maybe take a
25 September ar August? 25 minute and mower his than question, but we'll do is In
Page 31 Page 32
VormatNational Deposition@ Lltlpotime Services VogentNetweal Depnsltion&Litignien SemmM
866299 -512] N66299 -5129
Mai
I
Uarveler 5'.3 A:]
churl 89
ea 6:11,11 J114
evmlog 6:24]:2,3v121149ben <U 299
1
M1e <lu 2f::Y Z2 17719 10
benefit ]iB 2922 10:11134:4 M1leegv 8',13
w[itin9, Dec.
Weeks 619)5 111 2la
2 C[TY MANADER CAVAZO.: Okay, enjoy your evading.
3D''tl
2
cnPneiN ]:16 bvaxb:g 2]:4 vmmenM1 2:IO,Itt3:IJ,2112:Q22better10:231'.2 enPllvl ]1tb h13
3 Thank you for coming.
31'14 circulation 28:24 13:29141421;9
Lienvenitlns 2:Ifl
3 I, the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand
10161021 dues A:1]
4
LIRRer 1022
If you have a question for the record, they'll
committed 31:fi,]
M1lke ISt629:1
4 Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify:
bit ]:4,922'.ID 24'.24
9 take it.
2tl:4 arefvl 10:4,20 14:1.9,11 15:6,19 m;nuullY 3:1 P:] vv10a,21
5 That the foregoing proceedings were taken before
ae 49
6
25:9 26.15,1],21
ene of transcription.)
tumlynl 83 20:1611:11,2222:5 29:2331:19,20
6 me at the time and place herein set forth, that any
3111
mtl}' 2]:2,2
TIME NOTED; 1:10 p.m.)
M1mtlevnrd SR1613 ms 2:4,11,9 23;21,2A 24;6Jq,18
9 slide.... in the foregoing proceedings, prier to
1 iv 10:9a.:U Y H
e
15:6,1916:10, V,9 26:6,],12,252]21 evmprebensiv¢ 415ZdaS1946,15,18,2220:16 ZB:I,B,I I,142'J:4
S testifying, were Plaoed antler oath; that a realistic record
29:11,1( 3u:9,Il,2D
9
box 9:19 23:24 24:6,14,19 31:1,],12,15,1N,2U eentrvhx 20 14
bring 18:823 1 25:13,2126:3,1225
9 of the proceeding. we. made by me using machine shorthand
dtyh 12N123
10
budget 31:14 29:d,11,1630:13,2v lisle ]:5,6 22:223.16
building 17A.6 31:3 31:1,],12,15,20
10 which was thereafter transcribed under my direction;
dvsvl< 29:9
It
M1ulltling. 122,11 ler 6:15 ]:S,fi elerlls d:422a2 nnNmxlixn 154
21IP 259
11 further, that In. foregoing is an accurate transcription
tens IO:u
12
connectivity 4'.18
bus 5i6,23,23,256:1 cerbin 13 11 sash] 22.15 vnsldenplvn 16 11
6:1,5 T11,21,9
12 thereof.
voneltlert;l 1410
R:2i 9.2 18.1128.4 vnrlify 11:15.21 tvlleeleJ 9:1],Il
ll
29:8,9 Id:4.11 college 2015 ayslruel 13:19
buses 4:22]:16824 Ux 1]1,119]105
11 1 fortes[ certify that I am neither financially
12:1 2k22 21 2,0,9
14
Uvllengea 6:22 21:14,I622:22J16
M1uslveaAes 15 17,18 d:vnge 196 IY:1110:22J:10
14 interested in the action nor a relative or employee of any
9:15
15
32:12 contributions 9:22
15 attorney or any of the parties.
16 16 IN WITNESS rv116RBOF, I have this date subscribed
17 17 my name.
18 19
19 19 Dated: 07/01/2914
a0 9
2I el
22 22 1 .... his. C. Nokea
23 23 CSR No. 9095
ev ei
2,
Page 33 Page J9
Vector, National legislation R LhiHnliun arvii slashedNatiumlDeposition@ Lillguflon Services
866299 -312] 66 299 -3127
r<-lassies] he's.- rnnmlbmlaml
9.500 255 advantages ]0',22 anybody 12:7,22,24
4.1 521 adverse 2:14 1225,2513:21210qIU9:5 veverllxee 2LIl 15:13,25 16:20,24
0 34 45 319118 veeer11e1aF 9:20 192234:128 19
U]IOII2INV 19 S xffeN IS:IR 16',5 30:14
2Y:2 vvybvey9 2LItl1
1 17:14 SU V:9 affnN 6:2,0 anYmare I8'.2I
1-34 115 500 2):421:4.18 ufraitl t2a1 nppileurioo ]:9
1.95 28:14 5100 1216,12 ago 4138a 1223
10 9:12 6 ngreemem 12d apprva'ee 4:12
12,000 N:II aM1eve 2;516;24 area 5J8,19 10:25
600,000 9:1422:fi1502212 2v:162L2226:8 IT,2418:920:15
16 2d22 6:00 IZa] air Ivb 2114,59:19,22
t9@ 51 G:IU Liao 6:20 2'.L mile 28:19,19,IY 24:19299
1895906 123 alternaNVe i:I6lW arms IW121]IA:9
IBBS 119 10,1111:12 p:16 19:3,1326:15,207:10 3317
19 110 IM1 3211,21111:Y 13:q,201]:14 evketl 22:928'.9
19000 209 12:111815;926;21 20:2323:19261 asking 14:V 22: 10
1920 IT.3 3112 uasemmrt S:B
31:22p
1925 I7:34 901fl 1213421 alknmOVev 516,22198611:5 6p 14:1525:25 vsenarS 25:15
19th Za 2662]:1 ntleaHon 4:2
E able 5:6232 mu•'ICU H:IN nHmneY 34:15
mx 10:312:21,22ceenNle nmerltvv IT.10 auAUH 21:2532:L22 ]:49;1] 7:20 a;ml 22:2031M nnNmrity d;6,11.102.00 2N16,12.I5 atcnmmvevNane nn L84:2J5:12a6'.12,13 5:19]11:14,212.00. 28:10 29:18 A:1219 available 24]24192U2825JL634: 9:111012517:2,2,8 29:1]
200 1]10 at urvfeve9ulvlllnn 11:25 19:16,1],19,21,22 avenue 5:212006411vetI0 '.10.11 1]:2J,918:3,8,1] erxge Z2IN 27:24YOW519u[livn 3414 21:1,2p 24:15 avvltl 2]1962009515umly¢ 20'J.2 251030:9,1220125:17
2014 laO Za verma 215 a L10 Lnek I2:2I IS:II,13xetl2514anabelm424A:19
3 anx11'vt 3:125:15 16112 v121Y,z9
3,0011 22:11
ud0111an 2621
29a( 921169249 I]:21,251F:Id]
19'.129'.10,1125531411atltlllinnnl '1:12 21x14,14,24 264272IS4:21 2623 aoalYe 11:10 b;:<kuvrvle 19 14
350 22 16 neerevsn 25 18 saver 2:151J21a114:3,2215120,32,21 hvlmlee 6:253419:2 adminulrnNUn bulanmd 5:131139:3 1111]2]:13 21: @924249 bativnll 4227:14
q agvlPM1n 2(1:4,422;1 252,23 26252715 2922
ntivnneetl 315 272129:20A:II,12
Pugs 1 Pagn 2
Vm'ihxt National DepositasUtigmbu Services Van es Nemst Deposit.. LitigmemSe :'vices
066299 512] 866294 512]
75A 277
Uegvx 5:15
believe 21:18 23:21
Uarveler 5'.3 A:]
churl 89
ea 6:11,11 J114
evmlog 6:24]:2,3v121149ben <U 299 talirarniv flaz M1e <lu 2f::Y Z2 17719 10
benefit ]iB 2922 10:11134:4 M1leegv 8',13 31:1U,IY J39
Weeks 619)5 111 2la ehvvae 10:1919:22 ment 1224 U:1n15916'.2120:21IUaNended31113D''tl
best 420]',11 cnPneiN ]:16 bvaxb:g 2]:4 vmmenM1 2:IO,Itt3:IJ,2112:Q22better10:231'.2 enPllvl ]1tb h13 U <ullvus ]:Bbid131031'14 circulation 28:24 13:29141421;9
Lienvenitlns 2:Ifl car 3:S 5:4,5 6:3.4 died 26:9 24:92]:12
big 3:106',6 10161021 dues A:1] mmllmevt 9:]
LIRRer 1022 enrtl 11:] ehY 2:4,21,233:6 committed 31:fi,]
M1lke ISt629:1 vrtls 12:6 5:3,4 P10,219111 nunNles 26 18
2]:19bit ]:4,922'.ID 24'.24 nor 69 4:2111:1913:5,9
2tl:4 arefvl 10:4,20 14:1.9,11 15:6,19 m;nuullY 3:1 P:] vv10a,21LIUChIfl1Yrs11229] I(e 111, 19,Ti t):IG 16:15 210
blacks IP:10,20 ae 49 p:2219:6,I5,1fl .2 25:9 26.15,1],21
M1nnrd II:IS tumlynl 83 20:1611:11,2222:5 29:2331:19,20
M1UVrJInU 3D:20 nlM1erine 11:9 2E:I I,I2,t],1R,10 3111
Unstnn 8:12 mtl}' 2]:2,2 232523'.292223,., compared 6:24
M1mtlevnrd SR1613 ms 2:4,11,9 23;21,2A 24;6Jq,18 evmpnllble 8:61719,20,20,25.25 115,914:1 ?,22 ES:B,10,13,2126:3 1 iv 10:9a.:U Y H
18:11,1],1819:2,9 15:6,1916:10, V,9 26:6,],12,252]21 evmprebensiv¢ 415ZdaS1946,15,18,2220:16 ZB:I,B,I I,142'J:4 9'.25bvundvrlev5:19 2L11,2222:533:9 29:11,1( 3u:9,Il,2D cvmPUtere 12;21.22box9:19 23:24 24:6,14,19 31:1,],12,15,1N,2U eentrvhx 20 14
bring 18:823 1 25:13,2126:3,1225 322.12,15,2133:2 centers 2p:2432a] M1mben 2619 2]:2128:I,N,11 dtyh 12N 123 mmerned Ifi020;]
budget 31:14 29:d,11,1630:13,2v lisle ]:5,6 22:223.16
building 17A.6 31:3 31:1,],12,15,20 dnrllYing 13:22 ninF 19']
Ln1lJing's IB:2 32i2,12,15,21 3l2 dvsvl< 29:9 eerna 11:9
M1ulltling. 122,11 ler 6:15 ]:S,fi elerlls d:422a2 nnNmxlixn 154
21IP 259 clove 11126 19 vafnved IJ:2]
M1nlll 1]p tens IO:u timely llal connectivity 4'.18
bus 5i6,23,23,256:1 cerbin 13 11 sash] 22.15 vnsldenplvn 16 11
6:1,5 T11,21,9
5,15 LexuliNll 10114
v oneltlert;l 1410
R:2i 9.2 18.1128.4 vnrlify 11:15.21 tvlleeleJ 9:1],Il
29h 1225
29:8,9
Uegvx 5:15
believe 21:18 23:21
Uarveler 5'.3 A:]
churl 89
ea 6:11,11 J114
evmlog 6:24]:2,3v121149ben <U 299 talirarniv flaz M1e <lu 2f::Y Z2 17719 10
benefit ]iB 2922 10:11134:4 M1leegv 8',13 31:1 U,IY J39
Weeks 619)5 111 2la ehvvae 10:1919:22 ment 1224 U:1n15916'.2120:21IUaNended31113D''tl
best 420]',11 cnPneiN ]:16 bvaxb:g 2]:4 vmmenM1 2:IO,Itt3:IJ,2112:Q22better10:231'.2 enPllvl ]1tbh13 U <ullvus ]:Bbid131031'14 circulation 28:24 13:29141421;9
Lienvenitlns 2:Ifl car 3:S 5:4,5 6:3.4 died 26:9 24:92]:12
big 3:106',6 10161021 dues A:1] mmllmevt 9:]
LIRRer 1022 enrtl 11:] ehY 2:4,21,233:6 committed 31:fi,]
M1lke ISt629:1 vrtls 12:6 5:3,4 P10,219111 nunNles 26 18
2]:19bit ]:4,922'.ID 24'.24 nor 69 4:2111:1913:5,9
2tl:4 arefvl 10:4,20 14:1.9,11 15:6,19 m;nuullY 3:1 P:] vv10a,21LIUChIfl1Yrs11229] I(e 111, 19,Ti t):IG 16:15 210
blacks IP:10,20 ae 49 p:2219:6,I5,1fl .2 25:9 26.15,1],21
M1nnrd II:IS tumlynl 83 20:1611:11,2222:5 29:2331:19,20
M1UVrJInU 3D:20 nlM1erine 11:9 2E:I I,I2,t],1R,10 3111
Unstnn 8:12 mtl}' 2]:2,2 232523'.292223,., compared 6:24
M1mtlevnrd SR1613 ms 2:4,11,9 23;21,2A 24;6Jq,18 evmpnllble 8:61719,20,20,25.25 115,914:1 ?,22 ES:B,10,13,2126:3 1 iv 10:9a.:U Y H
18:11,1],1819:2,9 15:6,1916:10, V,9 26:6,],12,252]21 evmprebensiv¢ 415ZdaS1946,15,18,2220:16 ZB:I,B,I I,142'J:4 9'.25bvundvrlev5:19 2L11,2222:533:9 29:11,1( 3u:9,Il,2D cvmPUtere 12;21.22box9:19 23:24 24:6,14,19 31:1,],12,15,1N,2U eentrvhx 20 14
bring 18:823 1 25:13,2126:3,1225 322.12,15,2133:2 centers 2p:2432a] M1mben 2619 2]:2128:I,N,11 dtyh 12N 123 mmerned Ifi020;]
budget 31:14 29:d,11,1630:13,2v lisle ]:5,6 22:223.16
building 17A.6 31:3 31:1,],12,15,20 dnrllYing 13:22 ninF 19']
Ln1lJing's IB:2 32i2,12,15,21 3l2 dvsvl< 29:9 eerna 11:9
M1ulltling. 122,11 ler 6:15 ]:S,fi elerlls d:422a2 nnNmxlixn 154
21IP 259 clove 11126 19 vafnved IJ:2]
M1nlll 1]p tens IO:u timely llal connectivity 4'.18
bus 5i6,23,23,256:1 cerbin 13 11 sash] 22.15 vnsldenplvn 16 11
6:1,5 T11,21,9 edlfieJ 343 mlkvl 11:9 voneltlert;l 1410
R:2i 9.2 18.1128.4 vnrlify 11:15.21 tvlleeleJ 9:1],Il 16:14 31:3
29:8,9 Id:4.11 college 2015 ayslruel 13:19
buses 4:22]:16824 Ux 1]1,119]105 a °IVratln IY:3 vnnatrutXVV IH:]
M1valn <sx 1921185 lu1022a me 12:13,1] 15:12cv14131A:ID,19 12:1 2k22 21 2,0,9
185 Uvllengea 6:22 21:14,I622:22J16
M1uslveaAes 15 17,18 d:vnge 196 IY:1110:22J:10 cvnlrNulinn 9'JI
15:24 bnnges Ib2 29:21111]32:9,10 9:15
32:12 contributions 9:22
buerea[ed 27:8
esere r lem-Restl
Inad 2514:916:25 meeHnga 2241411
3414 IauaersklP 9'8 21:1328:211
Ion- ime"Al
ulerpreler 132 auto 14:14 IxveU 6:4 nendm 2029
15;131623921 level JO'1U 1"w 26:17,19 mmrtinnerl 4'15
nnlenl ]'.1]8:1 cover Ifl:] earl 9:21 everybody 2:53'.]
Investment 8:630:] life 6:18:24 10 23 Imv¢vt 620 ]:IS 23:19
Involved 26:9
venflvn 6:9 dependent 6:I7 cosy 10 19 2U:142E:fi 23:10
Isabel 14:11,11,15 IICLI 4:158:18,25 mlJtlle 30;25
Issues m¢ one 4s91z:u mne e:umlLIO,ILQItems15:17
erzvllmly 3125conversations depends 123 nOmie 7:I7 80,509:21 2]:1429:1)
jmm'x 24211
1nF 1'21' 114 2312 mvl^ 1210 minlmize IU:IR
LI 18221911,] In Ivg little 6:4,9,1632110 mm lennn<e 6:20
copy 3:925:6 depot 2:25
ZJa
xxelry 12'.22225e32:9
go trade 1]:1492:45
oeePLlne 121 live 11:1,G2LI,l major 18113,11 minutes 7124
3422 2216,IA 21a9 211]
rrltl"r' 62I Jex[ALetl 264 etlidov S:IO
unnge IU:20 mixtnke 1415
July 320,2011:9 lived 819 management 9:8 m4rxlav 3719
12a6,1]L5;93G.31 lives 8 II0 IL2
living 1033
snvger 2:421,29
coot 78,9,12012,21 design 12:1 effect 92:I8 example I8:2
9:V 2X:26jnne110TI4:11,125:14 15.6,19 W10.17,23 m gneyjustice1111216:16 24:4 19:6,15,18,2220:16
27:11,25 28:4 JeslgnxteJ 2Y:7 a@[h IO:I le 15 xecetled 24:1')
montF 11:9,1616J7IUed(inn I0:4 13;1424:614,16 mnvlbd 0:X1[ loallam 25:7
NnInC 253,2,1]
emh 6 :209'.13 JezlLrvlinm ]:] 26 16 excellent 21'.12
ve 56,148:16mIN3519:19,2U,21dad2:154:15 2]:II2X:Z23h9 281129:4,11,16
Meer 12:141fi 25
12a41]:122U:W longer ]:] 3P.13.20 )1:1,6,12
11120 doing 323123 eni[lenl ):16 x[ePllnn Elal
know 111831,1041891013:213:3 fl:151U9,1512a41]11202129,1 322133:2 name 20421:25n341t] IJIIU 14:1]1]:1( 29:19,143021 ss R:IS
mndmtee IU:U
commit 9:1211;IM1 development 7:1H elFht X:R m 113
2210,11, b,14,1] IU8 r 54
21aU,11,I5,1A,18
223123:52A19,2A 1"ndng 1123 to 547dZone" nnd"nal I0:9
26) A:4.69:2211:25 eW 22:19 exhtenc 26:24
2012133 IoPav 104,4221
14:1111,15
luxe 7:2 ea 16:4
metllvr
25 11
9!101510:1]12116
IB9,14,1419:25
20a023:212k11
1
I:nul 610Inners291 let X23111;251]:]
count 14:25 V2331:19,2U either 19:3 existing T13
3I)14:2],Z51510 neighborhood 33:16
Inter 1415 Ivb 614911L 10115 27 I7 30:14 neither 36116
hovseM1Olds 6:1%
114
uunter 44 32:11 electric 6:11 expensive 9:1,2,4
generndon 10:26 301)311 housing 2@f9 Inleredl 12:20
Pvxfvnrrb 259,5,16
2
24:1025:212]4
191220:1) 32:11
umry 283 difference @6 elecklGly tl:23119 I1:2,2,3
countyvery 4:6,10,14,b different 32,4T,2p element 2814 experinnw 20p
42550,8 818,19 22:1024:4,52.5:6 eliminate 623 exlevtl 4 :18I9:]11:13,3225:15 25:12 emvll 12:11114:23
e"vPle 128141] tlill8en[ 9:2s 15:222:12 fvetheok 2715inIU:] tlheGinn 12:14 emPhnslve 1120 lOGnr IU:SeUmt218121234103121hremrsIU:R,IS15toJIreGOnILIqemployee14,4 Ib112,142G,5ernge7:6 tllsnLlerl 10118 ncnul'age 15024803021 lvlr, 29:14ecru) ID:1],IA025112)'9 Jizmnelw 19:21 Ivgs 28:6tll[nsslnxs 13:10 nergy 11:4 far 23:6,1532:5rilerl'4 2fi:J tllxPerse 5:6 engineennP 11:23 torn Y:IYcrllieal411btllsPlueeJ32:19,22 enFIIVL 2:1)22:11
sr 1213423 dinitlbu0on 22:12 enjoy ]32 fur 12:101411
lenslhllit3' 5:9vul[urvl 10:5 tlIu'erse 5:2 environment 715 federal '1:IB It 17mnn:rnx nd2 document an It 22 I6:4.6
Ilrrenfly 2620,24 doing 211,162322 envbunmevml 2:IJ z71zhasY12Ueutlnmen ]1183 27.11 )1:2132:6,) 3:),N x12]10:2,9,10 leer 3214254
d Jolla 85 11:15,31 IJ2414:6 nob IS:I61R14,(fiaallvrs3:119:5 16:141]24:14 18119dn11Y61671anwntmvn2256.14 3122 ml 122n,z1dxH3,16
dxted 34 19 ba4 ua l n:z,za rx xenmly R:zrtG.6,9 J"'rl 26:]]I:A
t);1121,241Ag,A vgxiN ZV.t4 213MY3:191118
decide 26:12]:10 191,13018,15 26:24 Rvxn[IVIIY 16111
Ileelvl0n 11:5361) 211)•22 mPevIS11Y IU:Ib Rvmmlvg 11:23
tl¢nned 5:10 Jr 221 2082220 2X:24 28111121123
dennlrely 1018 Jmn 30 exdmxte 28:3 and tl:25IIaY
11 20 tlrive 15 16 eHimared 9:Id one 16 23
adexveNIIO eternity 7:21 nm12:1G 53,211 6 18density8:9,1423:21 evrllnr )3U 8229:2 coolietin6 Zf:s II,I21b10,20
112 vm log 53:2
Pagel Po8e4
VedleelNonarl Detector. Lhigvli"n Scrvlccs Verimat Named Detection Lhipme9arvlces
866299 512] 866299 512]
houreeted - neideal IvePx -Poll]
Page 5 No, M1
VerimslNmitrom Deposition& Litigation Servicca VerilextNalionnl Dvpmr un& Loiguiox Services
966299 512] 866299 512]
75A 278
buerea[ed 27:8 lead 335 Inad 2514:916:25 meeHnga 2241411
3414 IauaersklP 9'8 21:1328:211 23:]24:1]
ulerpreler 132 auto 14:14 IxveU 6:4 nendm 2029
15;131623921 level JO'1U 1"w 26:17,19 mmrtinnerl 4'15
30:3,4,6 library 4:43211 lower, x:12 A:3,U 7:20 8:2293 11:23
Investment 8:630:] life 6:18:24 10 23 Imv¢vt 620 ]:IS 23:19
Involved 26:9 I0:24 loo 253 meholink 4:18
mIsabel14:11,11,15 IICLI 4:158:18,25 mlJtlle 30;25
Issues m¢ one 4s91z:u mne e:umlLIO,ILQItems15:17 IA:25,Z39:IU24:9
25:]2);9 L:Ifi
lines 2216
machine 3419
mvdGelne 22:7,8
318,9,13,1]12 110
milew 5:22
mllllnn Ya,S
mllllnn 1'111
jmm'x 24211
1nF 1'21' 114 2312 mvl^ 1210 minlmize IU:IR
LI 18221911,] In Ivg little 6:4,9,1632110 mm lennn<e 6:20 minority ffi:IB
joint t 1):9
ZJa
9:13 go trade 1]:1492:45
oeePLlne 121 live 11:1,G2LI,l major 18113,11 minutes 7124
3422 2216,IA 21a9 211] issi xn 9114
journey I A'10 2415 unnge IU:20 mixtnke 1415
July 320,2011:9 lived 819 management 9:8 m4rxlav 3719
12a6,1]L5;93G.31 lives 8 II0 IL2
living 1033
snvger 2:421,29 moLllO Y8barStill5111,11
lump 30 19 love) 11:5,9,1814:49.22 9:V 2X:26jnne110TI4:11,125:14 15.6,19 W10.17,23 m gneyjustice1111216:16 24:4 19:6,15,18,22 20:16 mnnlcv 10:2519;2
LminJe 5:111
1"cn11Y 2525261 21:1 [,22 13:52]9 montF 11:9,1616J7IUed(inn I0:4 13;1424:614,16 mnvlbd 0:X1[ loallam 25:7
NnInC 253,2,1]
vrning 3:3,3
keep 334 1"u6 42824122 25:13,2126:3,7,1226:25 27:2128:1,8 ve 56,148:16mIN3519:19,2U,21dad2:154:15 2]:II2X:Z23h9 281129:4,11,16
Meer 12:141fi 25
12a41]:122U:W longer ]:] 3P.13.20 )1:1,6,12 19:23,35ad ]2:] 21:5 look 21]4:x,135:23 1L15,2U 32 2,12,15know111831,1041891013:213:3 fl:151U9,1512a41]11202129,1 322133:2 name 20421:25n341t] IJIIU 14:1]1]:1( 29:19,143021 ss R:IS
mndmtee IU:U171219:14,25 looked 5:22,21,21 mnxlnmm P_:I9 one'[ ITI IUIIY
241112210,11, b,14,1] IU8 r 54
21aU,11,I5,1A,18
223123:52A19,2A 1"ndng 1123 to 547dZone" nnd"nal I0:925:23 27 17,24 looks 4:81A25 4x29,) m1p12 aced 42P 61259:fi2012133IoPav104,4221
14:1111,15
luxe 7:2 ea 16:4
metllvr
25 11
9!101510:1]12116
IB9,14,1419:25
20a023:212k11
1
I:nul 610Inners291 let X23111;251]:] meeting 2:14 3:16 needs 53
ImIFUVg¢a 21] IS :2,IN 231528:22 3I)14:2],Z51510 neighborhood 33:16
Inter 1415 Ivb 614911L 10115 27 I7 30:14 neither 36116
hovseM1Olds 6:1%
114
Nennrnl tl:d 24.14 17,18,21 LUUxew 32:23 Ltlenae 21:16
generndon 10:26 301)311 housing 2@f9 Inleredl 12:20
Pvxfvnrrb 259,5,16
2
24:1025:212]4
191220:1) 32:11
buerea[ed 27:8 lead 335 Inad 2514:916:25 meeHnga 2241411
3414 IauaersklP 9'8 21:1328:211 23:]24:1]
ulerpreler 132 auto 14:14 IxveU 6:4 nendm 2029
15;131623921 level JO'1U 1"w 26:17,19 mmrtinnerl 4'15
30:3,4,6 library 4:43211 lower, x:12 A:3,U 7:20 8:2293 11:23
Investment 8:630:] life 6:18:24 10 23 Imv¢vt 620 ]:IS 23:19
Involved 26:9 I0:24 loo 253 meholink 4:18
mIsabel14:11,11,15 IICLI 4:158:18,25 mlJtlle 30;25
Issues m¢ one 4s91z:u mne e:umlLIO,ILQItems15:17 IA:25,Z39:IU24:9
25:]2);9 L:Ifi
lines 2216
machine 3419
mvdGelne 22:7,8
318,9,13,1]12 110
milew 5:22
mllllnn Ya,S
mllllnn 1'111
jmm'x 24211
1nF 1'21' 114 2312 mvl^ 1210 minlmize IU:IR
LI 18221911,] In Ivg little 6:4,9,1632110 mm lennn<e 6:20 minority ffi:IB
jointt 1):9
ZJa
9:13 gotrade 1]:1492:45
oeePLlne 121 live 11:1,G2LI,l major 18113,11 minutes 7124
3422 2216,IA21a9 211] issi xn 9114
journey I A'10 2415 unnge IU:20 mixtnke 1415
July 320,2011:9 lived 819 management 9:8 m4rxlav 3719
12a6,1]L5;93G.31 lives 8II0 IL2
living 1033
snvger 2:421,29 moLllO Y8barStill5111,11
lump 30 19 love) 11:5,9,1814:49.22 9:V 2X:26jnne110TI4:11,125:14 15.6,19 W10.17,23 mgneyjustice1111216:16 24:4 19:6,15,18,22 20:16 mnnlcv 10:2519;2
LminJe 5:111
1"cn11Y 2525261 21:1 [,22 13:52]9 montF 11:9,1616J7IUed(inn I0:4 13;1424:614,16 mnvlbd 0:X1[ loallam 25:7
NnInC 253,2,1]
vrning 3:3,3
keep 334 1"u6 42824122 25:13,2126:3,7,1226:25 27:2128:1,8 ve 56,148:16mIN3519:19,2U,21dad2:154:15 2]:II2X:Z23h9 281129:4,11,16
Meer 12:141fi25
12a41]:122U:W longer ]:] 3P.13.20 )1:1,6,12 19:23,35ad ]2:] 21:5 look 21]4:x,135:23 1L15,2U 32 2,12,15know111831,1041891013:213:3 fl:151U9,1512a41]11202129,1 322133:2 name 20421:25n341t] IJIIU 14:1]1]:1( 29:19,143021 ss R:IS
mndmtee IU:U171219:14,25 looked 5:22,21,21 mnxlnmm P_:I9 one'[ ITI IUIIY
241112210,11, b,14,1] IU8 r 54
21aU,11,I5,1A,18
223123:52A19,2A 1"ndng 1123 to 547dZone" nnd"nal I0:925:23 27 17,24 looks 4:81A25 4x29,) m1p12 aced 42P 61259:fi2012133IoPav104,4221
14:1111,15
luxe 7:2 ea 16:4
metllvr
25 11
9!101510:1]12116
IB9,14,1419:25
20a023:212k11
1
I:nul 610Inners291 let X23111;251]:] meeting 2:14 3:16 needs 53
ImIFUVg¢a 21] IS :2,IN 231528:22 3I)14:2],Z51510 neighborhood 33:16
Inter 1415 Ivb 614911L 10115 27I7 30:14 neither 36116
hovseM1Olds 6:1%
114
Nennrnl tl:d 24.14 17,18,21
nee 91412,29:3 geographically g:vrhNl 315 Im'e 3U:]
615623,8 Z6:IN Nnnt 2:]15:0 1
fixed I:9 vHIVN II:fl H;fl 24:18 28:1 Itlen ttl:242UaUOYer24:8 SLIS BrenHr, ]:4X,9 22:323:22611m14:19,1],ZO give 2:21 N:Y 12:11 gmnlue[ 6aJ Ideullnetl 9120 51623:23 b:202fi22,23 green @9 Impact 3:66:22 kIUhllmv2:fi givex !4:12,19 Grid 314 141 @I,S,]IL5
fvllvwiv6 109 Co 2:53:256:11 gmnPS 261A IL15,IB 11:24tool2Y.IA 5:147:M]1:13 grove LH 4:5,24 15241]620] rongoin6 34:3.],11 1):131J:fi 15:],8 1315256 21:15 N:]31:P
mgvt 19:16 15:251L:I2.24 Nuurank¢ 2Al2 Impnchd 2115South34:6 1]:13,14,15,19.19 guess ]:25 14:11,15 ImPxch fi:21 1018fortunatebatI]:29,2t,24R51B:1 293,24 ZJa
Nnler 4:16
Hoge 4fi,10,14,16v9:235:1,b
Fvidmvvy 1:9 imported 21:18fosters8319'.I1,12,IA.2020:2 Sup J23,i12C6
24122A'.11 InrPlemenhtivn 9:9Ivnvdxli0n1]:6 209,1X,2421:4,22 11'.29125111]
0fear412212:ft23,2 23:1,11,1224a0,25 3112332:8 25:5 Z @1,2,4,82x,2 Still 40 Impnrlxnf 9:IR 924fourtLIA:1,5,14 D'Jl2P:I ],2U hand 525126 10'642]:62WS,N,IZ23:1,3 3018 3213 IlnOpen II:] bnProve IU:2423:21 goal ILI9 happened 14:18 improvements 2911Mann321gndina2030harbor511610LminJe5:111fmnelsen811goes6:11, I4 ]:IS 11:14 1]:20,20,25 Including 2]:12frequently281928:2,11 32:14 10.:12.1] 19:9 Income 261],19
friendly X21521 NnInC 253,2,1] Imrtl 256 a 111122hoot192322,249:811:] heN 136 IncreUlblu 3L6ha1111I22,1J,2013:IL12 Meer 12:141fi25 LWlvlduvls tUa6
footling 4:20 9:9,16 141913:18 16:5 hearinC 119 2211641912:12A:21 1]:IA t8p15,1fi$4 help 291330:9,11 InlUrmnll0n TI22x:2,2 L9R 2c1],23,21 3023 Ih1025:9
Nntlw SLI0,13,14 2L2,6,],8,12.14,Itl high 2010 Inlfl"I fl:23
31:Ifi,Ifi,19321II 21:IR$422242J9 LINkm' ]:90:6 Inifla119 6:11rurlM1er, 426 5:V 21aU,11,I5,1A,18 highest 6:IR Inllinte 11:2434:11,13 23:19,3024:332([1 highly 6:21 InlflxkU 6111
future II:Rfi:23 260A62P:I)2Y:] hlNley 13:fl Lrjoncllom 2fi1U12:A 29:X,12,22,21,26
311]3T9,9,IN,Ifl
hlvinticvl p9
history 1210
held 15:6
infra 3115 !0:16.21
I1g,21 14:19,21
2fi:22,23
N
FmIF 2fi:20gardenI:B45,26 6219,22,29 hometown 016 Inserlln6 26:11
1114258 gnjltl 10'611'3 LUpefvlly IL16 Inaurvnee IL3
gvx 11,2 151122],142223 hovseM1Olds 6:1% InteFrxted 5:1
Nennrnl tl:d 24.14 17,18,21 LUUxew 32:23 Ltlenae 21:16
generndon 10:26 301)311 housing 2@f9 Inleredl 12:20
Pvxfvnrrb 259,5,16
Crnntl 520
24:1025:212]4
nepn IU:10 2fta,11,1]29:14 pay 9:12210 PosIInN 25:]
err 10:1 0,12 3U:L3,1451p1213 Paying 9:19 pxYw 32:9
w tlal 43 pedenitlan d9x Pohnllnl 16:0
news IB:11 ]5:13 old 16:4,9,11 people 2:143:4,5,10 PxtentlnllY 26125
night 3992 cltler (]:12.12 3154:6 btl,13.24 29:2
nine (:2,2 m JZ:4 7:18:9,13.0,16 PreJlcfnM1le ea
nlxle ELI] open 2:929x11 9:19109,15,19,25 Preferred 11112
nvhvdy9 21:19 xperxtlnvv 690 II:I 12:13,20 19:6 232526:2
nosh 111:6 9x3121 tA:J,A,9,11, t3 19:9 Prerem 321]
nvkez 1:213A:23 oPPOrmniry 5:6 19:I12112122aI Prmentuflvn 29
earth 5:2021:1,3 oppxvke 3U; 1.2] 2211,16,2533:2,4 16:3
northern 214 xpflon 9:1 23:],193434P:] Press 25:11
noted 33:] apHOUS 3:5 27:10 30:932,18 pretty 2211
nolev 2'914:10 Hoge 4fi,10,14,16v9:235:1,b penpleR 11:2,5 Prior 14339]
nvtlnexdnn 34:16 0:8,19 22:23 pmbxLly 2A:14
24:19,25 9:]Ih13,22 PvvPles Itl:19,22 Prvbinm 1612119:1
nulifi[xdond 2412 urdinenae 13a 19;4.10,11 I9:J 221]
232,6 xrgpnlzallxna ESa2 percent ]:894,13 Pmreedings 995,6
nvtl0ed 3]:10 anal( 21:6 period 11911, 14:9
notify 24112 vv[renv4 3230314 282] process 142126111
number 6:1]2395v 23:B 25aU PM1nse Ila pmgrum 4:115:14
23:] onlsitle 4:115:] PM1vvce 1214.11 1112,1831:14
umLen E2:Z4 E31fix236 1]:14,15 pick 11:6 prohibitive 2X:4
r (}.120:5owen25:I61Y 2U Pleturea 29111,IYplace13:1434:6
Placetl 34:6
PI'of¢cl 1:911;24
IlaY2t116,1]23:5
307,B33:16.19nmPn20:19,19 P
P.m. 2:112:1613;] o'clock 12116,1] Plnm 21:15 projects 4:20.21,23
vnth 348 oven[ fiat plan 99,911:24 SIU 6:202X32,25
xLVlxunly ES:IJ pvges 195 12:3 17:16ZN:13 39:3
31:2 paid 916 3133,33323 prnmenxde 20:12
occurred 1310 Pxve6 3b4.5 plxnning 3:It 166 20:13,14
evtx 51141LIt26:1 pxr'Ixv 289 2224 proPerlln 1616
Z6192fl:133121 pork 4:520:13 Plxua 13:15 2145
32:4 Perking 6:23,25]:1 plexve IE:IR 34:9 property U:I 311:5
vcmLer 11 14,16 IO:618:Ift 196 21:3 2£14I9,ID
vlllee 41425:1(r 23:16 On d:IG 1q; 16 proposed 13 10
official 15:2225115 part 2:129:!1 IJ:6 20162017 1415
2522 19:2s 15:2]16:10 policy III:IU.10 provide Tb9162116
Uh ]:I )):$2121:24 16x825:2144 Pvrllvn 9;20 36:A 2]:411:4
Ulxry 2113,161221 ParlldVVllvn 125 possibility '2:18,19 provides ]II]
122413:1.9.20 Purtles 3415 PvniLle 121531:IG public 40,41x112
Ifi:2.ID,13 19:IS,IA Pvm 260 pnslbly 921 12:22 1311 14:25
21:3421:9,11,2A Pxne 3:94:] Pvxfvnrrb 259,5,16 ISa21:832:22
24:1025:212]4 Pnsletl 2515,8 P:dl 13:5
IParchme -ii
purchase M17 record 2:0,15 18:2,12,15,15,18 Be, )',2422:1928',]
put 9'.814,5,15,168 12J5 15:22 21:M 19:1,8,10,11,13,1] 28:10,12
18:2119:8 25:22338 34:8
111, 23:13
records 25:15,19
20:,3,5,12,14
21:13,2222:125:24
26:16,1927:42B:14
scale 8:1
schedule 15:7
scheduled 14'.13
Ova 4:23 5:13,15 63
quality 10:5,6,23,24
gnnrter 2914 21:18 281629:1830:13 school 20:20,25212
quandrim 2:1413:22 referring 20:6 31:14,213283 21:4,5,19
138314:,5,11,18 reflects 5:3 roadway 7:14 trim. 2:]13:5
15i17,19,23 16,5,7 region 4:19 be 231 second 28:18
14.1,1920:21,22 regieml 6:9,1524:5 room 3:126:23 wrlimn 28:10
21112,
1920:
21922 reiterate 142 it. 45 ee 6 81413
23:25,25 24:2,14,19 coined 34:14a rmnghty 31:24 Iran 23'.6
21212625 releufe 25:11 rovvJ RB:IN seismic 1715
21:15,2128:1,18,2] rallabla 2:19 Bit tone¢ 6 :18.217:4 saboAd 4235',14
24:430:1131,9 memher 624 10:1411:1213:6.8 sod 25:16
32',13,14,24,25 33:4 re rmiding 175 15:3 25:42]:4,10 sent 25:3,11,17,20
2:10,12 remodeling, 1]4 s'o.. 14:14244,5 xeptemLer 3125lumbers14415'.22]:6 report 3.811.15 row 12:2284,25 32:1,2
28:1030',24 22:1923:2126:14 1321 1512,14,25 served 10:16243
quick 30:24 reported 1:21 19:24 20:12,1]22:6 act 13',134:6
let 3:24 reporter 15:1134:4 29:2030:15,15 oven ):89:4
alto 24:24 reporter, 2:012:12 rublmr 4:21 ago, 2119
u sn 62010:1918:24
representing 20:20 rule 8:4 shopping 18:3,8,14
wanes 13:319:22
regnhe ]:12 run 1414 18',2319:10,12
rndiva 25',19 required 3:1812:4 short 1):1020:16x
cull 4:16,225:13 requlremeum Ott] 21:24scase21:z1
0:e
ways 9:16320
shorthand 340,9
reps¢ 52512:) 5 :2352i7 retl:18,1 23:4.12duce 211418 11:16
rapid 5:23 32:18,19,21
outety
anise 4:I2 9:18
e1mr0y
sk243292092224real2419,25 resources 10;5,24 n e:u 12
sash 4:Itl d 212 t4:6respond rnme 1:84:245:10 almwetl 2320
mntl 24:82110 162 i,itl 5126:12,13852 ode 3:2,2521i1.1
real 30:24 responded 22:25 81991110:25
11:2,2,8,16,1),19,21 25. II:IPreally8:10 w 23. rest 21:23 IY22,25191211118:3,R single 25:9doW
really 3:14,1442 review 3:195:16 1 etr 21202]14311
9:24 11.9115 1Y913:24
2119:
6,14.15
241122:11272:9tI32:15
saeml 27'.6 3122 1 .
425
211,424:1535:10 Ate 22:11,1528:10mend11:0 reviewed 6:]):10 30:9,12 ailOng 19:1626i66,91 avNrdey 3:3,16 six 256
datlonr.
c:12
ri 6:19 ]:IS lave 20x9,19 sloe
10:12 10191019 save 11:11
1213:
14,22
4:1012:1916:@
recmendutlons right 3:236:111:10 svea 92w16:3,3 25:2426:421:2,3 10:159,19110
T.I],ll 8109:0 avYmg 29:25 slightly 9;E
ommended 9:11 10:12111512'.10 28:1229:832;21neivl25:10 atnliom 29:12
M15 15416i14
try 17:22 18 :]
Page 7
VerltaetNatural D,ratlon J'c LitigationS ieoe
866 299 -5127
hillng -Ydrkl
trying 3:24 vision 4:13,25 wbenh )@2
mead, 3:3,17 vbunl 10:4 wbercof 34:16
torn 20',11,12 chimp, I50 whaler 20:25
airliner 22',15 voted 9:12 wllltan, 15:5,524:20
Ova 4:23 5:13,15 63 voter 412 25:113,14
6:]]24 B'. 17,209:4 w wildest 34:16
09,1218:1026:9 witnmae 340w'eit 7:212M14welting ]:20 wandering 24:12
type 4:17 walk 20:14 26:15,16,2229:6
lenll 32:10 wWknbillty 8:3 3017
walker 30:18
walkh, 182219:4
words 29'24
work 13:1316:10u1Nmm115
nnel.nonsly 9:12 welters 224 2L16 30a6
nnderxlgnetl 34:3 n 1]:1,119] working 9:IO Ik11
eldelmani1 17:22 vent 2:463:],14,2564:1755,5,62:1
works 4:3
23:2
sad, 3:211:423:12
we5fing 15:10,20,23
namantl0ed 220,22 10:13,13,14,1),18 16 : 1913:252423
13:Z22 14.9,11 10:19,20.212211:1 275,57 28:25 33:1ISIS162.7,8,16 11:5,11,2112:7,15 w w% 30:4
16:2219:1]21 12:19,27,24250:8 Y
Peru 21:24,2521:2123:1424:2 13:2114:2,2,49,,6
25:2326:11,13 14:22 15:2,12,20 yc.L 168 19:21
27: 15,2428:6,9,21 16:20,2519:19,20 Year 9'.14
29:,15,21,2530:3 192125209,18 Ycare 3115:06:2
30:6,10,12,25312 2[23 n:7236 6:2,49:2417:9,11
32:1,14,16 24:20,2327:82B:15 282529331:6,6
ended 8:11129 29:133121 328
apdeting 28:24 rvanted 6:514:0 Yerk Bill
u sn 62010:1918:24 25:1431:9
habitV19:4 1]:18184
243341],19 wanes 13:319:22
101 1424tell10:131434
or 921 way 6:10,117:3,10
113.13 11:19,25
study 242 311329:1832:9
lid... 23:7 12:1919:920:1
study 4:235:$9,,18
vehicles 8:25 20:123M 16329
30:6,10,1),25312
tested], 15:10 ways 9:16320
17:18,21 2,16
rulmo U 34:8 we've 2:243:10,23
2term26:172fl9
orfe 213 erinp 2011
suhmiVed 421
versus 92 web 22:1528:10
meaking
vpeneer 232t0
vibruliot 10:6 welcome, 2:41618
tr34.11 'ion 13:6
flee 213 2:21
14:1221:153224
vlelnen¢se 2',17,19 went 19:324:16
21,4
222 weft 11531
standa 8;13
view 203 weelmmsto, 5:20
10:17
Pope
V,idav Natlanul Dnpnsdlun p Litlgalm 3crvloea
966299 -5127
75A 279
Isxnhs -tryl
socks 20:1
lot 31:4.5
step 519,14
steps IU20 NA
t thinking 20:11
third 2:243:1,1) mhe 2:116:18:23soldIDs30:19 12:3,914:1618:11 18.19
solid 114 stick 2:14 1825 27:2532:$ thvrougLly 11:10
ophoOor 14:24 slap 181,3,12,13 ll:5 three 1:V,2412tl
20120carry 29:8.9 taken 9:24345 23
are
sorry stopped 14:16 eke( S:ES 113
uri22fi:
9
Ih34 I:IO Z:I1:6sort31'b stops 18:1:] 1116, 2:53:12,25 4:21e1:9shone, l 1232 0.21 149 filltill 17:22025:2031:1 22:2322,23ad...] 19:22,25 Ifi24 flee )',2E29: 2thor 5lame' 5:19,206:10 19:22,2520:18 33:73Ies3:211:
434:
6
stweloon 21:5 6:2313:141,3,6,6 23:1324:2125:1 sad, 3:211:423:12spxcio83022IS:IB18:19,,5,,26 20 tm2ny 2117shoe8241810,14,19,19,21 Wiledtalkin 16:13 mdny9 3'.I)
speakh 24 1 19:2,4 12,11 talking 0:1520:6,10 roniaM 3'.t515i13cheek2:2412:13 llaft,21 mlul 5:22
taker 2: streetcarstreetcar 4:165:] W.I. 3:912:],P lour 14a622415:A
speaker 2:6,20,1 24:2,2325:2 Inure 14:13,0,18,20
13i2,22 8:18,259:1,:.15 eat 4',22 town l2
516 2,7,8,16162227,
21Ifi
2::2029:22302013 tee 30:21 trader IO;fi
162213:1),24 streetcarsst27:17 rs 20:13 tax 4:129:18 127,18212123:1424:4 relen habitV19:4 1]:1818425:2)2 288 student 2''2studboa2024 101 1424tell10:131434
2):152428:6,9,21 study 242 311329:1832:9 trainrule 4:5 50 fiat29:6,ISRI,2530:3 study 4:235:$9,,18 293 6:15,24 7:3d31t:1
30:6,10,1),25312 24:7 en 25i17,18team 17:18,21 2,16
31:032:1:22 submit 3;12,2111:6submit 2term26:172fl9 bed 34hwmVlbed
2:22 suhmiVed 421 Ineaipt 1:77
meaking
vpeneer 232t0 subxribetl 34:16 termscorms 3:11532241 tr34.11 'ion 13:63ke12)2:10 xu21:14 12:4 14:1221:153224 34:11spoke22:17 21,4 thank ng 348 bromill 5:10,216:9
standa 8;13 suite thank 2:233:15 10:17
1022 on, upport 23:] 12:1913201]:15 11:1727il3ILI)2):tionBlurt12:2124:22,25start12 support 21:2 22:3 1520:23:9 transportation 4:630;15 stc,
iJ 2119:
6,14.15
241122:11272:9tI 4:10,13,14,15,17
state 2supposed52 24:102fi:112]:22 26:15 8:699:i,,4,
138:
169:]
Sinure9:18 34:4 supposed 23:9 331 21:6,8
30:11debt 1rn 11:211:101xn0: ILereef 34:12 23i23 2 2523:232):252822
8:Istated04:56:
19
1514:0.112];3 cams 3n0s17:1 4:56:10 2ret, things 8:14 Y:fi reeltravel
1118,18,2118:12 2:25secret, 2243,24 17:12 bar,
I1!
tremendous It
10:159,19110 sYStem 4:22 5:2,11 tide, pa 10',13 Vied 3'.5
2ll. 329, 8219:13IU:20 28:1229:832;21 rusks 23:1
atnliom 29:12 0,16 try 17:22 18 :]
Vw1W. Nmimwl Deposited & Liftiman Seven.
866 299 -5127
Pnge 8
Public Hearing Meeting No. 3
Response PH3 -1 — Unknown Speaker
Under Streetcar Alternative 2 and IOS -2, the Streetcar would travel eastbound along 5th Street
from Ross Street to Minter Street. The cross sections and alignment along 5`h Street are shown
in Appendix 0 beginning on page 60 (drawing number TR -19 through TR -22) of the EA /DEIR.
The streetcar would operate in the right most lane until east of Bush Street where a dedicated
right turn lane would generally occur before intersections until Minter Street. No changes would
occur to the existing left one or two lanes along 51h Street. Along this segment, the streetcar
would operate in mixed traffic. This could include vehicles and /or bicycles, as there is no
existing bike lane and travel speeds would be substantially lower. Businesses along 51h Street
may be temporarily disrupted during construction. See Response PH1 -2(1) related to effects to
businesses during construction. Access to existing businesses would be maintained and
accessibility to businesses along 5 "' would be increased with the addition of three stations under
Alternative 2 or IOS -2.
Response PH3 -2 — Unknown Speaker
See Responses 8 -5(5) and PH1 -7 related to completion of an EJ analysis and an equity analysis.
The loss of property value is not an environmental consideration under CEQA unless it leads to
the physical deterioration of buildings. Regarding equity in properties, there is no supporting
evidence or documentation to establish, as fact that the implementation of a streetcar system
causes property values to decrease to the extent that blight or physical degradation of buildings
would occur. Speculation about fluctuations in property values as a result of transit
improvements is not within the scope of the EA /DEIR.
Response PH3 -3 — Wan Cha
A cultural resources report was prepared for the project in compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation act and is included as Appendix K of the EA /DEIR. This report
analyzed the potential for the proposed project to adversely affect historic, archaeological or
paleontological resources. The Section 106 determination found that no adverse effects to
historic, archaeological or paleontological resources would occur from the proposed project.
Proposed construction activities generally would require conventional earthwork equipment (e.g.,
cranes, tractors, and trucks). Drill rigs and similar vibration - generating equipment may also be
used for various construction activities. In addition, as discussed on page 3 -208 of the
EA /DEIR, pile- driving activities would be limited to the elevated crossing over Westminster
Avenue and where the alignment crosses the Santa Ana River channel. The distances between
the construction equipment and properties would typically be sufficient to avoid effects to the
properties, including historic buildings, as a result of vibration or other activity that could affect
these buildings' structural integrity. However, six historic structures have been identified as
potential locations of vibration impacts.
Santa Ana Garden Grove fixed Guideway Project REMEIR P a g el 222
January 2015
75A -280
As discussed on page 3 -219 of the EA /DEIR, the proposed project includes a Noise and Vibration
Control Plan to reduce the effects of construction vibration to historic structures. Relevant
components of the Plan include:
Where pile- driving operations are required, vibratory pile driving or pre - drilled pile insertion
techniques shall be used whenever possible, rather than impact pile driving;
Pile driving activity shall be prohibited during nighttime hours;
Residences located within 560 feet of pile driving activity shall be sent advanced notice of
the construction schedule; and
The construction contractor shall manage construction phasing (scheduling demolition,
earthmoving, and ground- impacting operations so as not to occur in the same time period),
use low- impact construction technologies, and shall avoid the use of vibrating equipment
where possible to avoid construction vibration impacts. Specifically, contractors shall use
smaller and lower impact construction technologies where residential and historic structures
are located within 26 feet of the construction site.
Response PH3 -4 — Wan Cha
The alternatives identified for evaluation in the EA /DEIR were based on public comments, as well
as technical analyses, as detailed in the Alternative Analysis Report (under separate cover and
available by request or on the City's website at http : / /santaanatransitvision.com). The
alternatives analysis process included a comprehensive review of potential technology and
alignment options. A wide range of public transit options were defined and investigated as
candidate technologies. The initial alignment options were based on the need to establish an
east -west transit corridor in the Study Area, and to improve the Study Area's regional transit
connectivity by providing direct connections to existing and planned transit services (Metrolink
and OCTA fixed route and Bus Rapid Transit services) at SARTC and at the northeast corner of
Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue in the City of Garden Grove.
As discussed in the EA /DEIR, Streetcar Alternative 1, traveling along 4" Street, was identified as
the route having the highest daily ridership after a comprehensive alternatives analysis.
Response PH3 -5 — Adolpho Lopez
The EA /DEIR focused on assessing a streetcar system. The Study Area is generally bounded by
Harbor Boulevard to the west, 17" Street to the north, Grand Avenue to the east, and 1" Street
to the south. The goals and objectives of the project, described in Table 1 -1 on page 1 -14 of
the EA /DEIR, are focused on transportation improvements. The development of a promenade in
the Downtown area is outside the scope of this project. Regarding encouraging pedestrians to
visit Downtown and 4I Street, and as stated on page ES -15 of the EA /DEIR, it is estimated that
Streetcar Alternative 1 would attract between 3,770 and 8,400 riders per day in horizon year
2035. Six stations would be located in the Downtown commercial area of the City. These
stations would provide easy access for streetcar riders to visit Downtown businesses.
Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR
January 2015
75A -281
Page1223
Response PH3 -6 — Saul O'Campo
Regarding safety, concrete barriers with fencing would be placed around the perimeter of
construction areas to restrict access and eliminate the threat to safety and security of anyone not
directly involved in construction activity. Construction activity would occur in front of Spurgeon
Intermediate School, Romero Cruz Elementary School, George Washington Carver Elementary
School, and James Garfield Elementary School. Construction zones near schools require additional
considerations to ensure the safety of students and staff and promote vehicle awareness. The City
of Santa Ana would coordinate with the Santa Ana Unified School District and Santa Ana Police
Department to develop and implement a construction traffic safety plan, as identified in Mitigation
Measure SAF1 on page 3 -196 of the EA /DEIR, at schools adjacent to the alignment. Precautionary
safety features would, as a minimum, include signs, barriers, and crossing and traffic signals to
create a safe environment for parents and students during pick -up /drop -off times, as well as the
education plan to increase the construction and safety awareness for students and parents.
The construction zone would typically be limited between two- and four -block segments. North -
south traffic could experience detours or inconveniences from lane reductions, nighttime or
weekend closures, and detours. In addition, daytime construction activity in major intersections
would occur in increments to avoid complete intersection closure. Accordingly, impacts to direct
routes to and from institutional uses would be temporary and occur for a relatively short period.
Therefore, the City would not provide transportation for students around the construction zone.
Response PH3 -7 — Raul Yanez
See Response PH3 -1 related to construction vibration and historic properties. PH1 -2(1) related
to a general discussion of construction activities.
Response P113 -8 — Madeleine Spencer
See Response PH1 -1 related to community outreach and distribution of notices.
Response PH3 -9 — Unknown Speaker
Section 3.10 in Table 3.10 -6 on page 3 -127 of the EA /DEIR includes a detailed parking analysis
which includes a discussion of parking loss outside the Downtown area. The alignment outside
the Downtown area, west of Flower Street to Raitt Street would be the same for all of the build
alternatives. No parking loss would occur west of Raitt Street or to the east of the Downtown
area. As shown in the following table, 53 percent of street parking would be removed along
Santa Ana Boulevard between Raitt and Flower Streets.
Existing
Spaces
Scenario and Segment Spaces Lost Remaining
Streetcar Alternatives 1, 2 and IOS -1, and IOS -2
Santa Ana Boulevard between Raitt and Flower Streets 1 143 I 73 I 70
Source: City ofSanta Ana, Santa Ana and Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Traffic ImpactAssessment Report, February 2012.
Santa Ana Garden Grave Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el 224
January 2015
75A -282
The loss of parking on Santa Ana Boulevard between Raitt and Flower Streets would affect
residential land uses. The City of Santa Ana requires every residential property along this segment
of Santa Ana Boulevard to have on -site parking capacity consistent with City zoning and occupancy
entitlements. There is adequate although potentially less convenient parking to accommodate
residential parking needs along this segment of Santa Ana Boulevard. Therefore, the build
alternatives would not result in adverse effects related to residential land uses and the loss of on-
street parking spaces.
Response PH3 -10 — Unknown Speaker
As stated on page ES -4 of the EA /DEIR, Santa Ana and Garden Grove's overall vision for the
Study Area includes a transit system that integrates seamlessly with the community, provides
connections to regional Metrolink and Amtrak commuter rail services at the SARTC, and is
compatible with the established urban character. The SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project is a transit
improvement project being considered by the Cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove in
cooperation with OCTA and FTA to improve mobility and provide other community
enhancements. The project's objectives are derived from the need for transportation
improvements in the Study Area, which address a variety of community issues. The
identification of these needs and corresponding goals and objectives are stated in Table 1 -1 on
page 1 -14 of the EA /DEIR. The alternatives considered as part of the project are based on the
need to establish an east -west transit corridor in the Study Area, and to improve the Study
Area's regional transit connectivity by providing direct connections to existing and planned
transit services ( Metrolink and OCTA fixed route and BRT services) at SARTC and at the
northeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue in the City of Garden Grove.
One of the factors in the development of the alternative alignments was ridership and what
routes would serve areas with the highest demand. As discussed on page ES -15 of the
EA /DEIR, the Streetcar Alternative 1 route was identified as the route having the highest daily
ridership after a comprehensive alternatives analysis. It is estimated that the Locally Preferred
Alternative would attract between 3,770 and 8,400 riders per day in the 2035 horizon year. At
the low end, this represents approximately 22 percent more riders than the TSM Alternative
3,085); at the high end, it represents approximately 172 percent more riders than with the TSM
Alternative. Streetcar Alternative 2 would attract between 3,020 and 6,425 riders. At the low
end, this would be approximately equivalent to the TSM Alternative; at the high end, it
represents approximately 108 percent more riders than with the TSM Alternative. IOS -1 would
attract between 2,012 and 4,490 riders, and IOS -2 would attract between 1,540 and 3,280
riders which is approximately 47 percent fewer riders than the full alignment alternatives.
Response PH3 -11 — Isabella Lopez
In accordance with CEQA regulations, the Notice of Availability of the EA /DEIR for public review
was filed and posted at the Orange County Clerk- Recorder's Office in compliance with
Sections 21080.4 and 21092 of the California Public Resources Code; advertised in the local
newspaper; flyers were distributed at every community center in the City of Santa Ana; outreach
was also conducted via social media; and a press release was covered by at least three different
news organizations. Although not required under CEQA or NEPA regulations, available data from
Santa Ana Garden Grave Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g e1225
January 2015
75A -283
County Assessor and City property records were used to establish a list of property owners and
tenants within 500 feet of the alignment. There were 3,796 postcards delivered to property
owners, business owners, tenants, and residents related to EA /DEIR availability for public
review. Hard copies of the notifications and document were also made available at different
locations (Santa Ana City Hall Public Works Counter, Santa Ana City Hall City Cleric's Office,
Santa Ana Public Library, Salgado Center, Rosita Park, Santa Ana Train Station, Garden Grove
City Hall, and OCTA), as well as online on the City of Santa Ana website.
Response PH3 -12 — Unknown Speaker
Section 2.9 on page 2 -29 of the EA/DEIR describes the public outreach for the development of
alternatives, scoping, and circulation of the EA /DEIR. Section 3.5 on page 3 -61 of the EA/DEIR
discusses additional public outreach in relation to targeting populations of EJ concern. The
decision was based on a combination of environmental impacts, community input, cost,
ridership, and economic development considerations brought to light through the EA /DEIR,
Alternative Analysis, and public review process.
Response PH3 -13 — Unknown Speaker
See Responses 8 -6(5) and PI-11-7 related to an EJ analysis and an equity analysis.
The extensive public outreach as described in Response PI-11-1 will continue as the project
moves forward. Future public outreach, would include, but not be limited to, informing the
community aware of construction activities, and providing education programs to familiarize
local residents and business owners with the new streetcar system.
Response PH3 -14 — Unknown Speaker
See Response PH1 -2(4) related to safety.
Response PH3 -15 — Unknown Speaker
The streetcar fares have not been determined at this time. A financing plan will be developed by
OCTA prior to revenue operation of the Locally Preferred Alternative.
Response PH3 -16 — Unknown Speaker
Information regarding possible funding sources have been identified but not approved. The
source of funding is not required for consideration in the environmental review process in
accordance with CEQA and NEPA regulations. The comment is not directly related to the
content or adequacy of the EA /DEIR, and no further response is necessary.
Response PH3 -17 — Unknown Speaker
Streetcar stations will include shelters, benches, and trash receptacles. Detailed design
information is not available at this stage in the planning process.
Response PH3 -18 — Unknown Speaker
As stated on page ES -4 of the EA /DEIR, Santa Ana and Garden Grove's overall vision for the
Study Area includes a transit system that integrates seamlessly with the community, provides
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el 226
January 2015
75A -284
connections to regional Metrolink and Amtrak commuter rail services at the SARTC, and is
compatible with the established urban character. The SA -GG Fixed Guideway Project is a transit
improvement project being considered by the Cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove in
cooperation with OCTA and FTA to improve mobility and provide other community
enhancements. The project's objectives are derived from the need for transportation
improvements in the Study Area, which address a variety of community issues. The
identification of these needs and corresponding goals and objectives are stated in Table 1 -1 on
page 1 -14 of the EA /DEIR.
In addition, and as stated on page ES -5 of the EA/DEIR, the City of Santa Ana would benefit
from increased connectivity to the regional transportation network. The eastern terminus of the
alignment is the SARTC, which is the busiest multi -modal transportation hub in Orange County
and will connect the streetcar to Metrolink, Amtrak, and bus lines from the surrounding region.
The western terminus is the Harbor Boulevard /Westminster Avenue intersection, where
connections to local and intra- county buses operated by OCTA are available.
Response PH3 -19 — Unknown Speaker
See Response PH3 -17. The specifications related to boarding procedures have not been
identified at this time. The proposed streetcar system will comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements to accommodate disabled patrons.
Response PH3 -20 — Unknown Speaker
Solar power has not been considered as part of the proposed project, although the proposed
project does not preclude the future integration of solar power.
Response PH3 -21 — Madaleine Spencer
The source of funding is not required for consideration in the environmental review process in
accordance with CEQA and NEPA regulations. The comment is not directly related to the
content or adequacy of the EA/DEIR, and no further response is necessary.
Response PH3 -22 — Unknown Speaker
Acquisitions requiring displacement would comply with the Uniform Act. Acquisitions related to
the build alternatives are shown in Table 3.3 -5 on page 3 -23 of the EA/DEIR. Streetcar
Alternative 1 would result in three full acquisitions and six partial acquisitions; Streetcar
Alternative 2 would result in six full and ten partial acquisitions; IOS -1 would result in four full
and two partial acquisitions; and IOS -2 would result in five full and six partial acquisitions. The
amount and type of private property acquisitions were found to result in less- than - significant
impacts.
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el 227
January 2015
75A -285
Chapter 3.0 Corrections and Additions
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, this chapter provides corrections or
clarifications of certain statements in the EA /DEIR. None of the corrections and additions
constitutes significant new information or substantial project changes as defined by CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5 and would not result in new significant impacts or an increase in the
severity of any impact already identified in the EA /DEIR. New information is not significant
unless the EIR is changing in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to
comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to
mitigate or avoid such an effect. Corrections and additions to the EA /DEIR are provided in
underline or strikeeut text as needed to indicate an addition or deletion, respectively.
Table of Comments
The title of Table 3.1-5 on page V of the EA /DEIR is hereby revised as Acquisitions Related
to Build Alternatives.
Executive Summary
The following sentence is added for clarification to the end of the second to last paragraph
on page ES -7 of the EA /DEIR:
The acquisition is shown in Figure 3.3 -4 on page 3 -22 of the EA /DEIR and would involve a
full take (18,719 square feet) of the property at the northeast corner of Main Street and
Civic Center Drive (Burger King) and a partial take (730 square feet) of the property at the
northeast corner of Broadway and Civic Center Drive (St. Joseph's workshop).
Chapter 2.0 Project Description
Figure 2 -5 on page 2 -12 of the EA /DEIR is hereby revised to show Flower Street as the cross
street to Civic Center Drive West:
Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR
January 2015
75A -286
Pagel228
75A -287
4
SV
Y.
U
u
O
ab
N
NYO
tlCK4CU
ac
Caaa
0c4
N
OCN
0.
4On
a
U
n
6OU
OviN
A
6 @
G G@ (6
Section 3.3 Land Acquisition and Displacement
The title of Table 3.3 -5 on page 3 -23 of the EA/DEIR is hereby revised as Acquisitions
Related to Build Alternatives.
Section 3.4 Section 4(f) Resources
Table 3.4 -1 (Resource #15) on page 3 -3 of the EA /DEIR, is hereby revised to show the
corrected address for the Dr. Howe - Waffle House as 120 Civic Center Drive West:
SECTIONTABLE3.4-1:
Build Section 4(f)
Resource Name Location Alta Criteria /Distance Applicability
1. Quonset Huts (Cultural Report 1424 N S StreetN. Susan 1 National Register- Eligible. Historic or
Map Reference 2) /a/ 2 Adjacent to project. Archaeological Site
Publically owned adjacent. Park and /or Recreation
2. Willowick Golf Course /b/ South of PE ROW 1,2 Fees charged for use. Area
3. Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana National Register - Eligible. Historic or
River Bridge (Cultural Report On PE ROW 1,2 Adjacent to project. Archaeological Site
Map Reference 3) /a/
4. Santa Ana River Trail and Crosses PE ROW 1,2 Publically owned. Park and /or Recreation
Bikeway /b/ Area
7 Spurgeon Joint Use 207 W. 5`^ Street 1,2 Publically owned adjacent. Recreation AreaRecreationalArea
Myrtle and Shelley Publically owned. Park and /or Recreation
6. Friendship Park Streets 1,2 Beyond 500 feet. Area
7. El Salvador Park 10'^ and Raitt Streets 1,2 Publically owned. Park and /or Recreation
Beyond 500 feet. Area
B. Angels Community Park 3`a and Flower Streets 1,2 Publically owned. Park and /or Recreation
Beyond 500 feet. Area
9. Sasscer Park /b/ 4`^ and Parton Streets 1 Publically owned adjacent. Park and /or Recreation
Area
10. Birch Park 3rtl and Ross Streets 1 Publically owned. Park and /or Recreation
Beyond 500 feet. Area
Publically owned. Park and /or Recreation11. Neal Machander Tennis Center First and Flower Streets 1 Beyond 500 feet. Area
12. Orange County's Original 211 W. Santa Ana National Register - Eligible. Historic or
Courthouse /a/ Boulevard 1 Adjacent to project. Archaeological Site
13. Young Men's Christian 203 and 205 3A—Civic National Register - Eligible. Historic or
Association (YMCA) — Santa Center Drive West 2 Adjacent to project. Archaeological Site
Ana - Tustin Chapter /a/
14. First Presbyterian Church National Register - Eligible. Historic
Cultural Report Map 600 N. Main Street 1 Adjacent to project. Archaeological Site
Reference 34) /a/
15. Howe - Waffle House and 7W o .. r.. ems...,.. .md
oaf, w erne. 2 National Register - Eligible. Historic or
Carriage House /a/ Adjacent to project. Archaeological Site120CivicCenterWest
16. First United Methodist Church National Register - Eligible. Historic or
Cultural Report Map 624 French Street 2 Adjacent to project. Archaeological Site
Reference 64) /a/
17. French Park 1001 and French Streets 2 Publically owned. Park and /or Recreation
Beyond 500 feet. Area
18. Folk Victorian -Style Duplex National Register - Eligible. Historic or
Cottage (Cultural Report Map 507 N. Minter Street 1 Adjacent to Project. Archaeological Site
Reference 58) /a/
Stafford and Custer 2 Publically owned. Park and /or Recreation
19. Chaga's Park Streets Beyond 500 feet. Area
a/ Coordination with "Official with Jurisdiction" occurs with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO_ as part of the National Historic
Preservation Act Section 106 Process
IN Coordination with "Official with Jurisdiction" occurs directly with the owner /manager of the resource
Source: URS Corporation, Map and Field Review, July 2011.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR
January 2015
75A -288
Pagol230
Section 3.5 Community Effects and Environmental Justice
The fourth sentence in the fifth paragraph on page 3 -42 of the EA /DEIR is hereby moved as
the third sentence in the first paragraph on page 3 -44 and revised as follows:
On page 3 -42:
French Park, The French Park neighborhood, also known as the French Park Historic District,
is a 20- square -block historical neighborhood, bounded by Washington Avenue on the north,
Civic Center Drive on the south, Poinsettia Street on the east, and Bush Street on the west.
It includes a mix of residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The neighborhood
includes homes built between the late 189Os and 192Os, ranging in various architectural
styles, including Craftsman, Colonial Revival, Victorian and Neo- Classical, Craftsman
Bungalow, Spanish Colonial, and Spanish Eclectic Revival. The ti;,..,..;,. n. u,.we Waffle
House is !seated in Fr, Reh PaFk Historic French Park was officially listed on the National
Register of Historic Places in 1999. The only community asset within Historic French Park
that falls within the Study Area is French Park, at 901 French Street.
On page 3 -44:
Downtown Santa Ana, The Downtown Santa Ana neighborhood is bounded by Civic Center
Drive on the north, First Street on the south, Main Street on the east, and Flower Street on
the west. It includes commercial land uses, with some residential, institutional and parkland
uses. The historic Dr. Howe - Waffle House is located in Downtown Santa Ana. Community
assets within Downtown Santa Ana that fall within the Study Area include the following:
r 4
Table 3.7 -1 on page 3 -95 of the EA /DEIR is hereby revised to correct the address for
Dr. Howe - Waffle House (Map Ref. No. 33) to 120 Civic Center Drive West.
Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR
January 2015
75A -289
Paga1231
75A -290
tG
m
tllLL
q_
I ivd
cx
IT
I
la
Ix
is
I-
N U3
F N NcRT
m m
i c cum
U N
N M W W O m 06M W OJ W n OJ 46 0= M Mm
Oo
M
N2M y M mMM' O ma°an N M NmM Md' NMS VO
O O O N O N O p O p1 OE O
px 00 OOQ O O
O O O O Oyd O O000OpO Od oo OOM O
o o O o 0 000 oow= oo a'
w K EO M 4 m v z N
r CQ Z ma mQt 0 my W W Q ZQ m Q mQ mQ NN mM(om mmm m zzmZmZmEEzmNNZmzMZMZEziE — Z
O U z U U U m z U U U z U z U z= U ZzzZ
U U
N
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q U Q
U N z N N N N Z Z° R N y N N N N N N N N N N N U
w
H ui J
y G to N u> N N N in N i.n in N N N M
x o 0 0
N
p N
y Ud a U
N S!
O 61 U UE JL Nn Na E m
m o 0
v 2 15 a
m
O 5 L u
m
a a x N C m
Dm o a 2yodmb
ro a o 3 U w o E
pNOCCNt' a C U
N U
N N 0 3
9 O d a NLL OO ry i V C t N cC
W N m N N 00 U NUJ0] UC N0 E J Ji J
y N N
m N a$ Y L° ON
O N C O m Y C L a U m N J N U T
d O N p U O
O
pO
N
V S m
L 0'Y N m 6 N
D O E Y J C C
m> m
C
N O N fn fa U Ol C m L 97
E V
U S u m 2i to H a U w n ii J U O S a o
m M O a
m
cQ m M
n U c y
Vl U"
JJ
m g 2 v> m 9 L6 a o" a
N N d z
cN°
N O V m N O W M n 61 n O M C uyO> c O m ONNO
Z
y N M d' LO t0 n OJ W O N M L O
m°
75A -290
tG
m
tllLL
q_
I ivd
cx
IT
I
la
Ix
is
I-
N U3
F N NcRT
m m
i c cum
Section 3,16 Construction
The second sentence in the second to last paragraph on page 3 -202 of the EAMEIR is
revised as follows:
Access to businesses would be maintained during operating hours and signage would be
posted to alert customers that businesses are open during construction and wayfinding to
businesses whose access is disrupted. In addition, signs would be posted alerting nearby
businesses of temporary closures and /or detours.
The last two sentences in the first paragraph on page 3 -202 are revised as follows:
These Construction effects, including, but not limited to noise, air quality, visual, traffic, and
temporary easements would be short -term, of temporary duration and not adverse.
Therefore, Streetcar Alternatives 1 and 2 construction activities would not result in
disproportionate adverse effects related to communities eemmunit • eehesl^^ and s
environmental justice.
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g al 233
January 2015
75A -291
Chapter 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PRC Section 21081.6 and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines require adoption of a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for all projects for which an EIR has been
prepared. This requirement was originally mandated by Assembly Bill (AB) 3180, which was
enacted on January 1, 1989, to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted
through the CEQA process. Specifically, PRC Section 21081.6 states that "...the agency shall
adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of
project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment ... [and that the program] ... shall be designed to ensure compliance during project
implementation."
AB 3180 provided general guidelines for implementing monitoring and reporting programs, which
are enumerated in more detail in Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. However, specific
reporting and /or monitoring requirements to be enforced during project implementation shall be
defined prior to final approval of the proposed project by the decision - maker. In response to
established CEQA requirements, the proposed MMRP shall be submitted to the City of Santa
Ana (lead agency) for consideration prior to completion of the environmental review process to
enable the decision - makers appropriate response to the proposed project. Although the lead
agency may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to other agencies or entities, it
remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in
accordance with the program."
The MMRP describes the procedures for the implementation of the mitigation measures to be
adopted for the proposed project as identified in the EA /DEIR and REA /FEIR. The MMRP will be
in place through all phases of the proposed project, including design (pre- construction),
construction, and operation (post- construction both prior to and post - occupancy). The City of
Santa Ana shall be responsible for administering the MMRP activities or delegating them to staff,
other City departments (e.g., Department of Building and Safety and Department of Public
Works), consultants, or contractors. The City of Santa Ana will also ensure that monitoring is
documented through reports (as required) and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The
designated environmental monitor (e.g., City building inspector, project contractor, or certified
professionals depending on the provision specified below) will track and document compliance
with mitigation measures, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to
remedy problems.
Each mitigation measure is categorized by environmental topic and corresponding number, with
identification of:
The enforcement agency
The monitoring agency
The monitoring phase (i.e., the phase during which the measure should be monitored);
The monitoring frequency
The action indicating compliance with the mitigation measure
Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g eI23R
January 2015
75A -292
All agencies and departments are in the City of Santa Ana, unless otherwise noted.
Land Use and Zoning
No mitigation measures related to land use and zoning are required.
Land Acquisition and Displacement
No mitigation measures related to land acquisition and displacement are required.
Visual Quality
No mitigation measures related to visual quality are required.
Cultural Resources
CR1 A qualified principal investigator who meets the Secretary of the Interior's professional
qualification standards for an archeologist shall be responsible for managing Native
American archaeological resources and human remains. The qualified principal
investigator shall appoint an archaeological monitor to be present for ground- disturbing
activities that could encounter undisturbed soils. If the qualified principal investigator
determines that Native American archaeological resources and human remains are likely
present, then both an archeological monitor and a Native American monitor identified by
the principal investigator shall be present. The Native American monitor shall be a Native
American identified by the applicable tribe and /or the Native American Heritage
Commission. The timing and duration of the monitoring shall be determined by the
principal investigator based on the sensitivity of exposed sediments.
Prior to initiation of earth - disturbing activities that could encounter undisturbed soils; the
archaeological monitor shall conduct a brief awareness training session for all
construction workers and supervisory personnel. The training shall explain the importance
of and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. Each worker
shall learn the proper procedures to follow in the event that cultural resources or human
remains /burials are uncovered. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection
and the immediate contact of the site supervisor and the archaeological monitor. It is
recommended that this worker education session include visual images of artifacts that
might be found in the project vicinity, and that the session take place on -site immediately
prior to the start of ground- disturbing activities.
If archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during construction, all
work shall cease in the area of potential affect until the find can be addressed. The
Orange County Coroner's Office shall be contacted pursuant to procedures set forth in
Public Resources Code Section 5097 et seq. and Health and Safety Code in Sections
7050.5, 7051, and 7054 with respect to treatment and removal, Native American
involvement, burial treatment, and re- burial, if necessary. A fifty -foot buffer, or more if
deemed appropriate by the principal investigator, shall be established and work outside
the buffer may resume.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAjFEIR P a g e1235
January 2015
75A -293
Areas that would not encounter undisturbed soils and would therefore not be required to
retain an archaeologist shall demonstrate non - disturbance to the City of Santa Ana
through the appropriate construction plans, as -built drawings, or geotechnical studies
prior to any earth - disturbing activities. Impacts to any significant resources shall be
mitigated to a less- than - significant level through data recovery or other methods
determined adequate by the archaeologist and that are consistent with the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for Archaeological Documentation. Any identified cultural
resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 form and filed with the SCCIC.
Enforcement Agency:
Implementation /Monitoring Agency
Monitoring Phase:
Monitoring Frequency:
Compliance Action:
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
City of Santa Ana
Principal Investigator and Archaeological or Native
American Monitor /SHPO
Construction
Ground breaking activities involving undisturbed
soil
Field Inspection /Monitoring and Maintenance of
Log to Demonstrate Compliance
No mitigation measures related to geology, soils, and seismicity are required.
Hazardous Materials
HAZ1 A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall be prepared for the following site should
O &M Facility Site A be adopted as part of the proposed project:
Madison Materials located at 1035 East 4th Street
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall be prepared for the following sites should
O &M Facility Site B be adopted as part of the proposed project:
All Car Auto Parts located at 2002 West 5th Street
SA Recycling located at 2006 West 5th Street
American Auto Wrecking located at 1908 West 51h Street
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall be prepared for the following sites should
O &M Facility Site A be adopted as part of the proposed project:
The assessment shall be prepared by a Registered Environmental Assessor. The
assessment shall be prepared in accordance with State standards /guidelines to evaluate
whether the site or the surrounding area is contaminated with hazardous substances from
the potential past and current uses including storage, transport, generation, and disposal
of toxic and hazardous waste or materials. If hazardous materials are identified in the
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment would
be completed to identify the extent of contamination and the procedures for remediation.
The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment shall be approved by the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control.
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REA FEIR
January 2015
75A -294
Paga1236
Enforcement Agency:
Implementation /Monitoring Agency:
Monitoring Phase:
Monitoring Frequency:
Compliance Action:
Traffic and Parking
City of Santa Ana
Registered Environmental Assessor /Department of
Toxic Substances Control
Pre - Construction
Once, prior to construction
Site Investigation and Submittal of the Phase I and
Phase II Environmental Site Assessments
No mitigation measures related to traffic and parking are required.
Noise and Vibration
N1 The City of Santa Ana shall request a horn - sounding exemption from the California Public
Utilities Commission for the crossing at 5th and Fairview Streets. The exemption shall
provide justification and demonstrate that safety would not be compromised. In lieu of
the warning horn, supplemental safety measures (e.g., four -quad gates, roadway median
barriers on grade crossing approaches, and pedestrian gates) would be implemented. If a
horn sounding exemption is approved and established, warning horns would not be
sounded except under an emergency situation.
Enforcement Agency: City of Santa Ana
Implementation /Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Ana /California Public Utilities
Commission
Monitoring Phase: Design
Monitoring Frequency: During design and prior to operation
Compliance Action: Agency request submission /Field Inspection
N2 When practical, the contractor shall design special trackwork elements, such as turn-
outs, switches, and cross -over to be located at least 600 feet away from sensitive
receptors. If this cannot be achieved, then special switch devices, such as spring frogs
or movable point frogs shall be utilized. A frog device is used where two rails cross. The
frog is designed to ensure the wheel crosses the gap in the rail without "dropping" into
the gap.
Enforcement Agency: City of Santa Ana
Implementation /Monitoring Agency: Contractor /City of Santa Ana
Monitoring Phase: Design
Monitoring Frequency: Prior to Approval of Final Plans and Specifications
Compliance Action: Field Verification of Installation of Trackwork
N3 The contractor shall construct a noise barrier at the land uses identified as Noise
Sensitive Areas 9 and 10. For receptors in Noise Sensitive Area 9, the noise barrier shall
be at least 10 feet high and extend for 400 feet along the northern property edge of the
proposed operations and maintenance facility. For receptors in Noise Sensitive Area 10,
the noise barrier shall be at least 8 feet high and extend for 225 feet along the southern
boundary of the PE ROW adjacent to 4`" Street. The design of the noise barriers shall be
identified on project plans prior to issuance of building permits.
Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el 237
January 2015
75A -295
Enforcement Agency:
Implementation /Monitoring Agency:
Monitoring Phase:
Monitoring Frequency:
Compliance Action:
Air Quality
City of Santa Ana
Contractor /City of Santa Ana Planning and Building
Department
Design and Pre - operation
Prior to permitting and prior to operation
Design Review and Field Verification
No mitigation measures related to air quality are required.
Hydrology
No mitigation measures related to hydrology are required.
Safety and Security
SAF1 Under Streetcar Alternatives 1 and 2 and the IOS Alternatives, the City of Santa Ana
shall coordinate with the Santa Ana Unified School District and Santa Ana Police
Department regarding safety at schools adjacent to the alignment. The collaborative
effort between the City and interested parties shall develop and teach rail safety
measures to students and parents. Other precautionary safety features shall include
signs, gated crossing, and crossing and traffic signals to create a safe environment for
parents and students during pick -up /drop -off times.
Enforcement Agency: City of Santa Ana
Implementation /Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Ana /Santa Ana Police Department
Monitoring Phase: Design and Pre - Operation
Monitoring Frequency: On -going during Construction and Testing
Compliance Action: Development of Safety Education Program and
Instruction and Field Verification
SAF2 The contractor shall install surveillance cameras along the pedestrian walking paths within
the PE ROW and at pedestrian gates to adjacent neighborhoods. Police security
personnel shall be responsible for surveillance camera monitoring.
Enforcement Agency:
Implementation /Monitoring Agency
Monitoring Phase:
Monitoring Frequency:
Compliance Action:
City of Santa Ana
Contractor /City of Santa Ana and Santa Ana Police
Department
Design and Pre - operation
Prior to Operation
Field Verification
SAF3 The contractor shall install emergency call boxes along the pedestrian walking paths
within the PE ROW.
Enforcement Agency: City of Santa Ana
Implementation /Monitoring Agency: Contractor /City of Santa Ana
Monitoring Phase: Design and Pre - operation
Monitoring Frequency: Prior to operation
Compliance Action: Field Verification
Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR P a g el 238
January 2015
75A -296
SAF4 The contractor shall design the lighting plan for the pedestrian walking paths within the
PE ROW to eliminate shadows or dimly lit areas to the greatest extent feasible.
Enforcement Agency:
Implementation /Monitoring Agency
Monitoring Phase:
Monitoring Frequency:
Compliance Action:
City of Santa Ana
Contractor /City of Santa Ana
Design
Once prior to design approval
Design Review and Field Verification
SAF5 Within the PE ROW, the contractor shall fence the track area, and appropriate signage
and audible and visual warning devices shall be installed at gate openings.
Enforcement Agency:
Implementation /Monitoring Agency
Monitoring Phase:
Monitoring Frequency:
Compliance Action:
City of Santa Ana
Contractor /City of Santa Ana
Design and Pre - operation
Prior to Operation
Field Verification
SAF6 If Mitigation Measures SAF2 through SAF4 are considered infeasible, then the Willowick
Station shall not be made operational by the contractor until an appropriate public access
point from the PE ROW is created as part of the Willowick Golf Course redevelopment.
Enforcement Agency:
Implementation /Monitoring Agency:
Monitoring Phase:
Monitoring Frequency:
Compliance Action:
Construction (Air Quality'
City of Santa Ana
Contractor /City of Santa Ana and Santa Ana Police
Department
Pre - operation
Prior to Operation
Field Verification
A01 During the construction phase, the contractor shall use Tier 4 or higher off -road
construction equipment with higher air pollutant emissions standards.
Enforcement Agency:
Implementation /Monitoring Agency:
Monitoring Phase:
Monitoring Frequency:
Compliance Action:
X"
City of Santa Ana
Contractor /SCAQMD
Construction
Monthly
Field Verification and Maintenance of Log to
Demonstrate Compliance
No mitigation measures related to cumulative impacts are required.
Santa Ana- Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project REAIFEIR
January 2015
75A -297
P a g el 239
75A -298