7 Eleven Convenience Store and Service Station Project ... Revi… · City of Santa Ana 7‐Eleven Convenience Store and Service Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA

WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM

7‐Eleven Convenience Store and Service Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Ana, Orange County, California

Prepared for:

City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza

Ross Annex M‐20 Santa Ana, CA 92701

714.647.5481

Contact: Jerry C. Guevara, Assistant Planner I

Prepared by:

FirstCarbon Solutions 250 Commerce, Suite 250

Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4110

Contact: Kerri Tuttle, Project Director Cecilia So, Project Manager

Report Date: May 6, 2019

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

City of Santa Ana 7‐Eleven Convenience Store and Service Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents

FirstCarbon Solutions iii Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\0327\03270041\ISMND\03270041 City of Santa Ana 7‐Eleven Store ISMND.docx

Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ vii

Section 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 ‐ Purpose.............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 ‐ Project Location ................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 ‐ Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................... 1 1.4 ‐ Project Description ............................................................................................................ 2 1.5 ‐ Required Discretionary Approvals ................................................................................... 13 1.6 ‐ Intended Uses of this Document ..................................................................................... 13

Section 2: Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation ............................................... 15 1. Aesthetics ................................................................................................................... 16 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................... 19 3. Air Quality ................................................................................................................... 22 4. Biological Resources ................................................................................................... 36 5. Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources ...................................................... 41 6. Energy ......................................................................................................................... 45 7. Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................... 50 8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................ 62 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................. 69 10. Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................... 74 11. Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................... 81 12. Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................... 83 12. Noise ........................................................................................................................... 84 14. Population and Housing ............................................................................................. 95 15. Public Services ............................................................................................................ 97 16. Recreation ................................................................................................................ 100 17. Transportation .......................................................................................................... 101 18. Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................... 116 19. Wildfire ..................................................................................................................... 121 20. Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................... 124

Section 3: References ................................................................................................................. 127

Section 4: List of Preparers ......................................................................................................... 131

Appendix A: AQ and GHG Supporting Data

Appendix B: Biology Supporting Materials B.1 ‐ Site Photographs B.2 ‐ Database Search Results

Appendix C: Cultural Supporting Materials C.1 ‐ Records Search Results C.2 ‐ Historical Building Evaluation

Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation Report

Appendix E: Phase I ESA

City of Santa Ana 7‐Eleven Convenience Store and Service Station Project

Table of Contents Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

iv FirstCarbon Solutions

Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\0327\03270041\ISMND\03270041 City of Santa Ana 7‐Eleven Store ISMND.docx

Appendix F: Water Quality Management Plan

Appendix G: Noise Modeling Data

Appendix H: Traffic Impact Analysis

List of Tables

Table 1: Utility Providers ....................................................................................................................... 13

Table 2: Vehicle Miles Traveled Comparison ......................................................................................... 24

Table 3: Regional Construction Emissions by Construction Activity ..................................................... 26

Table 4: Operational Regional Pollutants .............................................................................................. 27

Table 5: Construction Localized Impacts ............................................................................................... 29

Table 6: Operational Localized Impacts ................................................................................................. 30

Table 7: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources ........................................................................... 34

Table 8: Project Operation and County Annual Energy Consumption .................................................. 46

Table 9: Construction GHG Emissions ................................................................................................... 64

Table 10: Operational GHG Emissions ................................................................................................... 65

Table 11: Project Compliance with the City of Santa Ana Climate Action Plan .................................... 66

Table 12: Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update ............................................................... 67

Table 13: Traffic Noise Model Results Summary ................................................................................... 91

Table 14: Federal Transit Administration Construction Vibration Impact Criteria ................................ 92

Table 15: Study Area Intersections ...................................................................................................... 102

Table 16: Existing Peak Hour LOS ........................................................................................................ 104

Table 17: ITE Trip Generation Rates for Proposed Project .................................................................. 105

Table 18: Daily and Peak Hour Trip Generation Summary of Proposed Project ................................. 105

Table 19: Existing Plus Project Conditions AM and PM Peak Hour Study Intersection LOS ................ 107

Table 20: Project Opening Year (2020) Without Project Conditions AM and PM Peak‐hour Study Intersection LOS ............................................................................................ 109

Table 21: Project Opening Year (2020) With Project Conditions AM and PM Peak Hour Study Intersection LOS..................................................................................................... 111

Table 22: HCM 95th Percentile Vehicular Queueing Analysis Summary .............................................. 112

City of Santa Ana 7‐Eleven Convenience Store and Service Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents

FirstCarbon Solutions v Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\0327\03270041\ISMND\03270041 City of Santa Ana 7‐Eleven Store ISMND.docx

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map ........................................................................................................... 3

Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map, Aerial Base ............................................................................................... 5

Exhibit 3: City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Map ....................................................................... 7

Exhibit 4: City of Santa Ana Zoning Map ................................................................................................ 9

Exhibit 5: Site Plan ................................................................................................................................ 11


City of Santa Ana 7‐Eleven Convenience Store and Service Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Acronyms and Abbreviations

FirstCarbon Solutions vii Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\0327\03270041\ISMND\03270041 City of Santa Ana 7‐Eleven Store ISMND.docx

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

°C degrees Celsius (Centigrade)

°F degrees Fahrenheit

µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

ACI American Concrete Institute

ADA American Disability Act

AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic

ALCU Airport Land Use Commission

AP Alquist‐Priolo

APN Assessor’s Parcel Number

AQMP Air Quality Management Plan

ARB California Air Resources Board

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

bgs below ground surface

BMP best management practice

C‐2 General Commercial

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards

CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention

Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration

CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model

CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code

CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery

Caltrans California Department of Transportation

CAP Climate Action Plan

CBC California Building Code

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CGS California Geologic Survey

CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System

CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent

CRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board

CUP conditional use permit

DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan

dB decibel

dBa A‐weighted decibel

DOC Department of Conservation


Acronyms and Abbreviations Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

viii FirstCarbon Solutions


DPM diesel particulate matter

DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control

EDD Employment Development Department

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

FAR Floor Area Ratio

FCS FirstCarbon Solutions

FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GC General Commercial

HREC historically recognized environmental condition

ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization

ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers

kBTU kilo‐British Thermal Unit

kWh kilowatt hour

Ldn day/night average sound level

Leq equivalent continuous sound level

LID low impact development

Lmax maximum instantaneous noise level

LOS level of service

LST localized significance threshold

M‐1 Light Industrial

MEP maximum extent practicable

Metropolitan Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

MLD Most Likely Descendant

mph miles per hour

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems

MT metric tons

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAHC Native American Heritage Commission

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

OCFA Orange County Fire Authority

OCSD Orange County Sanitation District

OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PM2.5 particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter

PM10 particulate matter, including dust, 10 micrometers or less in diameter

City of Santa Ana 7‐Eleven Convenience Store and Service Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Acronyms and Abbreviations

FirstCarbon Solutions ix Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\0327\03270041\ISMND\03270041 City of Santa Ana 7‐Eleven Store ISMND.docx

PPV peak particle velocity

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RECs recognized environmental conditions

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SAPD Santa Ana Police Department

SAUSD Santa Ana Unified School District

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District

SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center

SCE Southern California Edison

SMARA significant mineral aggregate resource areas

SoCAB South Coast Air Basin

SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company

SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element

State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board

TIA traffic impact analysis

UST underground storage tank

UWMP Urban Water Management Plan

VdB vibration levels

VEC vapor encroachment condition

VMT vehicle miles traveled

VOC volatile organic compounds

WDR Waste Discharge Requirements

WQMP Water Quality Management Plan


City of Santa Ana 7‐Eleven Convenience Store and Service Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction

FirstCarbon Solutions 1 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\0327\03270041\ISMND\03270041 City of Santa Ana 7‐Eleven Store ISMND.docx

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 ‐ Purpose

The purpose of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is to identify any potential

environmental impacts from implementation of the proposed 7‐Eleven Convenience Store and

Service Station Project in the City of Santa Ana, California. Pursuant to California Environmental

Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency in the

preparation of this IS/MND and any additional environmental documentation required for the

project. The City also has discretionary authority over the proposed project. The intended use of this

document is to determine the level of environmental analysis required to adequately analyze the

project pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and to provide the basis for input from public

agencies, organizations, and interested members of the public.

The remainder of this section provides a brief description of the project location and the primary project

characteristics. Section 2 includes an environmental checklist that provides an overview of the potential

impacts that may result from project implementation, elaborates on the information contained in the

environmental checklist, and provides justification for each checklist response. References cited in this

IS/MND are included in Section 3, and Section 4 contains the List of Preparers.

1.2 ‐ Project Location

The project site is located in the City of Santa Ana, Orange County, California. Santa Ana is

surrounded by the City of Orange to the north, the City of Tustin to the east, the City of Irvine to the

southeast, the City of Costa Mesa to the south, the cities of Fountain Valley and Westminster to the

west, and the City of Garden Grove to the northwest (Exhibit 1).

The project site is located at 1904 West First Street in Santa Ana. The project site is approximately

17,336 square feet or 0.40 acre and contains an existing approximately 1,610‐square‐foot restaurant

building with an associated parking lot. The project site comprises a single parcel designated by the

County of Orange as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 007‐332‐07 (Exhibit 2).

1.3 ‐ Environmental Setting

The 0.40‐acre project site is a rectangular‐shaped parcel that is relatively flat and located in an urban

area. The project is bounded by single‐family residences and commercial uses to the north, single‐

family residences and auto‐body repair uses to the east, commercial and auto‐repair uses to the

west, and a vacant lot south of the project site. West First Street is located directly to the north of

the project site, and South Daisy Avenue is located directly to the east. The Santa Ana River is located

approximately 0.85 mile east of the project site, and based on the general area topography and

existing surface conditions; general surface water flow is expected to be to the south‐southwest.


Introduction Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

2 FirstCarbon Solutions


1.3.1 ‐ General Plan

As shown in Exhibit 3, the 1998 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Map designates the project

site as General Commercial (GC). The GC designation applies to commercial corridors in Santa Ana

including those located along Main Street, Seventeenth Street, Harbor Boulevard, and other major

arterial roadways in the City. The intensity standard applicable to this designation is a floor area ratio

of 0.5–1.0, though most General Commercial districts have a FAR of 0.5. A total of 888.3 acres of

land is included in this designation (City of Santa Ana 1998).

General Commercial districts are key components in the economic development of the City. They

provide highly visible and accessible commercial development along the City’s arterial transportation

corridors. In addition, General Commercial land uses provide important neighborhood facilities and

services, including shopping, recreation, cultural and entertainment activities, employment, and

education. These districts also provide support facilities and services for industrial areas, including

office and retail, restaurants, and various other services (City of Santa Ana 1998).

1.3.2 ‐ Zoning

As shown in Exhibit 4, the 2019 City of Santa Ana Zoning Map currently zones the project site as

Light Industrial (M‐1). The proposed project would seek an Amendment Application (Zone Change)

to change the zoning from Light Industrial (M‐1) to General Commercial (C‐2). The C‐2 zoning

permits a convenience store with the approval and issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for the

after‐hours operations.

1.4 ‐ Project Description

The proposed project consists of removing the existing approximately 1,610‐square‐foot restaurant

building and surface parking lot to construct a new 2,480‐square‐foot convenience store (7‐Eleven)

with an 810‐square‐foot gas station canopy. The gas station canopy includes two fuel pumps that

would accommodate up to four vehicles at a time, and the installation of two new 20,000‐gallon

double wall fiberglass underground storage tanks (USTs) with three dispensers. The new USTs would

be installed at a depth of approximately 17 feet below the ground surface (bgs) and located adjacent

to the west side of the proposed gas station canopy. The proposed project would also include an

associated parking lot with ten parking spaces, including one ADA space, and provide approximately

2,795 square feet of landscaping (Exhibit 5).

As a design feature, the project would remove the damaged sidewalk, curb, gutter, and bus pad

panel and construct a new commercial driveway along the project frontage on West First Street, per

City standards. Along South Daisy Street, the project would remove the damaged sidewalk, curb, and

gutter and construct a new sidewalk, curb, and gutter per City standards.

The proposed project would be completed in one phase, and the anticipated start date of demolition

is October 2019 and anticipated construction completion is April 2020. Once operational, the project

would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Orange County

San Bernardino County

Orange CountyLos Angeles County

91

83

91

55

57

241

261

241

405

5

Orange CountyRiverside County

60

110

7105

605

10

5

405

5

133

1

1

Prado FloodControlBasin

SantiagoReservoir

P a c i f i c O c e a n

ClevelandNationalForest

San DimasCovinaAlhambra

El Monte

Pomona OntarioEast LosAngeles

Walnut

ChinoCommerce

Whittier

Norwalk

Yorba LindaFullerton

Anaheim

OrangeLong Beach

Garden GroveSeal Beach

Santa AnaFountainValley

HuntingtonBeach

Costa Mesa IrvineLake Forest

Newport Beach

Laguna Hills

Laguna NiguelSan JuanCapistrano

Bell

Chino Hills

Montclair

LagunaWoods

Exhibit 1Regiona l Loca tion Ma p

5 0 52.5

Miles

Text

Project Site

Source: Census 2000 Da ta , The Ca SIL.

CITY OF SANTA ANA7-ELEVEN CONVENIENCE STORE AND SERVICE STATIONINITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

03270041 • 02/2019 | 1_regiona l.mxd

Project Site


03270041 • 03/2019 | 2_local_aerial.mxd

Exhibit 2Local Vicin tiy Map

Aerial Base

So urce: ESRI Aerial Imagery.

CITY OF SANTA ANA7-ELEVEN CONVENIENCE STORE AND SERVICE STATIONINITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Fairv

iew St

5Th St

Civic Center Dr

1St St

Daisy

Ave

Walnut St

Santa Ana Blvd

10Th St

Washington Ave

Engli

sh S

t

Sulliv

an St

Duchess Ln

Willis St

Monta Vista Ave

Mcfadden Ave

Brist

ol St

Pacif

ic Av

e

Raitt

St

1,000 0 1,000500Feet

Santa

Ana Rive

r

Project Site


I03270041 • 03/2019 | 3_GPLU.cdr

Exhibit 3City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Map

CITY OF SANTA ANA7-ELEVEN CONVENIENCE STORE AND SERVICE STATION

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Source: City of Santa Ana.

Project Site


03270041 • 03/2019 | 4_zoning.cdr CITY OF SANTA ANA7-ELEVEN CONVENIENCE STORE AND SERVICE STATION

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Exhibit 4City of Santa Ana Zoning Map

Source: City of Santa Ana.

I

Project Site


I03270041 • 03/2019 | 5_site_plan.cdr CITY OF SANTA ANA

7-ELEVEN CONVENIENCE STORE AND SERVICE STATIONINITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Exhibit 5Site Plan

Source: Fiedler Group, Design & Engineering, April 2018.


City of Santa Ana 7‐Eleven Convenience Store and Service Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction


1.4.1 ‐ Site Access

There are currently two unsignalized driveways that provide access to the project site, one located

on West First Street and a gated exit‐only driveway located on Daisy Avenue. Proposed site access

for the project would be provided via three unsignalized driveways, one located on West First Street

and two located on Daisy Avenue.

1.4.2 ‐ Utilities

The project applicant would install an underground infiltration system in conjunction with the

construction of a new 7‐Eleven convenience store and fuel station canopy in order to retain drainage

patterns. Recommendations from the Geotechnical Investigation Report (Appendix D) will also be

incorporated in the design and construction of the project, such as designing pavement and slopes

to ensure adequate drainage away from the structures.

The proposed project would be served by required public services and utilities including electricity,

natural gas, sewage, water, and solid waste removal, etc. Any existing underground utilities or

unsuitable materials on the project site would either be completely removed or rerouted within the

proposed construction areas. Table 1 lists the Utility Providers for the proposed project site.

Table 1: Utility Providers

Utility Provider

Electricity Southern California Edison (SCE)

Natural Gas Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas)

Sewage City of Santa Ana

Potable Water City of Santa Ana Municipal Utility Services

Solid Waste Removal City of Santa Ana through Waste Management

Source: Stantec Phase I ESA, 2017 (Appendix E)

1.5 ‐ Required Discretionary Approvals

The proposed project would require the following discretionary approvals:

City Approval of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Amendment Application for a Zone Change from M‐1 to C‐2

Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow after‐hours operations

1.6 ‐ Intended Uses of this Document

This Initial Study was prepared to determine the appropriate scope and level of detail required in

completing the environmental analysis for the proposed project; based on the findings of the Initial

Study, an MND was determined to be appropriate pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. This


Introduction Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration



IS/MND will serve as a basis for soliciting comments and input from members of the public and

public agencies regarding the proposed project. The Draft IS/MND will be circulated for a minimum

of 20 days, during which period comments concerning the analysis contained in the IS/MND should

be sent to:

Jerry C. Guevara, Assistant Planner I City of Santa Ana, Planning Division 20 Civic Center Plaza, Ross Annex M‐20 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Phone: 714.647.5481 Email: jguevera@santa‐ana.org

City of Santa Ana Environmental Checklist and 7‐Eleven Convenience Store and Service Station Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration



Environmental Issues

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less than Significant

Impact with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

1. Aesthetics Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway?

c) In non‐urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Environmental Setting

The project is located in a highly urbanized area. The Census Bureau defines an Urbanized Area (UA)

as one with a population of 50,000 or more people (US Census 2018). An estimated 334,136 people

live in the City (US Census 2019). According to the Santa Ana General Plan, scenic resources in the

City of Santa Ana include views of the Santa Ana Mountains (City of Santa Ana 1982). Additional

regional corridors in the City of Santa Ana include the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek, which are

part of the County Open Space network. The project is located approximately 0.86 mile east of the

Santa Ana River and approximately 1.68 miles south of Santiago Creek. According to California’s

Scenic Highway Mapping System, there are no designated Scenic Highways within the project

vicinity. The project site is located in an urbanized area adjacent to west First Street with high levels

of existing light. The adjacent commercial, residential, and light industrial uses generate light and

glare along all sides of the project site.

City of Santa Ana 7‐Eleven Convenience Store and Service Station Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation


Environmental Evaluation

Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Less than significant impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area of Santa Ana that

supports a mix of development, including commercial, residential, and light industrial land uses. The

project proposes to develop a one‐story 7‐Eleven convenience store and fuel station canopy.

According to the site plan dated September 17, 2018, the convenience store would be 26 feet and 4

inches tall. The building height and fuel station canopy would be required to comply with the City of

Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41‐379, which states that no structure shall exceed 35 feet in

height in the C‐2 zoning area. The project is located in the vicinity of the Santa Ana River and

Santiago Creek, which are approximately 0.86 mile and approximately 1.68 miles away, respectively.

The implementation of the proposed 7‐Eleven would not obstruct current views of the Santa Ana

Mountains, as the building and canopy heights would be consistent with the surrounding land uses.

As such, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas within the area;

therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,

and historic building within a state scenic highway?

Less than significant impact. According to the Scenic Corridor Element of the City’s General Plan, as

well as California’s Scenic Highway Mapping System, there are no designated Scenic Highways in the

City of Santa Ana (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2019). The project site is

currently in an urbanized built‐up area.

A letter was provided by the City dated April 18, 2019 regarding the determination of historical

significance for the building on‐site and is included in Appendix C. The letter states that the subject

building was constructed in 1960 as a drive‐in restaurant. In 1978, an addition was constructed to

the front of the building to increase dining and serving capacity, and in 1981, arches around the

restaurant windows were constructed that significantly altered the physical aesthetics of the

building. Over the years, the restaurant was occupied by multiple business owners and has been

vacant since 2016. The letter concludes that the building is not eligible for inclusion in the California

Register of Historical Resources, nor is it eligible for the Santa Ana registry because the property fails

to meet the California Register Significance Criteria. Thus, the existing building on the project site

does not qualify as a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA.

Furthermore, there are ornamental street trees along south Daisy Avenue that would remain and no

scenic resources are present on‐site. Additionally, the project site and surrounding area are not

characterized by unique visual resources or historic structures, and, therefore, less than significant

impacts would occur to scenic or historic resources.




c) In non‐urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public

views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly

accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with

applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

No impact. Because the project is located in an urbanized area, this analysis will discuss whether the

project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The City of

Santa Ana General Plan and Zoning Ordinance defines the permitted land uses and the

corresponding development standards within the City. The project site is currently zoned as Light

Industrial (M‐1) and the City of Santa Ana General Plan designation is General Commercial. Although

service stations are permitted in the M‐1 zone, a convenience store greater than 2,000‐square‐feet

in size is not permitted in the M‐1 zone. Therefore, the proposed project would seek an Amendment

Application (Zone Change) to change the zoning from M‐1 to General Commercial (C‐2) to allow for a

2,480‐square‐foot convenience store. The C‐2 zoning permits a convenience store with the approval

and issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for the after‐hours operations. The surrounding parcels

north and east of the project site are zoned C‐2, therefore a zone change would be consistent with

the existing surrounding General Plan and Zoning designations. Furthermore, the proposed project

would comply with all City code requirements related to scenic quality as part of the design review

to ensure the project design is consistent with the surrounding uses. As such, the proposed project

would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations pertaining to scenic quality and no

impacts would occur.

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime

views in the area?

Less than significant impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area with high levels of

existing light. The adjacent commercial, residential, and roadway uses generate light and glare along

all sides of the property. Existing sources of lighting in the immediate vicinity of the project include

street lighting, and neighborhood businesses and residences. The project proposes to develop a new

one‐story 7‐Eleven convenience store and fuel station canopy, and would comply with all City code

requirements related to the height and design of lighting fixtures to ensure that light spillage onto

adjacent properties does not occur. Impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

None.





Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?


Agricultural Resources

The California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

(FMMP) was established by the State Legislature in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity

of agricultural lands and conversion of these lands over time. The FMMP has established five

farmland categories:




Prime Farmland (F) is farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features

able to sustain long‐term agricultural production. This land must have been used for irrigated

agricultural production at some time during the last four years before the mapping date and have

the ability to store moisture in soil well.

Farmland of Statewide Importance (S) is similar to Prime Farmland but contains greater slopes

and a lesser ability to store soil moisture.

Unique Farmland (U) is usually irrigated, but may include non‐irrigated orchards or vineyards

as found in some climate zones in California. This land must still have been cropped some time

during four years prior to the mapping date.

Farmland of Local Importance (L) is important to the local agricultural economy as determined

by each county’s board of supervisors and local advisory committee.

Grazing Land (G) is land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen’s Association, University

of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing

activities.

According to the FMMP Orange County Important Farmland 2016, the City of Santa Ana does not

contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance parcels (DOC

2016). No farmland or agricultural activity exists on or in the vicinity of the project site. The City of

Santa Ana is designated Urban and Built‐Up Land by the FMMP, which is defined as land that is

occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six

structures to a 10‐acre parcel.

The Williamson Act, codified in 1965 as the California Land Conversation Act, allows local governments

to enter into contracts with private landowners, offering tax incentives in exchange for an agreement

that the land will remain undeveloped or related open space use only for a period of 10 years.

Additionally, according to the Williamson Act map for Orange County FMMP, the project site is not

under a Williamson Act contract and there are no Williamson Act lands in the vicinity (DOC 2012).

Forest Resources: CEQA requires the evaluation of forest and timber resources where those

resources are present; however, the project site is located within a commercial area of Santa Ana,

and there is no forest land as described in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g), timberland as

defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526, or property zoned for Timberland Production as

defined by Government Code Section 51104(g) on the site or in its vicinity.




Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as

shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the

California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use?

No impact. There is currently no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide

Importance (Farmland) within the City of Santa Ana. Therefore, impacts related to Prime Farmland,

Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) would not occur.

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

No impact. There is currently no land in Santa Ana zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson

Act contract. According to the Santa Ana General Plan, the proposed project site is zoned M‐1 and is

seeking to rezone the project site as C‐2. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with

existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impacts would occur.

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources

Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or

timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?

No impact. CEQA requires the evaluation of forest and timber resources where those resources are

present; however, the project site is located in an urban built‐up area, and there is no forest or

timberland in the vicinity. There would therefore be no associated impacts.

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?

No impact. The project is located in an urban built‐up area; there is no forest land within the vicinity

of the project site. There would be no associated impact.

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could

result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐

forest use?

No impact. As mentioned above, there is no Farmland or forest land within the vicinity of the project

site, which is located in an urban built‐up area in the City of Santa Ana. The project therefore would

not induce the conversion of Farmland to non‐agricultural uses or the conversion of forest land to

non‐forest use.

Mitigation Measures

None.






Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

3. Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?


Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable Air Quality Management

District (AQMD) or Air Pollution Control District may be relied upon to make the following

determinations.

Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Less than significant impact. The project is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), where the

area is regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for identifying non‐attainment and attainment areas for each

criteria pollutant within the Air Basin. The Air Basin is designated as nonattainment for the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 8‐hour ozone and particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or

less in diameter (PM2.5) and for the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for 8‐hour

ozone, particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10) and PM2.5.

To address regional air quality standards, the SCAQMD has adopted air quality strategies and

measures in their most recent plan, the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP). The 2016

AQMP, adopted in March 2017, serves as the regional air quality plan for the SoCAB to attain and

achieve the NAAQS. Some policy objectives of the 2016 AQMP include eliminating reliance on future

technologies measures to the maximum extent possible by providing specific control measures



which have quantifiable emissions reductions and associated costs and include developing a strategy

with fair‐share emission reductions at the deferral, state, and local levels.

To evaluate whether or not a project conflicts with, or obstructs the implementation of the 2016

AQMP, the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that there are two key indicators. The

indicators identified by the criteria are discussed below.

1. Indicator: Whether the project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of

existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely

attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the air

quality management plan.

2. Indicator: According to Chapter 12 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of

the General Plan consistency findings is to determine whether a project is inconsistent with the

growth assumptions incorporated into the air quality plan, and thus, whether it would interfere

with the region’s ability to comply with federal and California air quality standards.

Considering the recommended criteria in the CEQA Handbook, this analysis uses the following

criteria to address the indicators above and determine the project’s significance:

Criterion 1: Project’s contribution to air quality violations (SCAQMD’s first indicator);

Criterion 2: Assumptions in AQMP (SCAQMD’s second indicator); and

Criterion 3: Compliance with applicable emission control measures in the AQMPs.

Criterion 1: Project’s Contribution to Air Quality Violations

If a project’s emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile

organic compounds (VOC), PM10, or PM2.5, it follows that the emissions could cumulatively

contribute to an exceedance of a pollutant for which the basin is in nonattainment (ozone, PM10,

PM2.5) at a monitoring station in the basin. An exceedance of a nonattainment pollutant at a

monitoring station would not be consistent with the goals of the AQMP—to achieve attainment of

pollutants. As discussed in Impact AIR‐2 and AIR‐3, the project would not exceed the regional and

localized significance thresholds. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the AQMP. The

project meets this criterion, and impacts would be less than significant.

Criterion 2: Assumptions in AQMP

The development of emission burdens used in AQMPs to demonstrate compliance with ambient air

quality standards is based, in part, on land use patterns contained within local general plans.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that if a project is consistent with the applicable general plan

land use designation, and if the general plan was adopted prior to the applicable AQMP, then the

growth of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and/or population generated by said project would be

consistent with the growth in VMT and population assumed within the AQMP. As previously

discussed in Section 1, the City of Santa Ana General Plan land use designation on the project site is

General Commercial (GC) and the current zoning designation on the site is Light Industrial (M1).




The project is consistent with the general plan GC land use designation. The project would require a

zoning amendment to change its designation from M1 to General Commercial (C‐2) in order to allow

the development of the 7‐Eleven convenience store. The project site currently contains an existing

vacant restaurant. Because the existing and proposed zoning differ, the VMT for the existing and

proposed land uses were estimated to determine consistency with the land use designation.

Table 2 shows the estimated annual VMT under two scenarios: (1) developed as a 2,700–square‐foot

fast food restaurant without drive‐thru, consistent with the zoning designation and existing land use;

and (2) developed in accordance with the proposed project. As shown in Table 2, the project would

reduce annual VMT compared to the allowable uses under the existing zoning designation.

Table 2: Vehicle Miles Traveled Comparison

Scenario Total Annual VMT

Project site developed as fast food restaurant without drive‐thru, consistent with the current General Plan designation1

3,336,253

Project site developed in accordance with the proposed project 1,539,937

Notes: VMT = vehicle miles traveled 1 Land use permitted by the City’s current M1 zoning designation. The current GC General Plan

designation permits a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5, which would allow for a maximum of approximately 8,600 square feet. However, as a conservative measure, 2,700 square feet size is utilized, which is approximately the size of the existing vacant restaurant structure on‐site.

Source of existing general plan land use designation VMT: CalEEMod output for 2,700‐square‐foot fast food restaurant without drive‐thru. Source of project VMT: CalEEMod output based on assumptions consistent with the 1904 West First Street 7‐Eleven Convenience Market and Gas Station Traffic Site Analysis Report prepared by RK Engineering Group (2018). See Appendix A for complete CalEEMod outputs.

Because the project would not increase the VMT generated by the project site compared to the

assumptions used in the AQMP, it is reasonable to conclude that the growth supported by the

project is accounted for in the AQMP. The project would have less than significant impacts under this

criterion.

Criterion 3: Control Measures

The AQMP contains a number of control measures, which are enforceable requirements through the

adoption of rules and regulations. The project would comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and

regulations. Therefore, the project complies with this criterion and would not conflict with or

obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality attainment plan.

Summary

In summary, the project would not exceed the growth assumptions in the AQMP. The project would

not result in a regional or localized exceedance of criteria air pollutants and would comply with all

applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations. Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with

or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans, and, therefore, the impact would be

less than significant.



b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project

region is non‐attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard

(including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

Less than significant impact. This impact is related to regional criteria pollutant impacts. However, by

its nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact resulting from emissions generated over a large

geographic region. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present

development within the air basin, and this regional impact is a cumulative impact. In other words, new

development projects (such as the proposed project) within the air basin would contribute to this

impact only on a cumulative basis. No single project would be sufficient in size, by itself, to result in

nonattainment of regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually

limited, but cumulatively considerable when taken in combination with past, present, and future

development projects.

The cumulative analysis focuses on whether a specific project would result in cumulatively

considerable emissions. According to Section 15064(h)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, the existence of

significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone does not constitute substantial evidence

that the project’s incremental effects would be cumulatively considerable.

Rather, the determination of cumulative air quality impacts for construction and operational emissions

is based on whether the project would result in regional emissions that exceed SCAQMD regional

thresholds of significance for construction and operations on a project level. Projects that generate

emissions below the SCAQMD significance thresholds would be considered consistent with regional air

quality planning efforts and would not generate cumulatively considerable emissions. As previously

mentioned, the nonattainment regional criteria pollutants of concern are ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.

Ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is a regional pollutant formed by photochemical reactions

in the atmosphere. Ozone precursors, VOC and NOX, react in the atmosphere in the presence of

sunlight to form ozone. Therefore, the SCAQMD does not have a recommended ozone threshold, but it

does have thresholds of significance for VOC and NOX.

Potential impacts would result if there were exceedances of State or federal standards for NOX, carbon

monoxide (CO), or particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). NOX emissions are of concern because of

potential health impacts from exposure to NOX emissions during both construction and operation

and as a precursor in the formation of airborne ozone. CO emissions are of concern during project

operation because CO hotspots can be related to increases in on‐road vehicle congestion. PM10 and

PM2.5 are of concern during construction because of the potential to emit exhaust emissions from

the operation of off‐road construction equipment and fugitive dust during earth‐disturbing activities

(construction fugitive dust).

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2 was used to estimate the

projects construction and operational emissions. CalEEMod is designed to provide a consistent

platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professional to quantify

potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with construction and




operation activities from a variety of land use projects. The current version of CalEEMod uses

OFFROAD and EMFAC2014 emission factors.

The project’s regional construction and operational emissions, which include both on‐site and off‐

site emissions, are described and evaluated separately below.

Construction Regional Emissions

Construction emissions are described as “short‐term” or temporary in duration; however, they have

the potential to represent a significant impact with respect to air quality. Construction of the project

would result in the temporary generation of VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from

construction activities such as demolition, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and

asphalt paving. Fugitive PM dust emissions are primarily associated with earth disturbance and

grading activities, and vary as a function of soil silt content, soil moisture, wind speed, acreage of

disturbance area, and miles traveled by construction vehicles on‐site and off‐site. Construction‐

related NOX emissions are primarily generated by exhaust emissions from heavy‐duty construction

equipment, material and haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles. VOC emissions are mainly

generated by exhaust emissions from construction vehicles, off‐gas emissions associated with

architectural coatings and asphalt paving.

For the purposes of this analysis, construction of the project is anticipated to begin in October 2019

and last 7 months. The construction equipment is currently unknown, and is thus based on

CalEEMod defaults. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represent a

reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required by the CEQA Guidelines.

Full construction emissions modeling parameters and assumptions are provided in Appendix B.1.

Table 3 presents the project’s maximum daily construction emissions compared to the applicable

SCAQMD significance thresholds.

Table 3: Regional Construction Emissions by Construction Activity

Activity

Mass Daily Emissions (pounds per day)

NOX VOC CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

Demolition—2019 8.99 1.01 8.11 0.01 0.77 0.57

Grading—2019 9.29 1.02 8.19 0.01 0.99 0.72

Building Construction—2019 10.18 1.00 7.87 0.01 0.71 0.59

Building Construction—2020 9.18 0.90 7.69 0.01 0.62 0.51

Paving—2020 7.28 0.90 7.65 0.01 0.60 0.42

Architectural Coating—2020 1.68 2.54 1.86 0.00 0.12 0.11

Overlap—Paving/Coating—2020 8.96 3.44 9.51 0.01 0.72 0.53

Maximum Daily Emissions 10.18 3.44 9.51 0.01 0.99 0.72

SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds

100 75 550 150 150 55



Table 3 (cont.): Regional Construction Emissions by Construction Activity

Activity

Mass Daily Emissions (pounds per day)

NOX VOC CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No

Notes: NOX = oxides of nitrogen; VOC = volatile organic compounds; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX= sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers. Credit for Rule 403 Fugitive Dust has been taken Source of emissions: FCS 2019—For each source, the maximum emissions between summer and winter are shown. Emissions may vary slightly due to rounding.

As shown in Table 3, the project’s regional daily construction emissions would not exceed any of

SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Therefore, the short‐term construction emissions would not

result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project

region is non‐attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.

Operational Regional Emissions

Following construction of the project, long‐term operational emissions would be generated, resulting

from the day‐to‐day operations. Operational emissions for land use development projects are typically

distinguished as mobile‐, area‐, and energy‐source emissions. Mobile‐source emissions are those

associated with automobiles that would travel to and from the project site. Area‐source emissions are

those associated with natural gas combustion for space and water heating, landscape maintenance

activities, and periodic architectural coatings. Energy‐source emissions are those associated with

electricity consumption and are more pertinent for GHG emissions than air quality pollutants.

Table 4 presents the project’s maximum daily operational emissions between summer and winter

seasons. For detailed assumptions, methodologies, and models used to estimate emissions, please

refer to Appendix B.1.

Table 4: Operational Regional Pollutants

Emissions Source

Pounds per Day1

VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

Area 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mobile 2.89 8.47 19.34 0.04 3.32 0.92

Gasoline and transfer dispensing activities2 1.45 — — — — —

Total 2.97 8.47 19.34 0.04 3.32 0.92

SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55




Table 4 (cont.): Operational Regional Pollutants

Emissions Source

Pounds per Day1

VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No No No

Notes: NOX = nitrogen oxides; VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers 1 For each source, the maximum emissions between summer and winter are shown. 2 VOC emissions from gasoline transfer and dispensing activities at the proposed gas station are were calculated based

on maximum VOC limits of 0.15 pounds of VOC per 1,000 gallons from the loading of gasoline into storage tanks, and 0.38 pounds of VOC per 1,000 gallons from the dispensing of gasoline into vehicle fuel tanks. It was conservatively estimated that the gas station would have an annual throughput of 1 million gallons of gasoline.

Source: CalEEMod and FCS, see Appendix B.1. Emissions may vary slightly due to rounding.

As shown in Table 4, the project’s regional daily operational emissions would not exceed any of

SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Therefore, the long‐term daily operational emissions do not

result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project

region is non‐attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard and

impacts are less than significant.

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less than significant impact. This impact evaluates the potential for the project’s construction and

operational emissions to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration. Sensitive

receptors are defined as those individuals who are sensitive to air pollution including children, the

elderly, and persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness. For purposes of CEQA, the

SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for

24 hours, such as residences, hospitals, or convalescent facilities (SCAQMD 2009). Commercial and

industrial facilities are not included in the definition because employees do not typically remain on‐site

for 24 hours. However, when assessing the impact of pollutants with 1‐hour or 8‐hour standards (such

as NO2 and CO), commercial and/or industrial facilities would be considered sensitive receptors.

For the proposed project, the closest sensitive receptors are the single‐family residences to the

north and eastern border of the project site. This analysis evaluates the potential for construction‐

and operational‐related criteria air pollutant, ozone precursor, and toxic air contaminant (TAC)

emissions to impact sensitive receptors.

Localized Significance Threshold Analysis—Criteria Pollutants

The localized construction and operational analyses use thresholds (i.e., localized significance

thresholds [LSTs]) that represent the maximum emissions for a project that would not cause or

contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality

standard (SCAQMD 2009). If the project’s construction or operational emissions are under those



thresholds, it follows that the project would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the

standard and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Localized Construction Analysis

The LST Methodology only applies to on‐site emissions and states that “off‐site mobile emissions from

the project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.”1 Therefore, for purposes of the

construction LST analysis, only on‐site emissions were compared with the applicable LSTs.

Table 5 presents the project’s maximum daily on‐site emissions compared with the applicable LSTs.

The LSTs have been obtained from the LST Methodology for a project located in the SCAQMD

defined Source Receptor Area 17, a 1‐acre project site, and the nearest sensitive receptor being less

than 25 meters away. Emissions estimates account for implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403, which

is required for all projects regardless of significance.

Table 5: Construction Localized Impacts

Activity

On‐site Emissions (pounds per day)

NOX CO PM10 PM2.5

Demolition‐2019 8.60 7.69 0.64 0.53

Grading‐2019 8.60 7.69 0.83 0.67

Building Construction‐2019 9.82 7.54 0.61 0.56

Building Construction‐2020 8.85 7.39 0.52 0.48

Paving‐2020 0.82 7.11 0.40 0.37

Architectural Coating‐2020 2.54 1.83 0.11 0.11

Maximum Daily On‐Site Emissions 9.82 8.94 0.83 0.67

Localized Significance Threshold 81 485 4 3

Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO

Notes: NOX = oxides of nitrogen; VOC = volatile organic compounds; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX= sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers. Source of emissions: FCS 2019—For each source, the maximum emissions between summer and winter are shown. Emissions may vary slightly due to rounding. Source of thresholds: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2009, for SRA 17, 25 meters, 1‐acre site.

As shown in Table 5, the project’s maximum daily on‐site emissions would not exceed any of the

applicable SCAQMD LSTs. Therefore, the project’s construction activities would not cause or contribute

substantially to an existing or future ambient air quality standard violation. Accordingly, the project’s

1 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Page 1‐4. July.




construction‐related criteria air pollutant and ozone precursor concentrations would not expose

sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The impact would be less than significant.

Localized Operational Analysis

Similar to the construction LST analysis above, the applicable operational LSTs were obtained for a

project located in SRA 17, a 1‐acre project site, and the nearest sensitive receptor being less than 25

meters away.

As described above, the LST Methodology recommends that only on‐site emissions are evaluated

using LSTs. Because a majority of the project’s mobile‐source emissions would occur on the local and

regional roadway network away from the project, only the on‐site area‐, energy‐, and mobile‐source

emissions were included in this analysis. Six percent of the CalEEMod calculated mobile source

emissions was used to account for on‐site emissions from mobile sources, which accounts for vehicle

emissions that occur within approximately a half mile of the project site, and was included to

provide for a worst‐case analysis. Table 6 presents the project’s maximum daily on‐site emissions

compared with the applicable LSTs.

Table 6: Operational Localized Impacts

Emissions Source

Pounds per Day

NOX CO PM10 PM2.5

Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mobile 0.51 1.16 0.20 0.06

Total 0.51 1.16 0.20 0.06

Localized Significance Threshold 81 485 1 1

Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No

Notes: NOX = nitrogen oxides VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds CO = carbon monoxide PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers Source of thresholds: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2009, for SRA 17, 25 meters, 1‐acre site. Source: CalEEMod and FCS, see Appendix A

As shown in Table 6, the project’s maximum daily on‐site operational emissions would not exceed

any of the applicable SCAQMD LSTs. Therefore, the project’s operational activities would not cause

or contribute substantially to an existing or future ambient air quality standard violation.

Accordingly, the project’s operational criteria air pollutant and ozone precursor concentrations

would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Toxic Air Contaminants

A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or

serious illness, or which may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute



quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public

health even at low concentrations.

Some studies indicate that diesel particulate matter (DPM) poses the greatest health risk among the

TACs listed above. A 10‐year research program California Air Resources Board (ARB 1998)

demonstrated that DPM from diesel‐fueled engines is a human carcinogen and that chronic (long‐

term) inhalation exposure to DPM poses a chronic health risk.

The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk and is a

function of concentration and duration of exposure. According to the Office of Environmental Health

Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments that determine the health risks associated with exposure

of residential receptors to TAC emissions should be based on a 30‐year exposure period, and health

risk assessments that address the health risk associated with exposure of children to TAC emissions

should be based on a 9‐year exposure period. TAC exposure to children is of special concern because

children typically metabolize more air per unit of body weight in comparison to adults, and they can be

more sensitive to toxics during development. However, health risk assessments should be limited to

the period/duration of activities associated with the emissions activity.

Toxic Air Pollutants—Construction

The construction period and potential exposure duration from construction activities would last

approximately 7 months, which is less than 2 percent of the total exposure time of 30 years for a

health risk assessment prepared in accordance with guidance from the SCAQMD. The proposed

project would not involve any highly intensive construction activities, and significant earthmoving

activities that would require substantial construction equipment are not anticipated as necessary for

the proposed project. Therefore, based on the relatively short construction period and intermittent

nature of construction emissions, the period of time that sensitive receptors would potentially be

exposed to short‐term construction activities would not rise to a “dose” level that would result in a

health hazard or exceed applicable standards.

Toxic Air Pollutants—Operations

Common sources of TACs include high traffic freeways, distribution centers, large fueling stations,

and dry cleaners. Operation of the project would not include those uses and therefore would not

emit TACs. Additional information regarding the project’s gas dispensing component is provided

below.

The ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook contains recommendations that will “help keep

California’s children and other vulnerable populations out of harm’s way with respect to nearby

sources of air pollution” (ARB 2005), including recommendations for distances between sensitive

receptors and certain land uses. The recommendation for siting fueling stations is as follows.

Fueling stations. The ARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a

large fueling station (a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A

50‐foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.




Proposed mechanical ventilation systems could be located as close as 125 feet from the nearest off‐

site noise‐sensitive receptor, which is the single‐family residential home located at 109 South Daisy

Avenue. That distance is greater than the 50‐foot separation recommended for typical gas

dispensing facilities. SCAQMD has developed estimates of cancer risks from industry‐wide source

categories, including retail gasoline dispensing facilities. The methodology used to estimate those

risks are consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1401 and (2) California Air Pollution Control Officer

Association risk assessment guidance for gasoline service stations. At a distance of 125 feet from the

proposed gas station pump, the nearest sensitive receptor would be exposed to a cancer risk of 2.43

in one million (SCAQMD 2007a).2 TAC emissions created from charbroilers at the proposed fast food

restaurants are negligible, and would result in a less than significant cancer risk. The proposed

project conservatively estimates a throughput of 1 million gallons per year and, therefore, does not

qualify as a “large fueling station.” The project would be subject to annual throughput reporting

required by the SCAQMD. Furthermore, the project would be subject to State and regional

requirements for vapor recovery systems to control gasoline emissions. Based on the distance to the

nearest sensitive receptors and adherence to regulations, impacts would be less than significant.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspot Analysis

Project trips would contribute to vehicle volumes at existing and future local intersections. Local

mobile‐source CO emissions and concentrations near roadway intersections are a direct function of

traffic volume, speed, and delay. Transport of CO is extremely limited because it disperses rapidly

with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. However, under specific

meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near roadways and/or intersections may reach

unhealthy levels with respect to local sensitive land uses, such as residential units, hospitals, schools,

and childcare facilities.

With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels and implementation of more

stringent emissions control technology, CO concentrations in the SCAQMD have steadily declined. CO

is not a pollutant of concern in the region and all air monitoring stations in the Air Basin have

discontinued monitoring for this pollutant in the last 3 years.

Nevertheless, as part of the demonstration of CO attainment for the SoCAB (2003 Air Quality

Management Plan and 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide), SCAQMD evaluated

potential CO exceedance throughout the air basin. As discussed in the 1992 CO Plan, peak CO

concentrations in the SoCAB are due to unusual meteorological and topographical conditions, and

not due to the impact of particular intersections. In the 1992 CO Plan, SCAQMD performed a CO

hotspot analysis for the four busiest intersections in Los Angeles at the AM and PM peak‐hour. The

busiest intersection (Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue), which had traffic volumes of

approximately 100,000 vehicles per day, was determined not to generate a CO hotspot even at peak

AM and PM conditions. Thus, intersections with fewer than 100,000 vehicles per day would also not

be anticipated to result in a CO hotspot.

2 The estimate of 2.43 in a million is based on the estimated cancer risk from Anaheim, which is the closest service station in Table 3

of the SCAQMD document, a 30‐meter receptor distance, and a 1 million gallon per year throughput volume.



The First Street 7‐Eleven Convenience Market and Gas Station Traffic Site Analysis Report identified

the peak‐hour traffic volumes for six intersections affected by the project (RKEG 2018). As identified

in the Traffic Site Analysis, the maximum peak‐hour intersection volume would occur at the

intersection of Raitt Street and West First Street during PM peak hour. The estimated cumulative

traffic volume at this intersection is 4,505 PM peak‐hour trips. Using a conservative factor of 10 to

calculate daily vehicles, this maximally impacted intersection would service approximately 45,050

vehicles per day, which is substantially less than the 100,000 vehicles determined in SCAQMD’s CO

hotspot analysis. Furthermore, this peak hourly intersection traffic volume would be less than other

air district CO hotspot screening values such as those of the Bay Area Air Quality Management

District (44,000 vehicles per hour) and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management

District (31,600 vehicles per hour). Therefore, the Project Plus Cumulative traffic would not

contribute a substantial amount of traffic to existing or future intersections that could result in a CO

hotspot. Therefore, the operational CO impact would be less than significant.

d) Result in other emission (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial

number of people?

Less than significant impact. Odors can cause a variety of responses. The impact of an odor is

dependent on interacting factors such as frequency (how often), intensity (strength), duration (in

time), offensiveness (unpleasantness), location, and sensory perception. While offensive odors rarely

cause any physical harm, they still can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress and often

generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies. Odor‐related symptoms

reported in a number of studies include nervousness, headache, sleeplessness, fatigue, dizziness,

nausea, loss of appetite, stomach ache, sinus congestion, eye irritation, nose irritation, runny nose,

sore throat, cough, and asthma exacerbation (SCAQMD 2007).

The SCAQMD’s role is to protect the public’s health from air pollution by overseeing and enforcing

regulations (SCAQMD 2007). The SCAQMD’s resolution activity for odor compliance is mandated

under California Health and Safety Code Section 41700, and falls under SCAQMD Rule 402. This rule

on Public Nuisance Regulation states: “A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such

quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or

annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort,

repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural

tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.”

The SCAQMD does not provide a suggested screening distance for a variety of odor‐generating land

uses and operations. However, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) does

have a screening distance for odor sources. Those distances are used as a guide to assess whether

nearby facilities could be sources of significant odors. Projects that would site a new receptor farther

than the applicable screening distances from an existing odor source would not be likely to have a

significant impact. These screening distances by type of odor generator are listed in Table 7.




Table 7: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources

Odor Generator Screening Distance

Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles

Sanitary Landfill 1 mile

Transfer Station 1 mile

Composting Facility 1 mile

Petroleum Refinery 2 miles

Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile

Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile

Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile

Painting/Coating Operations (e.g., auto body shop) 1 mile

Food Processing Facility 1 mile

Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile

Rendering Plant 1 mile

Source: SJVAPCD 2015.

Construction‐related Odors

Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include exhaust from diesel

construction equipment. However, because of the temporary nature of these emissions, the

intermittent nature of construction activities, and the highly diffusive properties of diesel PM

exhaust, nearby receptors would not be affected by diesel exhaust odors associated with project

construction. Odors from these sources would be localized and generally confined to the immediate

area surrounding the proposed project site. The proposed project would utilize typical construction

techniques, and the odors would be typical of most construction sites and temporary in nature.

Operational‐related Odors

The project would develop a convenience market with gas pumps, which are not typical odor‐

generating land uses. Land uses typically considered associated with odors include wastewater

treatment facilities, waste‐disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. Minor sources of odors, such

as exhaust from mobile sources, are not typically associated with numerous odor complaints, but are

known to have temporary and less concentrated odors. The project could also result in odor from

dispensing gasoline. The gas pumping areas are located over 125 feet from the nearest sensitive

receptors; therefore, the odors from dispensing gasoline are not expected to be detectible to off‐site

sensitive receptors. Considering the low intensity of potential odor emissions, the project’s

operational activities would not expose receptors to objectionable odor emissions.



The Project as a Sensitive Receptor

As a convenience market with gas pumps, the project is not considered a sensitive receptor site and

would not have the potential to place sensitive receptors near existing odor sources.

The project would not result in other emissions that could adversely affect a substantial number of

people; therefore, impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

None.






Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

4. Biological Resources Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?


Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species

identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species in local or regional plans, policies, or

regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. A site reconnaissance visit was

conducted on February 28, 2018, by FCS Environmental Specialist, Brittany Hagen. Existing



conditions on the project site were documented, habitats on the project site were identified, and

their potential to sustain special‐status species was evaluated. The project site is fully developed.

Vegetation observed on‐site is characteristic of urbanized areas and includes chicory (Cichorium

intybus), Russian thistle (Salsola iberica), dandelion (Taraxacum spp.), and several ornamental plants

in a planter along the northern periphery of the site along West First Street. The immediate project

site does not contain any trees; however, pine trees are located adjacent to the site on South Daisy

Avenue and West Walnut Street.

Special‐Status Plant Species

A total of 24 special‐status plant species were evaluated for their potential to occur on the project

site, based on their ecology, habitat requirements, and regional occurrences. It was determined,

based on the absence of suitable habitat and/or distance to known occurrences, that all 24 special‐

status plant species were absent from the project site. No special‐status plant species are expected

to occur on‐site, and no further studies are necessary.

Special‐Status Wildlife Species

A total of 23 special‐status wildlife species were evaluated for their potential to occur on the project

site, based on their habitat requirements and regional occurrences. Of the 23 special‐status wildlife

species evaluated, only one species, western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) has the

potential, albeit low, to occur within the project site due to the presence of marginal roosting habitat

within the vacant building on the project site. Although no roosting was observed during the site

reconnaissance visit, the western mastiff bat is primarily a crevice dwelling species. A number of

roosts in California have been located in appropriately proportioned cracks in buildings (Pierson

1998). In all cases, the bats are in a crevice of at least 10 feet above the ground (Pierson 1998).

Impacts to this species, if found on‐site, would be considered significant. Implementation of

Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO‐1a would reduce potential impacts to the western mastiff bat to a less

than significant level by requiring pre‐construction surveys to avoid disturbing active roosts.

As noted above, there are no trees within the project site, but trees adjacent to the project site have

the potential to provide habitat for nesting birds and raptors protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty

Act (MBTA) and Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. Construction activity associated with the

project could disrupt nesting birds and raptors. As such, implementation of MM BIO‐1b is required to

reduce potential impacts to migratory and nesting birds and raptors protected under the MBTA to a

less than significant level by requiring preconstruction surveys to be conducted and alteration of

construction activities to avoid disturbance of any active nests. With the implementation of MM BIO‐

1b, impacts to special‐status bird species would be less than significant.

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community

identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of

Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

No impact. The site is fully developed, consisting of a restaurant and paved parking lot. The project

site does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Therefore, the project




would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural

community. No impact would occur.

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not

limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological

interruption, or other means?

No impact. The site is fully developed, consisting of a restaurant and paved parking lot. The site does

not contain any wetlands or other areas designated as waters of the U.S. or State. Therefore, the

project would not have a substantially adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands. No

impact would occur.

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife

species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of

wildlife nursery sites?

Less than significant impact. The project is located in an urban and built‐up area of Santa Ana. The

site is surrounded by development and highly trafficked roads to the north, east, and west, and a

vacant lot to the south. The project site contains impervious surfaces, lacks native vegetation, and is

surrounded by urban development including walls, residential housing, businesses, and busy

roadways. These structures serve as significant barriers to wildlife movement through the project

site and vicinity. As such, the project is not expected to interfere substantially with the movement of

native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.

Impacts would be less than significant.

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree

preservation policy or ordinance?

No impact. There are several pine trees located in the project vicinity. However, there are no trees

on the project site, and the project would not remove any trees. The City of Santa Ana does not have

a native tree or native shrub protective ordinance and Chapter 33, Article VII, Sections 33–181 of the

City of Santa Ana Municipal Code does not provide specific protection for trees on private property.

As such, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological

resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No impacts would occur.

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community

Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?

No impact. The project does not fall within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, regional or local,

and is not subject to the rules or regulations of any other Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural

Community Conservation Plan. As such, no impact would occur.



Mitigation Measures

Roosting Bats

Implementation of the following avoidance and minimization measures would reduce impacts to

roosting bats, specifically to the western mastiff bat.

MM BIO‐1a Prior to demolition, a qualified wildlife biologist will conduct clearance surveys for

special‐status bats concurrently with the nesting birds pre‐construction survey to

confirm there is no roosting on‐site. Survey methodology may include visual surveys of

bats (e.g., observation of bats during foraging period), inspection for suitable habitat,

bat sign (e.g., guano), or use of ultrasonic detectors (Anabat, etc.). Visual surveys will

include the existing vacant structure and trees located on the project site. The type of

survey will depend on the condition of the potential roosting habitat. If no bat roosts

are found, then no further study is required.

If evidence of bat use is observed, the number and species of bats using the roost

will be determined. Bat detectors may be used to supplement survey efforts.

If roosts are determined to be present and must be removed, the bats will be

excluded from the roosting site before the facility is removed. A mitigation program

addressing compensation, exclusion methods, and roost removal procedures will be

developed prior to implementation. Exclusion methods may include the use of one‐

way doors at roost entrances (bats may leave but cannot not reenter), or sealing

roost entrances when the site can be confirmed to contain no bats. Exclusion efforts

may be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or

while females in maternity colonies are nursing young).

If roosts cannot be avoided or it is determined that construction activities may cause

roost abandonment, such activities may not commence until permanent, elevated bat

houses have been installed outside of, but near to, the construction area. Placement

and height will be determined by a qualified wildlife biologist, but the height of the bat

house will be at least 15 feet. Bat houses will be multi‐chambered and will be

purchased or constructed in accordance with CDFW standards. The number of bat

houses required will be dependent upon the size and number of colonies found, but at

least one bat house will be installed for each pair of bats (if occurring individually), or

of sufficient number to accommodate each colony of bats to be relocated.

Nesting Birds

MM BIO‐1b If construction activity associated with development of the property is to occur

during nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall

conduct a pre‐construction survey for nesting birds to identify any potential nesting

activity. The pre‐construction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted within 14

days prior to any construction‐related activities (grading, ground clearing, etc.). If

nesting birds are identified on‐site, a buffer (e.g., 250 feet for raptors, 100 feet for

native songbirds) shall be maintained around the nests; no construction‐related




activities shall be permitted within the buffer. A qualified biologist shall monitor the

nests, and construction activities may commence within the buffer area at the

discretion and in the presence of the biological monitor. This mitigation measure is

not required if construction activities occur outside of the nesting bird season

(September 1 through January 31).





Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

5. Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as pursuant to Section 15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

d) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or

e) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.


Cultural Resources

Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as pursuant to

Section 15064.5?

Less than significant impact. A Cultural Resources records search for the project area was conducted

on March 11, 2019, and is included as Appendix C. The search was conducted by FCS staff at the

California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), South Central Coastal Information Center

(SCCIC) located at California State University, Fullerton. The search was conducted to identify all




previously conducted cultural resources work as well as identify any previously recorded cultural

resources within a one‐mile radius of the project area. The results of the records search show that 61

resources have been recorded within a 1‐mile radius of the project site, but none are located on the

project site. Of these, 60 resources consist of historic period single‐family residences and various

commercial buildings and one is a prehistoric site. Additionally, at least 36 cultural resources studies

have been conducted within a 1‐mile radius of the project site, none of which included the project site.

A letter was provided by the City dated April 18, 2019 regarding the determination of historical

significance for the building on‐site and is included in Appendix C. The letter states that the subject

building was constructed in 1960 as a drive‐in restaurant. In 1978, an addition was constructed to

the front of the building to increase dining and serving capacity, and in 1981, arches around the

restaurant windows were constructed that significantly altered the physical aesthetics of the

building. Over the years, the restaurant was occupied by multiple business owners and has been

vacant since 2016. The letter concludes that the building is not eligible for inclusion in the California

Register of Historical Resources, nor is it eligible for the Santa Ana registry because the property fails

to meet the California Register Significance Criteria. Thus, the existing building on the project site

does not qualify as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to

Section 15064.5?

Less than significant impact. A Cultural Resources records search for the project area was conducted

on March 11, 2019, and is included as Appendix C. The search was conducted by FCS staff at the

CHRIS SCCIC located at California State University, Fullerton. The search was conducted to identify all

previously conducted cultural resources work as well as identify any previously recorded cultural

resources within a one‐mile radius of the project area. The results of the records search show that

61 resources have been recorded within a 1‐mile radius of the project site, but none are located on

the project site. Of these, 60 resources consist of historic period single‐family residences and various

commercial buildings and one is a prehistoric site. Additionally, at least 36 cultural resources studies

have been conducted within a 1‐mile radius of the project site, none of which included the entire

project site. The project would be subject to compliance with Standard Condition (SC) 2.5‐1, which

provides direction in the event archaeological resources are unearthed during project subsurface

activities. Therefore, project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to

archaeological resources.

c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Less than significant impact. The past disturbance of the site makes it improbable that construction

of the project would impact human remains, as it is developed with an existing restaurant. No

human remains or cemeteries are known to exist in or near the project area. However, there is

always the possibility that subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project,

such as trenching and grading, could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human

remains. In the event that human remains are encountered during earth removal or disturbance

activities, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that all activities cease



immediately and a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor be contacted immediately.

The Coroner would also be contacted pursuant to Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public

Resources Code relative to Native American remains. Should the Coroner determine the human

remains to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American

Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission would then be required to contact

the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who would then serve as consultant

on how to proceed with the remains. Compliance with the established regulatory framework

(California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98), as

required by SC 2.5‐3, would reduce potential impacts involving disturbance of human remains to

less than significant.

Tribal Cultural Resources

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource,

defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape

that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object

with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

d) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register

of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or

No impact. A Cultural Resources records search for the project area was conducted on March 11, 2019,

and is included as Appendix C. The search was conducted by FCS staff at the CHRIS SCCIC located at

California State University, Fullerton. The search was conducted to identify all previously conducted

cultural resources work as well as identify any previously recorded cultural resources within a one‐mile

radius of the project area. The results of the records search show that 61 resources have been

recorded within a 1‐mile radius of the project site, but none are located on the project site. Of these,

60 resources consist of historic period single‐family residences and various commercial buildings and

one is a prehistoric site. Additionally, at least 36 cultural resources studies have been conducted within

a 1‐mile radius of the project site, none of which included the project site.

e) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial

evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources

Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code

Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California

Native American tribe.

No impact. A Cultural Resources records search for the project area was conducted on March 11, 2019,

and is included as Appendix C. The search was conducted by FCS staff at the CHRIS SCCIC located at

California State University, Fullerton. The search was conducted to identify all previously conducted

cultural resources work as well as identify any previously recorded cultural resources within a one‐mile

radius of the project area. The results of the records search show that 61 resources have been

recorded within a 1‐mile radius of the project site, but none are located on the project site. Of these,

60 resources consist of historic period single‐family residences and various commercial buildings and




one is a prehistoric site. Additionally, at least 36 cultural resources studies have been conducted within

a 1‐mile radius of the project site, none of which included the project site.

Standard Conditions

SC 2.5‐1 In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during grading and

construction, all construction activities shall be temporarily halted or redirected to

permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of archaeological materials as

determined by the City, who shall establish with a certified archaeologist, the

appropriate procedures for exploration and/or salvage of the artifacts.

SC 2.5‐2 If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5

states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a

determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section

5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the

remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native

American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most

Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her

authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD

shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD

may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains

and items associated with Native American burials.

Mitigation Measures

None.





Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

6. Energy Would the project:

a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?


Would the project:

a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or

unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

A significant impact would occur if the project would result in the wasteful, inefficient or

unnecessary use of energy.

Construction

Less than significant impact. During construction, the project would result in energy consumption

through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and

construction equipment, and the use of electricity for temporary buildings, lighting, and other sources.

Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other energy‐consuming equipment would be used

during demolition, grading, paving, and building construction. The types of equipment could include

gasoline‐ and diesel‐powered construction and transportation equipment, including trucks, bulldozers,

frontend loaders, forklifts, and cranes. Based on California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)

estimations within the modeling output files used to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

associated with the proposed project, construction‐related vehicle trips would consume an estimated

1,194 gallons of gasoline and diesel combined during the construction phase (Appendix B).

Limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment and requirements that equipment be properly

maintained would result in fuel savings. California regulations limit idling from both on‐road and off‐

road diesel‐powered equipment and are enforced by the ARB (California Code of Regulations [CCR]

Title 13 § 2449(d)(2) and 2485). Also, given the cost of fuel, contractors and owners have a strong

financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during

construction.




Other equipment could include construction lighting, field services (office trailers), and electrically

driven equipment such as pumps and other tools. The City’s permissible hours for construction are

7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, except on federal holidays (City of Santa Ana

2018). As on‐site construction activities would be restricted between these hours, it is anticipated

that the use of construction lighting would be minimal. Single‐wide mobile office trailers, which are

commonly used in construction staging areas, generally range in size from 160 square feet to 720

square feet. A typical 720‐square‐foot office trailer would consume approximately 5,318 kilowatt

hours (kWh) during the approximately 7‐month construction phase (Appendix B). Due to the

temporary nature of construction and the financial incentives for developers and contractors to use

energy‐consuming resources in an efficient manner, the construction phase of the proposed project

would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

Operation

Less than significant impact. The operational phase of the project would consume energy as part of

building operations and transportation activities. Building operations for the project would involve

energy consumption for multiple purposes including, but not limited to, building heating and

cooling, lighting, and electronics, as well as parking lot lighting. Based on CalEEMod estimations

within the modeling output files used to estimate GHG emissions associated with the proposed

project, building operations, including parking lot lighting, would consume approximately 39,318

kWh per year (kWh/year) of electricity, and an estimated 6,580 kilo‐British thermal units per year

(kBTU/year) of natural gas (Appendix B). The total electricity consumption of the City of Santa Ana’s

municipal operations in the year 2008 was 57.7 million kWh (Local Governments for Sustainability

[ICLEI] 2015). Energy consumption of the proposed project represents 0.07 percent of the City’s

2008 municipal electricity consumption. Table 8 shows energy consumption of the proposed

project’s operations relative to the County’s non‐residential, residential, and total energy

consumption.

Table 8: Project Operation and County Annual Energy Consumption

Sector Electricity Consumption

(kWh/yr) Natural Gas Consumption

(kBTU/yr)

Project Operations (Building, Parking Lot Lighting) 39,318 6,580

Orange County Non‐residential (2017) 13.3 billion 23.2 billion

Orange County Residential (2017) 6.7 billion 34.4 billion

Orange County Total (2017) 20.0 billion 57.6 billion

Source for project operations energy consumption: FCS 2019, Appendix B Source for County energy consumption: California Energy Commission (CEC) 2019.

Operational energy would also be consumed during vehicle trips associated with the project. Fuel

consumption would be primarily related to vehicle use by employees and visitors associated with the

proposed convenience market and gas station. Based on the estimates contained in the CalEEMod

output files, project‐related vehicle trips would result in approximately 1.54 million vehicle miles



traveled, and consume an estimated 63,572 gallons of gasoline and diesel combined on an annual

basis. Complete CalEEMod output files are included in Appendix B. The project is located within 3

miles of multiple interchanges for Interstate 5 and State Route 22. As such, it would be in proximity

to two regional routes of travel, thus further reducing fuel consumption demand. The First and Raitt

Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) 64Xpress bus stop is located 0.1 mile east of the project site,

offering a nearby option for public transportation to and from the site. For these reasons,

transportation fuel consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

The proposed project’s building would be designed and constructed in accordance with the State’s

Title 24 energy efficiency standards. These standards, widely regarded as the most advanced energy

efficiency standards, would help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating,

and heating and air conditioning in buildings and promote energy conservation. The City of Santa

Ana further supports energy conservation through policies, programs, and measures contained

within the Energy Element of its General Plan (City of Santa Ana 1982) and the Santa Ana Climate

Action Plan (ICLEI 2015). Both of these plans reinforce energy performance requirements, in

accordance with the State’s building code standard. The City’s General Plan and Climate Action Plan

also include voluntary policies, programs, and measures to promote energy conservation and the

reduction of non‐renewable energy consumption. One such measure encourages solar power and

solar heat fixtures for businesses, and would offer rebates or incentive payments for installation of

solar PV. Another measure helps small businesses identify ways to save electricity through free

upgrades to energy efficient lighting, signage, sensors, refrigeration, sun‐block window film, and

programmable thermostats. The Green Business Challenge Program is a voluntary measure that

establishes friendly competition between businesses to improve performance in energy efficiency,

water conservation, waste reduction, and other areas, in which businesses receive recognition for

participating, and the City recognizes those that achieve the largest GHG emissions reduction. These

voluntary measures at the City level further support the required State standards, which ensure that

the proposed project would not result in an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy.

Operational energy impacts would be less than significant.

b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

A significant impact would occur if the project would conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for

renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Construction

Less than significant impact. As described above, the project would result in energy consumption

through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and

construction equipment, and the use of electricity for temporary buildings, lighting, and other

sources. The types of equipment could include gasoline‐ and diesel‐powered construction and

transportation equipment, including trucks, bulldozers, frontend loaders, forklifts, and cranes. Other

equipment could include construction lighting, field services (office trailers), and electrically driven

equipment such as pumps and other tools.




California regulations (CCR Title 13 § 2449(d)(3) and 2485) limit idling from both on‐road and off‐

road diesel‐powered equipment. The project would be required to comply with these regulations,

which are enforced by the ARB. Part 11, Chapter 5, of the State’s Title 24 energy efficiency standards

establish mandatory measures for non‐residential buildings, including material conservation and

efficiency. The project would also be required to comply with these mandatory measures. In the

Energy Element of the City’s General Plan, Objective 1.2 promotes reduction in construction‐related

energy consumption. The project would not conflict with or obstruct this voluntary objective.

Therefore, it is anticipated that the construction phase of the project would not conflict with or

obstruct state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Construction‐related energy

impacts would be less than significant.

Operation

Less than significant impact. The operational phase of the project would consume energy as part of

building operations and transportation activities. Building operations for the project would involve

energy consumption for multiple purposes including, but not limited to, building heating and

cooling, lighting, and electronics, as well as parking lot lighting. The State’s Title 24 energy efficiency

standards are widely regarded as the most advanced energy efficiency standards. These standards

help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and heating and air

conditioning in buildings and promote energy conservation. The project would be required to

comply with these standards.

At the local level, the Energy Element of the City’s General Plan contains goals to reduce

consumption of non‐renewable energy and to support development and utilization of new energy

sources. Page 14 of the Energy Element includes a policy to establish, update, and/or enforce energy

performance requirements in the building code, in accordance with the State’s building code

standard. The Santa Ana Climate Action Plan establishes the City’s energy savings goals as follows: 70

million kWh/year by 2020, from 2008 baseline community usage, and 100 million kWh/year by 2035.

The Santa Ana Climate Action Plan contains a measure that supports the State mandated Title 24

Energy Efficiency Standard, enforced locally by the City of Santa Ana through the building permit

review and inspection process. As noted in Section 6c, the City’s General Plan and Climate Action

Plan contain multiple voluntary measures supporting renewable energy and energy efficiency. The

proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct any of these local voluntary measures.

California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires that 33 percent of electricity retail sales be

served by renewable energy sources by 2020. The proposed project would be served with gas

provided by Southern California Gas (SoCalGas). SoCalGas offers renewable natural gas captured

from sources like dairies, wastewater treatment plants and landfills (SCG 2019). The proposed

project would be served with electricity provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE’s 2017

power mix included 32 percent eligible renewable (biomass and biowaste, geothermal, eligible

hydroelectric, solar, and wind), 34 percent unspecified sources of power, 20 percent natural gas, 8

percent large hydroelectric, and 6 percent nuclear (SCE 2018). SCE also offers a Green Rate 50

percent option that sources 66 percent of its power mix from eligible renewable energy sources, and



a Green Rate 100 percent option that sources 100 percent of its power mix from eligible renewable

energy sources. SCE is on track to meet California’s RPS of 33 percent by 2020 mandate (SCE 2019).

The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy

or energy efficiency. Operational energy impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

None.






Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

7. Geology and Soils Would the project:

a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?


The following section is based on information contained within the Geotechnical Investigation

Report prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. on February 2, 2018, which is included as

Appendix D. The Geotechnical Investigation Report summarizes the results of a field exploration,



laboratory testing and engineering and geologic analyses that were conducted for the proposed

project. The Geotechnical Investigation Report is included in Appendix D of this report.

Would the project:

a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury

or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo

Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other

substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special

Publication 42.

Less than significant impact. Seismically induced surface rupture is defined as the physical

displacement of surface deposits in response to an earthquake’s seismic waves. Surface rupture is

most likely along active faults, and typically occurs during earthquakes of magnitude five or higher.

Not all earthquakes result in surface rupture (DOC 2019).

The Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface

faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Act’s main purpose is to prevent the construction of

buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act requires the State

Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as “Alquist‐Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zones,”

around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. If an active fault is found, a

structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back

from the fault (typically 50 feet).

Based on the “Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication 42, Interim Revision

2018,” published by the State of California Conservation Department, and the Geotechnical

Investigation Report prepared for the project, the site is not located within an identified Alquist‐

Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone (Stantec 2018).

According to the City of Santa Ana’s General Plan Land Use Element, there are no known fault traces

located in the City of Santa Ana (City of Santa Ana 1998). Furthermore, the February 2018

Geotechnical Investigation Report states that there are no known active faults that underlie or are

located in the project site. The closest known faults are the San Joaquin Hills Fault and the Newport

Inglewood Fault zone, located approximately 3.6 miles south and 7.4 miles southwest of the project

site, respectively. Therefore, the probability of surface fault rupture occurring form an active fault is

considered low. Additionally, the project would be required to follow seismic design parameters

based upon the 2016 California Building Code (CBC). As such, impacts are considered less than

significant.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Seismic ground shaking is influenced by

the proximity of the site to an earthquake fault, the intensity of the seismic event, and the




underlying soil composition. A geologic hazard likely to affect the project is ground‐shaking as a

result of movement along an active fault zone in the vicinity of the subject site. However, given that

the site is not located on an earthquake fault, the risk from ground shaking would be less than

significant with the implementation of seismic design requirements of the 2016 CBC. Furthermore,

recommendations from the February 2018 Geotechnical Investigation Report are included as MM

GEO‐1 through MM GEO‐7. Compliance with 2016 CBC and implementation of MM GEO‐1 through

MM GEO‐7 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

iii) Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Liquefaction is a mode of ground failure

that results from the generation of high water pressures during earthquake ground shaking, causing

loss of shear strength. Liquefaction is typically a hazard where loose sandy soils exist below

groundwater. The California Geologic Survey (CGS) has designated certain areas within Southern

California as potential liquefaction hazard zones. These are areas considered at a risk of liquefaction‐

related ground failure during a seismic event, based upon mapped surficial deposits and the

presence of a relatively shallow water table (USGS 2016).

The project site is located in a CGS Liquefaction Hazard Zone (Division of Mines and Geology [CDMG]

1997). This zone is defined as areas where historical occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological,

geotechnical, and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements

such that mitigation would be required.

According to the City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element, the areas of the City that are

susceptible to liquefaction are in close proximity to the Santa Ana River (City of Santa Ana 1998). The

project area is approximately 0.88 mile from the Santa Ana River and is classified as “low” probability

for liquefaction according to Exhibit A‐7, Liquefaction, of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element.

Furthermore, according to the Geotechnical Investigation Report, the liquefaction and lateral spread

potential at the site is considered low. However, the unsaturated, medium dense sand may densify as a

result of earthquake shaking, causing ground surface settlement. Ground surface total settlements due

to compression in the unsaturated zone are estimated to be on the order of 0.5‐inch. Differential

settlement over a span of approximately 30 feet is estimated to be approximately 0.25‐inch. Based on

the relatively low estimated liquefaction induced settlement, conventional shallow foundations appear

to be a suitable option for support of the proposed buildings. MM GEO‐1 through MM GEO‐3 identify

the minimum criteria based on geotechnical considerations. Thus, with implementation of MM GEO‐1

to MM GEO‐3, impacts regarding liquefaction would be less than significant.

iv) Landslides?

Less than significant impact. As discussed in the Geotechnical Investigation Report, the project site

is located in a relatively flat valley and there are no historic landslides mapped at the site. Evidence

of landslides or slope instabilities was not observed in the project vicinity during site activities.

Accordingly, the potential for landslides or slope instabilities to occur at the site is low. Furthermore,

according to the City of Santa Ana’s General Plan Land Use Element, there is the potential for slope



failure and landslides to occur near the banks of the Santa Ana River or Santiago Creek; however,

these areas are approximately 0.88 and 1.74 miles west, respectively, of the project site (City of

Santa Ana 1998). As such, there would be less than significant impacts related to landslides on the

project site.

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

No impact. The project site is urban and developed, with cement and asphalt paving covering all soil

and topsoil. According to the City of Santa Ana’s General Plan Land Use Element, soil and topsoil

erosion is associated mainly with soils along the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek (City of Santa

Ana 1998). The project is located approximately 0.88 mile from the Santa Ana River and 1.74 miles

from Santiago Creek. As such, there would be no impact.

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result

of the project, and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,

liquefaction or collapse?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The following analysis is based on the

City of Santa Ana’s General Plan Land Use Element and the February 2018 Geotechnical Investigation

Report:

Liquefaction or Collapse: The soil conditions at the site are considered to have low

susceptibility to liquefaction, according to Exhibit A‐7 of the General Plan.

Lateral Spreading: As discussed in the response to liquefaction (see above) the site is located

in a “low” liquefaction hazard area, in a relatively flat urbanized area, and is not in the vicinity

of slopes that would be susceptible to liquefaction (slope areas that have sufficient height,

slope ratio, and underlying geologic conditions that can result in liquefaction. The project‐

specific Geotechnical Investigation Report identified the unsaturated, medium dense sand on

the project site may densify as a result of earthquake shaking, causing ground surface

settlement. Therefore, implementation of MM GEO‐1 to MM GEO‐7 would reduce impacts of

earthquake‐induced lateral spreading to less than significant.

Landslide: The site is not located within a designated area where previous occurrence of

landslide movement, or local topographic, geological, geotechnical and subsurface water

conditions occurred. The site is flat and is not located near slopes that would be susceptible to

landslides. Impacts from landslides would be less than significant.

Subsidence: According to the City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element, the soils near

the Santa Ana River may be subject to subsidence. The project is 0.88 mile from the Santa Ana

River, and Exhibit A‐8 of the General Plan shows that the project site is outside of the

subsidence boundary.

Furthermore, according to the Geotechnical Investigation Report, the liquefaction and lateral spread

potential at the site is considered low. However, the unsaturated, medium dense sand may densify

as a result of earthquake shaking, causing ground surface settlement. Ground surface total




settlements due to compression in the unsaturated zone are estimated to be on the order of 0.5‐

inch. Differential settlement over a span of approximately 30 feet is estimated to be approximately

0.25‐inch. Based on the relatively low estimated liquefaction induced settlement, conventional

shallow foundations appear to be a suitable option for support of the proposed buildings. MM GEO‐

1 through MM GEO‐3 identify the minimum criteria based on geotechnical considerations. Thus,

with implementation of MM GEO‐1 through MM GEO‐3, impacts regarding unstable soils, lateral

spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse would be reduced to less than significant.

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),

creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

Less than significant impact. The City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element describes the

soils susceptible to expansion as the Omni and Thapto soils located in the south central section of

the City south of Segerstrom Avenue (City of Santa Ana 1998). The boundary of this area is located

2.51 miles south of the project site.

The near‐surface soils (upper approximate 10 feet) have a very low expansion potential according to

the Geotechnical Investigation Report. Impacts would be less than significant.

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater

disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

No impact. The project does not propose the use of septic tanks. The project would connect to the

City sanitary sewer system through existing lines for wastewater disposal. Therefore, no impacts to

soils due to the use of septic systems would occur.

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic

feature?

Less than significant impact. A paleontological records search was conducted by staff at the Los

Angeles County Museum of Natural History on March 12, 2019. The report indicates that surface

sediments encountered beneath fill materials on the project site consist of younger terrestrial

Quaternary Alluvium, derived primarily from the hills to the northeast of the project. These shallow

sediments typically do not produce significant vertebrate fossils. However, older Quaternary

sediments are present at depths of 8 feet or more and have yielded significant vertebrate fossils in

the vicinity of the project. Therefore, development activities have the potential to encounter

undiscovered paleontological resources and the project would be subject to compliance with SC 2.5‐

1, which provides direction in the event paleontological resources are unearthed during project

subsurface activities. Therefore, project implementation would result in a less than significant

impact involving the potential destruction of a paleontological resource.

Standard Conditions

SC 2.5‐1 In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during grading and

construction operations, all construction activities shall be temporarily halted or



redirected to permit a qualified paleontologist to assess the find for significance and,

if necessary, develop a paleontological resources impact mitigation plan for the

review and approval by the City prior to resuming excavation activities.

Mitigation Measures

MM GEO‐1 Earthwork Construction

Site preparation shall begin with the removal of existing buildings, pavement,

buried slabs and foundations, vegetation, highly organic soil, leach lines, septic

tanks, and any other unsuitable materials. Existing underground utilities within

the proposed construction areas shall be completely removed and/or rerouted.

Grading shall conform to the guidelines presented in the 2016 CBC, as well as the

requirements of the City of Santa Ana and Orange County.

Building Pad Foundation Areas: All undocumented fill shall be removed from below

the proposed building footprint, if encountered. The removal of soil fill shall extend

at least 5 feet beyond the building perimeter unless constrained by existing

structures or improvements. The removals shall extend to a depth of at least 3 feet

below the bottom of the lowest foundation. The removal depth below the building

footprint shall be relatively level to provide a uniform compacted fill mat.

The bottom of the remedial grading excavations shall be scarified to a depth of 8‐

inches, moisture conditioned to within 0 to 4 percentage points above the

optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent relative

compaction based on the ASTM D1557 laboratory test procedure. All references

to optimum moisture content and relative compaction in this report are based on

this test method.

Pavement and Hardscape: Remedial grading for pavement and hardscape areas

shall include removal of the existing soils to a depth of at least 2 feet below the

existing ground surface or subgrade elevation, whichever is lower. The soil

exposed at the base of the excavation shall be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, and

moisture conditioned to within 0 to 4 percentage points above the optimum

moisture content. Hardscape subgrade shall be compacted to at least 90 percent

relative compaction. Pavement subgrade shall be compacted to at least 95

percent relative compaction.

Field Observation: The Geotechnical Engineer shall check the bottom of

excavations. If soft, loose, wet, or otherwise unsuitable soils are encountered, the

depth of removal may be extended, or additional recommendations can be

provided.

Fill Placement and Compaction: Excavated materials determined by the

Geotechnical Engineer to be satisfactory can be reused as compacted fill. With the

exception of the asphalt and concrete, it is anticipated that the majority of the

excavated materials can be re‐used as compacted fill soils. The asphalt grinding’s

may be reused in non‐building areas provided they are broken down to less 3

inches and thoroughly mixed with other materials. The existing concrete




pavement on the site may be reused within the compacted fill provided all debris

such as rebar is removed and the concrete is broken down or crushed to a

maximum 3‐inch size. The concrete pieces shall be thoroughly mixed with finer

soil such that nesting of coarse fragments which could result in voids does not

occur. The Geotechnical Engineer shall approve the fill material before placement.

‐ Fill shall be placed in 6‐ to 8‐inch thick loose, horizontal lifts, moisture

conditioned to within 0 to 4 percentage points above the optimum moisture

content, and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. The

maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the evaluation of

relative compaction shall be determined in accordance with ASTM D1557.

‐ Fill material with high fines contents will be difficult to compact in wet weather

conditions. Accordingly, during wet weather conditions, the use of

predominately granular fill material with less than 5 percent passing the #100

sieve is recommended.

Pipelines: Typical pipe bedding as specified in the Standard Specifications for

Public Works Construction (GREENBOOK) may be used. As a minimum, it is

recommended that pipe be supported on at least 4 inches of granular bedding

material, such as 0.75‐inch rock or clean coarse sand with less than 5 percent

fines and a sand equivalent of 40 or more as evaluated by ASTM D2419.

‐ The bedding shall extend from the bottom of the trench to at least 1 foot above

the top of the pipe. Sand bedding shall be mechanically compacted to at least

90 percent relative compaction. Jetting of sand bedding shall not be permitted.

‐ On‐site material, imported select material, or 2‐sack cement/sand slurry may be

used as backfill in trenches above the pipe bedding. The material selected shall

match the engineering characteristics of the soils adjacent to the trench. Utility

trench backfill beneath structures and hardscape shall be compacted to at least

90 percent relative compaction.

‐ The modulus of soil reaction (E’) is used to characterize the stiffness of soil

backfill placed along the sides of buried flexible pipelines. For the purpose of

evaluating deflection due to the load associated with trench backfill over the

pipe, a value of 1,500 pounds per square inch (lbs/in2) is recommended for the

general site conditions assuming granular bedding material (sand or gravel) is

placed adjacent to the pipe.

Imported Material: Imported materials, if used for fill, shall be predominately

granular, contain no rocks or lumps greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension,

and have a Plasticity Index less than 15. Imported materials shall be reviewed and

approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site.

Oversized Material: Excavations may generate oversized material. Oversized

material is defined as rocks or cemented clasts greater than 3 inches in largest

dimension. Oversized material shall be broken down to no greater than 3 inches in

largest dimension for use in fill.

Temporary Excavations: The existing fill soils can be considered Type B for

excavation in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration



(OSHA) and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA)

requirements. Temporary excavations shall be shored or excavated with a slope

not steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) in accordance with OSHA and

Cal/OSHA requirements.

‐ The excavations shall be inspected daily by the contractor’s Competent Person

before personnel are allowed to enter the excavation. Any zones of potential

instability, sloughing or raveling shall be brought to the attention of the

Geotechnical Engineer and corrective action implemented before personnel

begin working in the excavation. Excavated soils shall not be stockpiled behind

temporary excavations within a distance equal to the depth of the excavation.

‐ A Geotechnical Engineer shall be notified if other surcharge loads are anticipated so that lateral load criteria can be developed for the specific

situation. If temporary slopes are to be maintained during the rainy season,

berms are recommended near the tops of slopes to prevent runoff water from

entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces.

Braced Shoring System: For braced shoring above the groundwater level, a

uniform rectangular pressure distribution shall be used from top to bottom of the

shoring equivalent to the following, Bracing: 30H pounds per square foot

(psf)/feet where H is the depth of the excavation, in feet. The earth pressures

indicated above do not include a safety factor; therefore, the shoring design shall

include an appropriate safety factor for the overall performance of the system.

Surface Drainage: Final surface grades around structures shall be designed to

collect and direct surface water away from the structure and toward appropriate

drainage facilities. The ground around the structure shall be graded so that

surface water flows rapidly away from the structure without ponding. In general,

we recommend that the ground adjacent to the structure slope away at a gradient

of at least 2 percent. Densely vegetated areas where runoff can be impaired shall

have a minimum gradient of at least 5 percent within the first 5 feet from the

structure. Roof gutters with downspouts that discharge directly into a closed

drainage system are recommended on structures. Drainage patterns established

at the time of fine grading shall be maintained throughout the life of the proposed

structures. Site irrigation shall be limited to the minimum necessary to sustain

landscape growth. Shall excessive irrigation, impaired drainage, or unusually high

rainfall occur, saturated zones of perched groundwater can develop.

Grading Plan Review: A Geotechnical Engineer shall review the grading plans and

earthwork specifications to ascertain whether the intent of the recommendations

contained in this report have been implemented, and that no revised

recommendations are needed due to changes in the development scheme.




MM GEO‐2 Conventional Shallow Foundations

An allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf shall be used for conventional square or rectangular shallow foundations founded in properly compacted fill. The

bearing capacity can be increased by one third for transient loading conditions

such as earthquake and wind.

Additional parameters for shallow foundations are provided below.

Minimum Footing Width: 18 inches for continuous footings 24 inches for

square/rectangular footings

Minimum Footing Depth: 18 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade

Minimum Reinforcement: Two No. 5 bars at both top and bottom in

continuous footings.

Canopy Foundations: Typical shallow drilled pier footings for the canopy columns are

expected to provide adequate support for the proposed structures provided that the

recommendations provided herein are incorporated in the design. We understand

that typical canopy column footings will consist of reinforced concrete drilled piers

having a minimum diameter or width of 4 feet and embedded a minimum depth of 7

feet bgs. Based on these assumptions and the anticipated subsurface conditions, an

allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf may be used in the design. For resistance to

transient lateral loads, such as earthquake and wind loads, the aforementioned

allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one‐third.

Lateral Resistance: Lateral loads will be resisted by friction between the bottoms

of footings and passive pressure on the faces of footings and other structural

elements below grade. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.30 can be used.

Passive pressure can be computed using an allowable lateral pressure of 300 psf

per foot of depth below the ground surface for level ground conditions.

Reductions for sloping ground shall be made. The passive pressure can be

increased by one‐third when considering the total of all loads, including wind or

seismic forces. The upper 1 foot of soil shall not be relied on for passive support

unless the ground is covered with pavements or slabs.

Foundation Plan Review: A Geotechnical Engineer shall review the foundation

plans to ascertain that the intent of the recommendations in this report has been

implemented and that revised recommendations are not necessary as a result of

changes after this report was completed.

Foundation Excavation Observations: A representative working under direct

supervision of the Geotechnical Engineer shall observe the foundation excavations

prior to forming or placing reinforcing steel.

MM GEO‐3 Slabs‐On‐Grade

Interior Slabs on Grade: The top 24 inches of material below interior concrete

slabs‐on‐grade shall have an expansion index of 20 or less. The project structural



engineer shall design the interior concrete slabs‐on‐grade floor. However, we

recommend a minimum thickness of 5 inches.

‐ A vapor barrier shall be placed beneath slabs where moisture sensitive floor

coverings will be installed. If plastic is used, a minimum 10‐mil is recommended.

The plastic shall comply with ASTM E1745. Installation shall comply with ASTM

E1643. Current construction practice typically includes placement of a 2‐inch

thick sand cushion between the bottom of the concrete slab and the moisture

vapor retarder/barrier. This cushion can provide some protection to the vapor

retarder/barrier during construction, and may assist in reducing the potential

for edge curling in the slab during curing. However, the sand layer also provides

a source of moisture to the underside of the slab that can increase the time

required to reduce vapor emissions to limits acceptable for the type of floor

covering placed on top of the slab. The slab can be placed directly on the vapor

retarder/barrier. The floor covering manufacturer shall be contacted to

determine the volume of moisture vapor allowable and any treatment needed

to reduce moisture vapor emissions to acceptable limits for the particular type

of floor covering installed. The project team shall determine the appropriate

treatment for the specific application.

‐ In addition to the moisture vapor barrier, a capillary moisture break shall be

constructed below the slab to further reduce moisture transmission from the

subgrade soil, if desired. The capillary moisture break shall consist of at least 4‐

inches of clean, free‐draining gravel or crushed rock placed below the moisture

vapor retarder/barrier. The components of the capillary moisture break shall meet

the particle‐size gradation presented in Table 3 of the Geotechnical Report.

‐ Exterior Slab on Grade: The top 24 inches of material below exterior concrete

slabs‐on‐grade shall have an expansion index of 20 or less determined in

accordance with ASTM D4829 or a Plasticity Index less than 15. Exterior slabs shall

have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced with at least No. 4 bars

at 18 inches on center each way. Slabs shall be provided with weakened plane

joints. Joints shall be placed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute

(ACI) guidelines. The project architect shall select the final joint patterns.

MM GEO‐4 Underground Storage Tank Backfill

Backfilling adjacent to and over the top of the underground storage tanks shall be performed in accordance with the tank manufacturer’s specifications. Pea gravel

used for tank backfill shall be encapsulated (“burrito wrapped”) in a geotextile fabric

to prevent migration of fines into the voids within the pea gravel, which could cause

ground settlement. The pea gravel backfill shall be covered with a structural

concrete slab designed to bridge over localized settlement of the gravel backfill.

‐ Depending on the actual quality and composition of the gravel utilized to

backfill the USTs, little or no mechanical compactive effort is generally necessary

to place the gravel in a dense manner.




‐ However, to increase the density of the gravel backfill and to mitigate future

settlement of the gravel backfill the following methods shall be utilized. The

gravel shall be compacted with a concrete vibrator or mechanical compaction

equipment, at approximate 2 to 3 foot intervals.

MM GEO‐5 Pavement

Asphalt Concrete Pavement: An R‐Value of 9 has been assumed for preliminary

design of pavement sections based on laboratory test results and visual

observation of the on‐site material in the upper 5 feet. The actual R‐value of the

subgrade soils shall be determined after grading to provide final pavement design.

Flexible pavement sections have been calculated in general conformance with

Caltrans guidelines. The project civil engineer and owner shall review the

pavement designations to determine appropriate locations for pavement

thickness. Based on an assumed R‐value of 9, the following pavement structural

sections have been calculated (See Table 4 of the Geotechnical Report.

‐ Prior to placing base materials, the upper 12 inches of the subgrade soil shall be

scarified, moisture conditioned to slightly above the optimum moisture content,

and recompacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory

maximum. The base material shall also be compacted to slightly above the

optimum moisture content and a dry density of at least 95 percent of the

laboratory maximum.

‐ Rigid concrete pavement (described below) shall be placed in driveway entrance

aprons and trash bin loading/storage areas. Concrete pavement design is

provided in the following section.

Concrete Pavement: Concrete pavements have been calculated in general

conformance with the procedure recommended by the ACI (ACI 330R‐08) using

the parameters presented in the table below. The following design parameters

were used in our analyses. See Table 6 of the Geotechnical Report for

recommended concrete pavement sections.

‐ The project civil engineer shall confirm whether the assumed Average Annual

Daily Traffic (AADT) is appropriate for the anticipated traffic level. Concrete

compressive strength for pavement should be at least 3,700 psi. Rigid concrete

pavement shall be placed in driveway entrance aprons, trash bin

loading/storage areas, or other areas of the project site as desired. Crack control

joints shall be placed in accordance with the ACI guidelines. Minimum

reinforcement shall consist of #3 bars on 24‐inch centers.

‐ Prior to placing concrete, the upper 12 inches of the subgrade soil shall be scarified, moisture conditioned to slightly above the optimum moisture content,

and recompacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory

maximum.



MM GEO‐6 Percolation Testing

Final percolation testing shall be performed in as graded conditions so that effects

from soil compaction are incorporated in the test results.

MM GEO‐7 Post‐Investigation

Final project grading and foundation plans, foundation details and specifications

shall be reviewed by a Geotechnical Engineer prior to construction to check that the

intent of the recommendations presented herein have been applied to the design.

Following review of plans and specifications, observation during construction shall

be performed to correlate the findings of this exploration with the actual subsurface

conditions exposed.






Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?


Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant

impact on the environment?

Less than significant Impact. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse

gases (GHG). The effect is analogous to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Prominent GHGs that

naturally occur in the Earth’s atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),

oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and ozone. There have been significant legislative and regulatory activities

that directly and indirectly affect climate change and GHGs in California. The primary climate change

legislation in California is Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,

focusing on reducing GHG emissions in California. The proposed project would generate a variety of

GHG emissions during construction and operation, including several defined by AB 32 such as CO2,

CH4, and nitrous oxide.

To describe how much global warming a given type and amount of GHG may cause, the CO2 equivalent

(CO2e) is used. The calculation of the CO2 equivalent is a consistent methodology for comparing GHG

emissions since it normalizes various GHG emissions to a consistent reference gas, CO2. For example,

CH4’s warming potential of 25 indicates that CH4 has 25 times greater warming effect than CO2 on a

molecule‐per‐molecule basis. A CO2 equivalent is the mass emissions of an individual GHG multiplied

by its global warming potential. Both construction period and operational period activities have the

potential to generate GHG emissions.

The project would generate GHG emissions during temporary (short‐term) construction activities

such as site grading, construction equipment engines, on‐site heavy‐duty construction vehicles,

vehicles hauling materials to and from the project site, asphalt paving, and motor vehicles used by



the construction workers. On‐site construction activities would vary depending on the level of

construction activity.

Long‐term, operational GHG emissions would result from project generated vehicular traffic, on‐site

combustion of natural gas, operation of any landscaping equipment, off‐site generation of electrical

power over the life of the project, the energy required to convey water to and wastewater from the

project site, the emissions associated with the hauling and disposal of solid waste from the project

site, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators.

The SCAQMD developed interim recommended significance thresholds for GHGs for local lead

agency consideration (SCAQMD draft local agency threshold) in 2008; however, the SCAQMD Board

has not approved the thresholds as of the date of this analysis. The current interim thresholds

consist of the following tiered approach:

Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption

under CEQA.

Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan. If a

project is consistent with a qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it does not have significant

GHG emissions.

Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be consistent

with all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30

years and are added to a project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are under

one of the following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant:

‐ All land use types: 3,000 metric tons (MT) CO2e per year

‐ Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MT CO2e per year; commercial: 1,400 MT CO2e

per year; industrial: 10,000 MT CO2e; or mixed use: 3,000 MT CO2e per year

Tier 4 has the following options: ‐ Option 1: Reduce emissions from BAU by a certain percentage; this percentage is currently

undefined

‐ Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures

‐ Option 3, 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and employees:

4.8 MT CO2e/SP/year for projects and 6.6 MT CO2e/SP/year for plans;

‐ Option 4, 2035 target: 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year for projects and 4.1 MT CO2e/SP/year for plans

Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold.

To determine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact with respect to the

generation of GHG emissions, this analysis utilizes the SCAQMD’s draft local agency Tier 3 threshold

of 3,000 MT CO2e per year for all land use types.

Construction GHG Emissions

SCAQMD recommends that construction‐related GHG emissions be amortized over the life of the

project, which is defined as 30 years, and added to annual operational emissions. Construction‐




related GHG emissions were modeled using the same assumptions and model (CalEEMod Version

2016.3.2) as those for air quality emissions. Construction‐related GHG emissions would occur from

fossil fuel combustion for heavy‐duty construction equipment, material delivery and haul trucks, and

construction worker vehicles. Table 9 presents the project’s total construction‐related GHG

emissions and amortized construction emissions.

As shown in Table 9, construction of the project is estimated to generate approximately 93 MT CO2e

over the entire project construction duration. Amortized emissions would equal to 3 MT CO2e per

year.

Table 9: Construction GHG Emissions

Construction Activity MTCO2e

Demolition‐2019 6

Grading‐2019 7

Building Construction‐2019 27

Building Construction‐2020 42

Paving‐2020 8

Architectural Coating‐2020 2

Total 93

Amortized over 30 years1 3

Note: 1 Construction greenhouse gas emissions are amortized over the 30‐year life of the

project. Source: CalEEMod Output (see Appendix A)

Operational GHG Emissions

Operational or long‐term emissions occur over the life of the project. The major sources for

operational GHG emissions include:

Motor Vehicles: These emissions refer to GHG emissions contained in the exhaust from the

cars and trucks that would travel to and from the project site. Trip generation rates used in

estimating mobile‐source emissions were consistent with those presented in traffic site

analysis prepared for the project by RK Engineering Group (RKEG 2018).

Natural Gas: These emissions refer to the GHG emissions that occur when natural gas is

burned on the project site. Natural gas uses could include heating water, space heating,

stoves, or other uses.

Indirect Electricity: These emissions refer to those generated by off‐site power plants to

supply electricity required for the project. All electricity at the project site would be supplied

by SCE.



Water Transport: These emissions refer to those generated by the electricity required to

transport and treat the water to be used on the project site.

Waste: These emissions refer to the GHG emissions produced by decomposing waste

generated by the project.

Project Operations

Operational GHG emissions for both 2020 and 2030 are shown in Table 10. At project buildout

(2020), the project is estimated to generate 744 MT CO2e. In 2030, total GHG emissions are estimated

at 583 MT CO2e. Table 10 presents the project’s annual operational emissions along with the

amortized construction emissions. Pursuant to SCAQMD’s guidance, the sum of these emissions

should be used to compare with the applicable threshold of significance.

Table 10: Operational GHG Emissions

Emissions Source 2020 Emissions (MTCO2e) 2030 Emissions (MTCO2e)

Area <1 <1

Energy 11 9

Mobile 727 565

Waste1 5 5

Water 1 <1

Amortized Construction 3 3

Total Project Emissions 744 583

SCAQMD Threshold 3,000 3,000

Significant? No No

Note: 1 CalEEMod does not include waste GHG emissions for the Convenience Market with Gas Pumps land use. As such,

waste GHG emissions are based on the Convenience Market (24 Hour) land use of an equivalent square footage.

MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Source of emissions: CalEEMod Output (see Appendix A). Source of thresholds: SCAQMD 2008c.

As shown in Table 10, the project would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD 3,000 MT CO2e threshold.

Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the

environment.

b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the

emissions of greenhouse gases?

Less than significant impact. The City of Santa Ana adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in December

2015 with the goal of reducing carbon emissions and energy use for the community. The CAP

includes reduction measures that would help the City achieve their emissions reduction goal of 15




percent below baseline 2008 year by 2020 and nearly reach their emissions reduction goal of 30

percent by 2035. These reduction measures address emissions in five sectors: transportation and

land use, energy, solid waste, water, and wastewater. Project consistency with the applicable

reduction measures specified in the CAP would demonstrate project consistency with the CAP.

Project compliance with the applicable reduction measures of the CAP is shown in Table 11.

Table 11: Project Compliance with the City of Santa Ana Climate Action Plan

GHG Reduction Measure Requirements Project Compliance

Transportation and Land Use

End‐of‐trip Facilities in New Projects

Placement of end‐of‐trip facilities (bike lockers, showers, changing rooms) that encourage cycling use, particularly for work.

Complies. The project proposes installation of bike racks and bike lockers to accommodate bicycles, which would encourage cycling use for visitors and employees.

Design Guidelines for External Bike/Pedestrian/Transit Connectivity

Provide for a minimum level of connectivity between projects and the external transportation network for travel modes other than automobiles.

Complies. The project provides walkways that will allow for pedestrian and cyclist access to the West First Street and South Daisy Avenue sidewalks.

Energy

Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards

Compliance with the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards

Complies. The project would comply with current Title 24 building energy efficiency standards, which include use of high efficiency lighting, roof and wall insulation, and energy saving elevator controls.

Solid Waste

AB 341 Commercial and Multifamily Recycling

Requires recycling by businesses that generate four cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week and multifamily residential dwellings of five units or more.

Complies. The project would implement recycling and waste diversion policies consistent with City Ordinances.

Source: Santa Ana CAP, December 2015

SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update

The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update addressing the SB 32 targets was adopted on

December 14, 2017. Table 12 provides an analysis of the project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping

Plan Update measures. As shown in Table 12, the project would be consistent with the applicable

2017 Scoping Plan Update reduction measures.



Table 12: Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update

2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measure Project Consistency

SB 350 50 Percent Renewable Mandate. Utilities subject to the legislation will be required to increase their renewable energy mix from 33 percent in 2020 to 50 percent in 2030.

Not applicable. This measure would apply to utilities and not to individual development projects. The project would purchase electricity from a utility subject to the SB 350 Renewable Mandate. Specifically, electricity would be supplied to the project by SCE. SCE already meets or exceeds the proposed renewable standards.

SB 350 Double Building Energy Efficiency by 2030. This is equivalent to a 20 percent reduction from 2014 building energy usage compared to current projected 2030 levels.

Not applicable. This measure applies to existing buildings. New structures are required to comply with Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards that are expected to increase in stringency over time. The project would comply with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time building permits are received.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard. This measure requires fuel providers to meet an 18 percent reduction in carbon content by 2030.

Not applicable. This is a Statewide measure that cannot be implemented by a project applicant or lead agency. However, vehicles accessing the proposed residential buildings at the project site would benefit from the standards.

Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario). Vehicle manufacturers will be required to meet existing regulations mandated by the LEV III and Heavy‐Duty Vehicle programs. The strategy includes a goal of having 4.2 million zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) on the road by 2030 and increasing numbers of ZEV trucks and buses.

Not applicable. This measure is not applicable to the project. However, future customers can be expected to purchase increasing numbers of more fuel efficient and zero emission cars and trucks each year. Furthermore, delivery trucks and buses that would serve future residents will be made by increasing numbers of ZEV delivery trucks.

Sustainable Freight Action Plan. The plan’s target is to improve freight system efficiency 25 percent by increasing the value of goods and services produced from the freight sector, relative to the amount of carbon that it produces by 2030. This would be achieved by deploying over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero emission operation and maximize near‐zero emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030.

Not applicable. This measure applies to owners and operators of trucks and freight operations. The project would not support truck and freight operations. It is expected that deliveries throughout the State would be made with an increasing number of ZEV delivery trucks, including deliveries that would be made to the project site.

Short‐Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction Strategy. The strategy requires the reduction of SLCPs by 40 percent from 2013 levels by 2030 and the reduction of black carbon by 50 percent from 2013 levels by 2030.

Not applicable. No wood‐burning devices are proposed as part of the project.

SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies. Requires Regional Transportation Plans to include a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) for reduction of per capita vehicle miles traveled.

Not applicable. The project does not include the development of a Regional Transportation Plan. Furthermore, the project is not within an SCS priority area.




Table 12 (cont.): Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update

2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measure Project Consistency

Post‐2020 Cap‐and‐Trade Program. The Post 2020 Cap‐and‐Trade Program continues the existing program for another 10 years. The Cap‐and‐Trade Program applies to large industrial sources such as power plants, refineries, and cement manufacturers.

Not applicable. The project is not one targeted by the cap‐and‐trade system regulations, and, therefore, this measure does not apply to the project. However, the post‐2020 Cap‐and‐Trade Program indirectly affects people and entities who use the products and services produced by the regulated industrial sources when increased cost of products or services (such as electricity and fuel) are transferred to the consumers.

Natural and Working Lands Action Plan. The ARB is working in coordination with several other agencies at the federal, State, and local levels, stakeholders, and with the public, to develop measures as outlined in the Scoping Plan Update and the governor’s Executive Order B‐30‐15 to reduce GHG emissions and to cultivate net carbon sequestration potential for California’s natural and working land.

Not Applicable. The project is a commercial development in an urban area and would not be considered natural or working lands.

Source of ARB 2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measures: ARB 2017.

As shown in Table 11, the project would comply with the applicable reduction measures of the CAP.

The project would also comply with the applicable measures of the 2017 Scoping Plan Update for

compliance with SB 32, as shown in Table 12. Additionally, as previously shown in Table 10, the

project would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD 3,000 MT CO2e threshold of significance for either

2020 and 2030 years. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the applicable local plans,

policies, and regulations and would not conflict with the provisions of AB 32, SB 32, the applicable

air quality plan, or any other state or regional plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the

purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

None.





Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?


Information and analysis for the Hazards and Hazardous Materials impacts analysis are derived from

the General Plan, online research, and the project‐specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

(ESA) included in Appendix E. The Phase I ESA was prepared by Stantec on July 6, 2017.

The Phase I ESA identified several sites within the project vicinity that represent historically

recognized environmental conditions (HRECs) and recognized environmental conditions (RECs);

however, there is no environmental history on the project site itself. In addition, the findings of the




Phase I ESA concluded there is not a likelihood of contamination on the project site from an off‐site

source, based on constraining factors such as type of regulatory listing, status of the listing, and

groundwater flow.

The following items of note were identified during the Phase I ESA:

The 7 Day Tire & Muffler facility located on the adjoining to the east of the project site (1834

West 1st Street) is listed as a Leaking Underground Storage Tank site, with a ‘Completed Case

Closed as of 11/22/1999’ status. According to the EDR Radius Report listing, a leak from a

waste oil underground storage tank (UST) was discovered at the site in June 1999. The State

Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) GeoTracker database indicates the leak

was discovered during the tank’s removal. The leak resulted in contamination of the soil,

which was sampled and tested according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

standards and for Methyl tert‐butyl ether (MTBE). On November 22, 1999, the open case for a

leaking underground storage tank (LUST) on the site was closed by the City of Santa Ana.

Therefore, due to the age of the event and the subsequent agency closure status, this site is

considered a HREC for the project site. Based on proximity, this site meets the definition of a

potential Vapor Encroachment Condition (VEC) as defined by ASTM E2600‐15.

The Anaheim Stations/JFJ Computerized Auto Service facility located approximately 0.05 mile

to the west of the project site (2002 West 1st Street) is listed as a Leaking Underground

Storage Tank site, with a ‘Completed Case Closed as of 10/9/1996’ status. According to the

EDR Radius Report listing, a leak from a gasoline UST(s) was discovered at the site in July 1989

and the leak had impacted groundwater. The GeoTracker database indicates that

tanks/associated piping and soil were removed from the site in 1992 and groundwater was

monitored between 1994 and 1996. In 1996, the LUST case was closed by the City of Santa

Ana and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Therefore, due to the

age and agency closure status, this site is considered a HREC for the project site. Based on

proximity, this site meets the definition of a potential VEC as defined by the Standard Guide

for VEC screening in accordance to the American Society for Testing and Materials standards

(ASTM E2600‐15).

The Phase I ESA revealed the following RECs in connection with the project site:

The Isaac Incorporated/Isaac, Inc. site located approximately 0.078 mile east of the project

site (1734 W 1st Street) is listed as a LUST site with an ‘Open—Remediation as of 3/3/2004’

status. According to the EDR Radius Report listing, a leak from a gasoline UST(s) was

discovered at the site in July 1987. According to the GeoTracker database, this site is a former

Coca‐Cola bottling plant that had petroleum fueling capabilities and is now in use as a retail

shopping center. The database indicates the fuel release was reported following the removal

of three USTs (two gasoline, one waste oil). Recent groundwater data indicates water quality

objectives for this site have been achieved or nearly achieved, except for benzene. The fact

that benzene is still present in two wells at the site (as of August 2016) is preventing the State

Water Board from issuing a low‐threat UST case closure. Groundwater gauging results



completed at the site in 2014 suggest that groundwater flow direction in the project vicinity is

variable, but appeared to be toward the northwest during the 2014 monitoring event. Based

upon the open case status, variable direction of groundwater, the close proximity to the

project site, and the fact that this site is located upgradient from the project site, this site is

considered a REC for the project site and meets the definition of a potential VEC as defined by

ASTM E2600‐15.

As stated in the Phase I ESA, due to several of the historical and current use of adjoining and nearby properties as various general auto repair shops, gasoline service stations, and auto

paint and body shops they collectively represent a REC for the project site. Based on their

proximity, these sites could also present a potential VEC as defined by ASTM E2600‐15

(Stantec 2017).


Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,

or disposal of hazardous materials?

Less than significant impact. The project site is located within an urbanized built‐up area of the City

of Santa Ana. The project site is bounded by single‐family residences and commercial uses to the

north, single‐family residences and auto‐body repair uses to the east, commercial and auto‐repair

uses to the west, and a vacant lot to the south of the project site. The project site currently contains

a vacant former restaurant building and associated parking lot. The proposed project would

demolish and remove the existing uses and construct a new 7‐Eleven convenience store and fuel

station canopy with associated parking.

During the construction phase of the project, limited amounts of hazardous materials would be used,

including standard construction materials (e.g., paints and solvents) and petroleum based products

(e.g., vehicle fuel and degreasers). The project would be required to comply with all federal, state, and

local standards and regulations while handling, storing, and disposing of these hazardous materials.

Compliance with all federal, state, and local standards and regulations would ensure that project

impacts related to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than

significant. Transport of these materials would be performed by commercial vendors who would be

required to comply with various federal and state laws regarding hazardous materials transportation

(e.g., Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulations and 49 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]

Parts 100‐185). Additionally, the retail/commercial part of the project would comply with all applicable

laws regarding the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, including provision of spill

prevention kits in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards.

During the operation phase of the project, hazardous or potentially hazardous materials would be

routinely handled, stored, and dispensed on the project site. Since the proposed project includes a

gas station, an underground storage tank (UST) will store gas on the project site. Because of the




nature of the proposed project, and in particular the gas station component, the project would be

subject to routine inspection by federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over

fuel dispensing facilities. In order to remain operational, the proposed project, including the UST and

all associated fuel delivery infrastructure (i.e., gas pumps), would be required to comply with all

applicable federal, state, and local regulation, including but not limited to those provisions

established by Section 2540.7, Gasoline Dispensing and Service Stations, of the California

Occupational Safety and Health Regulations; Chapter 38, Liquefied Petroleum Gases, of the

California Fire Code; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and the Orange County

Fire Authority (OCFA). Collectively, the routine inspection of the gas station, the UST, and all

associated fuel delivery infrastructure, along with the continued mandated compliance with all

federal, state, and local regulations would ensure that the proposed project is operated in a non‐

hazardous manner. Therefore, long‐term impacts associated with handling, storing, and dispensing

of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable

upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the

environment?

Less than significant impact. As mentioned in Impact 3.9(a), any handling, storing, or dispensing

activities associated with hazardous or potentially materials would comply with all applicable

federal, state, and local agencies and regulations. Both short‐term construction and long‐term

operation of the proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local agencies

and regulations with the policies and programs established by agencies such as the EPA, (Caltrans,

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Cal/OSHA, RCRA, and the OCFA.

Adherence to the applicable policies and programs of these agencies would ensure that any

transport or interaction with hazardous materials would occur in the safest possible manner,

reducing the opportunity for the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Any handling of hazardous materials would be limited in both quantities and concentrations. As

mandated by OSHA, all hazardous materials stored on‐site would be accompanied by a Material

Safety Data Sheet, which, in the case of accidental release, would inform on‐site personnel as to the

necessary remediation procedures.

Although there are several sites that represent HRECs and RECs in the vicinity of the project site

there is no environmental history on the project site itself. Thus, impacts would be less than

significant.

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or

waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

Less than significant impact. There are no schools within a 0.25‐mile radius of the project site. The

schools nearest to the project area are REACH Academy, located at 1512 West Santa Ana Boulevard,

approximately 0.37‐mile northeast, and Abraham Lincoln Elementary School located approximately

0.38 mile southwest of the project site. As there are no schools located within 0.25‐mile of the project



site, impacts related to hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous

materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing school would be less than significant.

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to

Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the

public or the environment?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project‐specific Phase I ESA

determined the project site is not identified on any lists compiled pursuant to Government Code

Section 65962.5. Although there are several sites that represent HRECs and RECs in the vicinity of the

project site there is no environmental history on the project site itself. Phase II site assessment is not

recommended at this time. However, under MM HAZ‐1, environmental personnel are required to be

present on‐site when the excavation for the new USTs is completed to establish a baseline at the

time of occupancy of the 7‐Eleven convenience store.

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,

within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety

hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

No impact. The nearest airport is John Wayne Airport located approximately 4.59 miles southeast of

the project site. According to the John Wayne Airport Land Use Plan (2008), the project site is not

located within its planning area (ALUC 2008). Therefore, there would be no associated impacts.

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or

emergency evacuation plan?

No impact. The proposed project does not possess characteristics that would physically impair or

otherwise interfere with emergency response as outlined in the OCFA Standards of Cover and

Deployment Plan 2014 or evacuation in the project vicinity (OCFA 2014). As such, no impacts would

occur.

g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or

death involving wildland fires?

No impact. The proposed project is located in an urban built up area and is surrounded by urban

development on all sides. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention

(CAL FIRE), Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, the project site is not located within or near state

responsibility areas or lands classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Therefore, the

project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to impacts involving

wildland fires.

Mitigation Measures

MM HAZ‐1 Environmental personnel shall be present on‐site when the excavation for the new

USTs are completed to establish a baseline at the time of occupancy of the 7‐Eleven

convenience store.






Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

10. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?

b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site;

(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on‐ or off‐site;

(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or

(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?

d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?


Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially

degrade surface or groundwater quality?

Less than significant impact. Project‐related impacts related to water quality can generally occur

over several different periods:



During demolition of existing uses, when risk of pollution exposure is present;

During the earthwork and construction phase, when the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be the greatest;

Following construction, before the establishment of ground cover, when the erosion potential

may remain relatively high; and

After project completion, when impacts related to sedimentation would decrease markedly,

but those associated with urban runoff would remain similar to existing conditions.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the EPA has established regulations under the

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control direct stormwater

discharges from construction activities disturbing one acre or more of land. In California, the State

Water Board administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES

permitting requirements. The NPDES program regulates industrial pollutant discharges, which

include construction activities. The State Water Board works in coordination with the RWQCBs to

preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality. The City is within the jurisdiction of the Santa

Ana RWQCB.

Short‐term Construction

Dischargers whose projects disturb one or more acres of soil (or whose projects disturb less than

one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more

acres), are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water

Associated with Construction Activity Construction General Permit Order 2009‐0009‐DWQ.

Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the

ground, such as stockpiling or excavation, but it does not include regular maintenance activities

performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. To obtain coverage for

discharges under the General Construction Permit, dischargers are required to electronically file the

Permit Registration Documents, which include a Notice of Intent (NOI), a Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and other compliance related documents required by the General Permit

and mail the appropriate permit fee to the State Water Board. The Water Quality Management Plan

(WQMP) completed by Feidler Group in October 2018 (Appendix F) has been completed and will be

submitted as part of the application.

Although the project would not be required to comply with NPDES requirements because the project

is anticipated to disturb less than 1 acre, the project’s demolition and construction activities would

be subject to compliance with the pertinent provisions of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code.

Compliance with the Municipal Code requirements would ensure that the project’s construction‐

related impacts to water quality would be less than significant.




Long‐term Operations

The Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program regulates stormwater discharges from municipal

separate storm sewer (drain) systems (MS4s). Most of these permits are issued to a group of co‐

permittees encompassing an entire metropolitan area. The MS4 permits require the discharger to

develop and implement a Storm Water Management Plan/Program with the goal of reducing the

discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP).3 The management programs

specify what best management practice (BMP) will be used to address certain program areas. The

program areas include public education and outreach, illicit discharge detection and elimination,

construction and post‐construction, and good housekeeping for municipal operations.

The Orange County Flood Control District, the County of Orange, and the City of Santa Ana, along

with 51 other incorporated cities therein (Permittees), discharge pollutants from their MS4s.

Stormwater and non‐stormwater flows enter and are conveyed through the MS4s and are

discharged to surface water bodies of the Orange County Region. These discharges are regulated

under countywide waste discharge requirements contained in Order No. R8‐2009‐0030 (as amended

by Order No. R8‐2010‐0062), Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange

County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana

Region Area wide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County, which was approved on May 19, 2011.

Order No. R8‐2009‐0030, which serves as an NPDES permit, has expired but remains in effect until

the Santa Ana RWQCB adopts a new permit.

The Permit requires the development and implementation of a program addressing stormwater

pollution issues in development planning for private projects. The primary objectives of the

municipal stormwater program requirements are to (1) effectively prohibit non‐stormwater

discharges; and (2) reduce the discharge of pollutants from stormwater conveyance systems to the

MEP statutory standard. The County Model WQMP was developed as part of the municipal

stormwater program to address stormwater pollution from new development and redevelopment by

the private sector. This WQMP contains a list of the minimum required BMPs that must be employed

for a designated project. The Permittees are required to adopt the Program’s requirements in their

own water quality regulations. Developers must incorporate appropriate WQMP requirements into

their project plans. Each Permittee must approve the project plan as part of their development plan

approval process and prior to issuing grading and building permits for projects covered by the model

WQMP requirements.

The project would be undertaken in accordance with the Orange County Drainage Area Management

Plan (DAMP) (SAMC Section 18‐156, Control of Urban Runoff). Prior to issuance of a grading or

building permit for the project, applicable City agencies would review the project plans and impose

terms, conditions, and requirements on the project, as needed. Additionally, the project would be

subject to compliance with Chapter 19, Article IV—Water Pollution of the City of Santa Ana

Municipal Code, which addresses compliance with the 2003 DAMP.

3 MEP is the performance standard specified in Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act.



Overall, the project would be subject to compliance with the Orange County DAMP, which requires

the preparation of a WQMP that specifies the proposed BMPs (Appendix F). A project‐specific

WQMP was prepared by the Fiedler Group on August 31, 2018 and revised on October 17, 2018. The

WQMP is in compliance with NPDES, DAMP, and City of Santa Ana Municipal Code requirements,

which would ensure that the long‐term, project‐related impacts on water quality are less than

significant.

b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater

recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

Less than significant impact. According to the City of Santa Ana 2015 Urban Water Management

Plan (UWMP), the City receives water from the Lower Santa Ana River groundwater basin, which is

managed by the Orange County Water District, and from imported water from the Metropolitan

Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). Groundwater is pumped from 20 active wells

throughout the City. As discussed under Impact 18(b), the City anticipates having adequate water

supplies through year 2040. The project is consistent with its underlying General Plan designation of

District Center, and, therefore, its water usage was accounted for in the City’s current UWMP.

A 2018 Geotechnical Investigation Report by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Appendix D) for the

project notes that groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 30 feet in soil borings

during the investigation. Groundwater levels may fluctuate in the future due to rainfall, irrigation,

broken pipes, or changes in site drainage. Because of the nature of the proposed project, and in

particular the gas station, the project would be subject to routine inspection by federal, State, and

local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over fuel dispensing facilities. In order to remain

operational, the proposed project, including the UST and all associated fuel delivery infrastructure

(i.e., gas pumps), would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulation,

including but not limited to those provisions established by Section 2540.7, Gasoline Dispensing and

Service Stations, of the Cal/OSHA regulations; Chapter 38, Liquefied Petroleum Gases, of the

California Fire Code; RCRA; and the OCFA. Collectively, the routine inspection of the gas station, the

UST, and all associated fuel delivery infrastructure along with the continued mandated compliance

with all federal, state, and local regulations would ensure that the proposed project is operated in a

non‐hazardous manner which will not interfere with groundwater recharge. Thus, project

implementation would therefore result in a less than significant impact to groundwater supplies.

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the

course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which

would:

(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site;

Less than significant impact. The City’s stormwater collection system includes catch basins, drainage

basins, pumping stations, and force mains. Project construction activities such as demolition,

grading, paving, and site improvements may result in loose sediment, which can be transported by

surface water or wind into nearby storm drains and waterways.




The proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river, as the Santa Ana River is

located 0.87 mile west of the project area. The project applicant proposes to install an underground

infiltration system compliant with low impact development (LID) requirements in conjunction with

the construction of a new 7‐Eleven convenience store and fuel station canopy in order to retain the

existing drainage patterns which will continue to sheet flow southeasterly. The project would involve

construction in an area that is currently covered by impervious surfaces and the project proposes to

reduce the impervious surfaces on the project site by 2,877 square feet. The project would not

substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner that would result in

substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site. The on‐site stormwater will be mitigated by an

underground infiltration system. The existing drainage patterns and topography will be maintained.

In other words, drainage will continue to sheet flow southeasterly. Wherever possible, drainage will

be diverted into nearby landscaped areas for pretreatment of sediments and trash. A trench drain is

designed along the southeast driveway to capture any remaining runoff and drain it into the

proposed underground infiltration system.

Recommendations from the Geotechnical Investigation Report, such as designing pavement and

slopes to ensure adequate drainage away from the structures, also will be incorporated into the

project design. As such, impacts related to the alteration of existing drainage patterns in the area

that could result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site would be less than significant.

(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in

flooding on‐ or offsite;

Less than significant impact. The City’s stormwater collection system includes catch basins, drainage

basins, pumping stations, and force mains. Project construction activities such as demolition,

grading, paving, and site improvements may result in loose sediment that can be picked up by

surface water or wind into nearby storm drains and into waterways.

The proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and would not alter

the path of a stream or river, as explained above. The project applicant would install an underground

infiltration system compliant with LID requirements in conjunction with the construction of a new 7‐

Eleven convenience store and fuel station canopy in order to retain drainage patterns.

Recommendations from the Geotechnical Investigation Report will also be incorporated in the

design and construction of the project, such as designing pavement and slopes to ensure adequate

drainage away from the structures. As such, impacts related to the alteration of existing drainage

patterns in the area that could result in flooding on‐ or off‐site would be less than significant.

(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned

stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or

Less than significant impact. The project would be served by the City’s stormwater drainage system.

Construction activities such as demolition, grading, and paving could introduce additional pollutants

and sediment into water runoff and flow into nearby storm drains. As part of the project, a

Preliminary WQMP has been prepared in compliance with the NPDES requirements of the CWA. The

WQMP contains proposed BMPs such as site design techniques that store, infiltrate, evapotranspire,



bio‐filter, or detain runoff close to its source. Continuous use and operation of the site would not

create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing stormwater drains on

the project site with implementation of these BMPs. Therefore, impacts are considered less than

significant.

(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?

No impact. The project site is not located within a floodplain. The project will not add additional

impervious surfaces or alter the course of a stream or river. Therefore, there are no impacts related

to impeding or redirecting flood flow would occur.

d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?

No impact. The project site is not located within a floodplain or flood hazard zone. A seiche is an

earthquake or slide‐induced wave that can be generated in an enclosed body of water. There is no

enclosed body of water in the project vicinity.

A tsunami is a sea wave generated by an earthquake, landslide, volcanic eruption, or even a large

meteor hitting the ocean. An event such as an earthquake creates a large displacement of water

resulting in a rise or mounding at the ocean surface that moves away from this center as a sea wave.

Tsunamis generally affect coastal communities and low‐lying (low‐elevation) river valleys in the

vicinity of the coast. Buildings closest to the ocean and near sea level are most at jeopardy.

According to the California Geological Survey Orange County Tsunami Inundation Maps, the project

site is not located within a tsunami inundation area (DOC 2019). A seiche is an earthquake or slide‐

induced wave that can be generated in an enclosed body of water. There is no enclosed body of

water in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project is not in a seiche zone.

Potential risk from mudflow (e.g., mudslide, debris flow) does not exist within the project area, as

steep slopes are not located in the project vicinity. Therefore, because the project is not in a flood

hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone, there would be no associated impacts related project

implementation would not risk release of pollutants from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or

mudflow. No impact would occur.

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable

groundwater management plan?

Less than significant impact. The project site has little potential for groundwater recharge due to

poorly drained soils and shallow groundwater levels. The project would not conflict with the County

Watershed Program and the County’s NPDES program. That proposed construction would disturb

less than 1 acre of land. The on‐site underground infiltration system would mitigate runoff from the

project site. Appendix F includes BMPs that will ensure reduction of pollutants from construction

activities potentially entering surface waters. Therefore, construction impacts related to water

quality control plan or groundwater management plan consistency would be less than significant.




In addition, Santa Ana Municipal Utility Services would provide potable water to the project site. As

a result, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a sustainable groundwater management

plan. Therefore, operational impacts related to obstructing implementation of a water quality

control plan or groundwater management plan would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

None.





Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

11. Land Use and Planning Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community?

b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?


Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community?

Less than significant impact. The physical division of an established community typically refers to

the construction of a linear feature, such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a

means of access, such as a local bridge that would impact mobility within an existing community of

between a community and outlying area. The project does not involve any such features, and would

not remove any means of access or impact mobility. Furthermore, no streets or sidewalks would be

permanently closed as a result of project development.

The project area is built out with a variety of uses. The proposed project would not involve changes to

any circulation facilities in the surrounding community. The nature of the project land use would be

consistent with the surrounding uses. The project would not introduce land uses inconsistent with

development in the local area or affect existing land use relationships. As such, the project would not

physically divide an established community and impacts are considered less than significant.

b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or

regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Less than significant impact. The City of Santa Ana General Plan and Zoning Ordinance defines the

permitted land uses and the corresponding development standards within the City. The project site

is currently zoned as Light Industrial (M‐1) and the City of Santa Ana General Plan designation is

General Commercial. Although service stations are permitted in the M‐1 zone, a convenience store

greater than 2,000‐square‐feet in size is not permitted in the M‐1 zone. Therefore, the proposed

project would seek an Amendment Application (Zone Change) to change the zoning from M‐1 to

General Commercial (C‐2) to allow for a 2,480‐square‐foot convenience store. The C‐2 zoning

permits a convenience store with the approval and issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for the

after‐hours operations. The surrounding parcels north and east of the project site are zoned C‐2,

therefore a zone change would be consistent with the existing surrounding General Plan and Zoning




designations. With approval of the requested Zone Change and CUP, the project would not conflict

with any applicable land use plan. As such, impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

None.





Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

12. Mineral Resources Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?


Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region

and the residents of the state?

No impact. According to the City’s Land Use Element of the General Plan, there are no significant

mineral aggregate resource areas (SMARA) designations within the City (City of Santa Ana 1998). The

closest regionally significant resources are north of the City, along the Santa Ana River within the

cities of Orange and Anaheim. Santa Ana is a highly urbanized city and does not have any active

mining operations within the city limits. The project site is currently developed and project

implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource; thus, no

impacts would occur.

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource recovery site delineated

on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

No impact. As stated above, the City’s Land Use Element of the General Plan does not identify any

mineral resource zones within the City (City of Santa Ana 1998). The project site is zoned as M‐1 by

the City of Santa Ana Zoning Ordinance and the proposed project would rezone to C‐2, neither of

which permit mining activities. The project site is not a site that contains mineral resources that are

locally important to the area; thus, no impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures

None.






Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

12. Noise Would the project result in:

a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?


Introduction

This section describes the existing noise setting and potential effects from project implementation

on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on noise

modeling performed by FCS (Traffic Noise Appendix Data, FCS 2019 [Appendix G]).


Characteristics of Noise and Groundborne Vibration

Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB),

with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Most of the sounds that we hear in the

environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies, with each

frequency differing in sound level. The intensities of each frequency add together to generate a sound.

Noise is typically generated by transportation, specific land uses, and ongoing human activity.

The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the dB. The 0 point on the dB scale is

based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB

or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. A change of 3 dB is the lowest change that can

be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. While a change of 5 dB is considered to be

the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments.



Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, the A‐weighted decibel scale

(dBA) was derived to relate noise to the sensitivity of humans. The scale gives greater weight to the

frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Furthermore, the A‐weighted sound

level is the basis for a number of various sound level metrics, including the day/night sound level

(Ldn) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), both of which represent how humans are

more sensitive to sound at night. In addition, the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the

average sound energy of time‐varying noise over a sample period and the Lmax is the maximum

instantaneous noise level occurring over a sample period.

Groundborne vibration is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the vibration results

in noticeable shaking of a building. When assessing annoyance from groundborne vibration,

vibration is typically expressed as root mean square velocity in units of decibels of 1 micro‐inch per

second. To distinguish these vibration levels referenced in decibels from noise levels referenced in

decibels, the unit is written as “VdB.”

In extreme cases, excessive groundborne vibration has the potential to cause structural damage to

buildings. Common sources of groundborne vibration include construction activities such as blasting,

pile driving and operating heavy earthmoving equipment. However, construction vibration impacts

on building structures are generally assessed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV). For purposes of

this analysis, project related impacts are expressed in terms of PPV.

Regulatory Framework

The project site is located in the City of Santa Ana and this analysis was performed using the City’s

noise regulations. The City of Santa Ana addresses noise in its policies and regulations of the Noise

Element of its General Plan (City of Santa Ana 1982) and in the City’s Code of Ordinances (City of

Santa Ana 2018). These policies and regulations are summarized below.

General Plan

The City of Santa Ana has established the following policies that are applicable to the proposed

project and that are designed to prevent significant increases in noise levels in the community and to

minimize the adverse effects of currently‐existing noise sources:

Require consideration of noise generation potential and susceptibility to noise impacts in the

siting, design and construction of new developments.

Require mitigating site and building design features, traffic circulation alternatives, insulation,

and other noise prevention measures of those new developments which generate high noise

levels.

Code of Ordinances

The City of Santa Ana Municipal Code contains Noise Control Ordinances in Article VI of Chapter 18,

Health and Sanitation. Sections of the Municipal Code that are applicable to the proposed project

are summarized below.




Section 18‐312 establishes exterior noise standards, limiting noise levels at receiving residential

homes to 55 dBA during the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and 50 dBA during

the nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Noise generation at any location within the

City of Santa Ana, when measured on any other residential property, must not exceed the following:

1. The above noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour; or

2. The noise standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour; or

3. The noise standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour; or

4. The noise standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour; or

5. The noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time.

If the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four noise limit categories above, the cumulative

period applicable to that category shall be increased to reflect the ambient noise level. If the

ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under

that category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.

Section 18‐313 establishes interior noise standards, limiting noise levels at receiving residential

homes to 55 dBA during the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and 45 dBA during

the nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Noise generation at any location within the

City of Santa Ana, when measured within any other dwelling unit on any residential property, must

not exceed the following:

1. The interior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour; or

2. The interior noise standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any

hour; or

3. The interior noise standard plus 10 dBA for any period of time.

If the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first two noise limit categories above, the cumulative

period applicable to that category shall be increased to reflect the ambient noise level. If the

ambient noise level exceeds the third noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under

that category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.

Section 18‐314 of the Code notes that noise sources associated with construction, repair,

remodeling, or grading of any real property are exempt from the noise performance standards of the

Municipal Code, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00

a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday.



Impact Analysis

Would the project result in:

a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the

vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise

ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Short Term Construction Impacts

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. A significant impact would occur if

construction activities would generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels

outside of the City’s permissible hours for noise producing construction activities that would result in

annoyance or sleep disturbance for nearby sensitive receptors. Noise impacts from construction

activities associated with the project would be a function of the noise generated by construction

equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the

construction activities.

Construction Traffic Noise

One type of noise impact that could occur during project construction would result from the increase

in traffic flow on local streets, associated with the transport of workers, equipment, and materials to

and from the project site. The transport of workers and construction equipment and materials to the

project site would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Because

project construction workers and construction equipment would use existing routes, noise from

passing trucks would be similar to existing vehicle‐generated noise on these local roadways.

Furthermore, project‐related construction trips would not be expected to double the traffic volumes

along any roadway segment in the project vicinity and would thus not result in a perceptible change in

existing traffic noise levels. For these reasons, short‐term intermittent noise from trucks would be

minor when averaged over a longer time‐period and would not be expected to exceed existing peak

noise levels in the project vicinity. Therefore, construction‐related impacts associated with worker

commute and equipment transport to the project site would be less than significant.

Construction Equipment Noise

Construction noise levels are rarely steady in nature and often fluctuate depending on the type and

number of equipment being used at any given time. In addition, there are times where large

equipment is not operating and construction site noise would be at or near normal ambient levels.

Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and its own

noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise

generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction

progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the

dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction related noise ranges to be

categorized by work phase.

The site preparation phase, which includes demolition, excavation, and grading activities, would

generate the highest noise levels because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving




equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery and compacting equipment,

such as bulldozers, draglines, backhoes, front loaders, roller compactors, scrapers, and graders.

Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full

power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

Construction of the proposed project is expected to require the use of front‐end loaders, tractors,

backhoes, concrete/industrial saws, rubber tire dozers, cranes, forklifts, pavers, rollers, air

compressors, excavators, haul trucks, water trucks, concrete mixer trucks, and pickup trucks. The

maximum noise level generated by each concrete mixing truck is assumed to be 85 dBA Lmax at 50

feet from this equipment. Each dozer would also generate 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The maximum

noise level generated by excavators is approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Each doubling of sound

sources with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of

construction equipment operates at some distance from the other equipment, a reasonable worst‐

case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50

feet from the acoustic center of a construction area. This would result in a reasonable worst‐case

hourly average of 86 dBA Leq. The acoustical center reference is used because construction

equipment must operate at some distance from one another on a project site, and the combined

noise level as measured at a point equidistant from the sources (acoustic center) would be the

worst‐case maximum noise level.

The nearest off‐site noise‐sensitive receptor to the proposed project site is the residential home

located east of the project site across South Daisy Avenue. This home’s nearest façade would be

located approximately 120 feet from the acoustic center of construction activity where multiple

pieces of heavy machinery would potentially operate, simultaneously, at the project site. At this

distance, worst‐case construction noise levels could range up to approximately 82 dBA Lmax,

intermittently, and could have an hourly average of up to 78 dBA Leq, at the nearest façade of this

residential home.

Although there could be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential causing an

intermittent noise nuisance, the effect of construction noise levels on longer‐term (hourly or daily)

ambient noise levels would be small but could result in annoyance or sleep disturbances at nearby

sensitive receptors if construction activities are not limited to the permissible construction hours

established by the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code. Therefore, noise producing construction

activities shall be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through

Saturday; construction activities are prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. Restricting

construction activities to these stated time‐periods, as well as implementing the best management

noise reduction techniques and practices (both outlined in MM NOI‐1), would ensure that

construction noise would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels that

would result in annoyance or sleep disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, the

potential short‐term construction noise impacts to ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project

site would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation incorporated.



Operational/Stationary Source Noise Impacts

Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if operational noise levels generated

by stationary noise sources at the proposed project site would result in a substantial permanent

increase in ambient noise levels in excess of any of the noise performance thresholds established in

the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code. The City has established an exterior noise limit of 55 dBA Leq

hourly average during daytime hours, and a noise limit of 50 dBA Leq hourly average during nighttime

hours, for receiving residential land uses. However, the City notes that if the existing ambient noise

level exceeds these standards, the ambient noise level shall be considered the standard.

Existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity are dominated by traffic noise. Based on the

traffic noise modeling described in the analysis below, the existing ambient noise level at the

property line of the nearest noise sensitive receptor to the project site is approximately 63 dBA

CNEL. Therefore, since the daytime and nighttime average noise levels currently exceed the City’s

noise standards, the ambient noise level shall be considered the standard.

The City has not established a threshold to determine what constitutes a substantial increase.

Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dBA or more, as this level has been

found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. A change of 5 dBA is

considered the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments.

Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, an increase of greater than 3 dBA above existing ambient

noise levels would be considered a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels.

The proposed project would include new stationary noise sources, including new mechanical

ventilation equipment and parking lot activities.

Mechanical Equipment Operations

Implementation of the project would include operation of new mechanical ventilation equipment.

Noise levels from typical commercial‐grade mechanical ventilation equipment systems range up to

approximately 60 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet.

Proposed mechanical ventilation systems could be located as close as 125 feet from the nearest off‐

site noise‐sensitive receptor, which is the single‐family residential home located at 109 South Daisy

Avenue. At this distance, operational noise levels generated by this equipment would range up to

approximately 46 dBA Leq at this nearest noise‐sensitive receptor. Existing traffic noise levels along

West Fir Street adjacent to the project site range up to approximately 68 dBA CNEL as measured at

50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. The nearest residential receptor, located at

109 South Daisy Avenue, is located approximately 130 feet from the centerline of the outermost

travel lane. At this distance, existing traffic noise levels would attenuate to approximately 63 dBA

CNEL. Therefore, existing ambient noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor in the project vicinity

are a minimum of 63 dBA CNEL.

The calculated reasonable worst‐case noise levels resulting from the operation of mechanical

ventilation equipment of 46 dBA Leq would not exceed existing ambient noise levels, averaging 63

dBA CNEL at the nearest off‐site receptor, by 3 dBA or more. Therefore, operational noise levels due




to mechanical ventilation equipment would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient

noise levels in excess of any of the noise performance thresholds, and would represent a less than

significant impact.

Parking Lot Activities

Typical parking lot activities include people conversing, doors shutting, and vehicles idling, which

generate noise levels ranging from approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. These activities

are expected to occur throughout the day, as visitors and staff arrive and leave parking lot areas at

the project site. This project would also include periodic parking lot noise from the loading and

unloading activities of small delivery trucks.

The nearest noise‐sensitive receptor to the gas station component and parking areas of the

proposed project is the single‐family residential home located at 109 South Daisy Avenue. This

residence would be located approximately 110 feet from the acoustic center of parking lot activities

at the project site. At this distance, noise levels associated with daily parking lot activities would

range up to approximately 63 dBA Lmax at the nearest residential property line.

Noise levels resulting from parking lot activities at the proposed project site would not exceed

existing ambient noise levels at the nearest off‐site receptor by 3 dBA or more. Therefore,

operational noise levels due to parking lot activities would not result in a substantial permanent

increase in ambient noise levels in excess of any of the noise performance thresholds, and would

represent a less than significant impact.

Therefore, operational noise levels generated by stationary noise sources at the proposed project

site would have a less than significant impact to existing ambient noise levels.

Operational/Mobile Source Noise Impacts

Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if implementation of the proposed

project would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels compared with noise levels

existing without the project. However, the City does not define “substantial increase.” Therefore, for

the purpose of this analysis, a substantial increase is based on the following criteria: (1) a

characteristic of noise is that audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dBA or

more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor

environments, and (2) a change of 5 dBA is considered the minimum readily perceptible change to

the human ear in outdoor environments. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, a significant impact

would occur if the project would cause the CNEL to increase by any of the following:

5 dBA or more even if the CNEL would remain below normally acceptable levels for a receiving

land use.

3 dBA or more, thereby causing the CNEL in the project vicinity to exceed normally acceptable

levels and result in noise levels that would be considered conditionally acceptable for a

receiving land use.

1.5 dBA or more where the CNEL currently exceeds conditionally acceptable levels.



Traffic noise levels along selected roadway segments in the project vicinity were modeled using the

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA‐RD‐77‐108). Site‐

specific information, such as roadway traffic volumes, roadway active width, source‐to‐receiver

distances, travel speed, noise source, and receiver heights is entered, along with the percentages of

automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks that the traffic is made up of throughout the day,

amongst other variables. The daily traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic analysis prepared

for the project by RK Engineering Group (RKEG 2018). The traffic volumes described here correspond

to the Existing Without Project conditions traffic scenario as described in the transportation analysis.

The model inputs and outputs—including the 60 dBA, 65 dBA, and 70 dBA CNEL noise contour

distances—are provided in Appendix G of this document. Table 13 shows a summary of the traffic

noise levels for Existing, Existing Plus Project, Project Opening Year (2020) Without Project, and

Project Opening Year (2020) With Project conditions as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of

the outermost travel lane.

Table 13: Traffic Noise Model Results Summary

Roadway Segment

CNEL (dBA) 50 feet from Centerline of Outermost Lane

Existing (dBA) CNEL

Existing Plus

Project (dBA) CNEL

Increase Over

Existing (dBA) CNEL

Project Opening Year

(2020) Without

Project (dBA) CNEL

Project Opening

Year (2020) With Project (dBA) CNEL

Increase Over Project

Opening Year (2020)

Without Project (dBA)

CNEL

West First Street—North Townsend Street to Project Driveway 1

68.1 68.2 0.1 68.4 68.4 0.0

West First Street—Project Driveway 1 to South Daisy Avenue

68.1 68.2 0.1 68.3 68.4 0.1

West First Street—South Daisy Avenue to Franklin Street

68.2 68.3 0.1 68.4 68.5 0.1

South Daisy Avenue—West First Street to Project Driveway 2

53.0 55.0 2.0 53.3 55.2 1.9

South Daisy Avenue—Project Driveway 2 to Project Driveway 3

53.0 54.3 1.3 53.3 54.5 1.2

Notes: 1 Modeling results do not take into account mitigating features such as topography, vegetative screening, fencing,

building design, or structure screening. Rather it assumes a worst case of having a direct line of site on flat terrain. Source: FCS 2019.

The highest traffic noise level increase with implementation of the project would occur along South

Daisy Avenue between West First Street and Project Driveway 2 under existing plus project

conditions. The modeling results show that traffic noise levels with the project would range up to

55.0 dBA CNEL as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. The resulting




noise levels are below the normally acceptable threshold for receiving land uses adjacent to this

roadway segment. This increase is well below the 5 dBA increase that would be considered a

substantial permanent increase in noise levels compared with noise levels that would exist without

the project. Therefore, impacts from project‐related traffic noise levels would not result in a

substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels in excess of applicable standards, and this

impact would be less than significant.

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Less than significant impact. This section analyzes both construction and operational groundborne

vibration impacts. The City of Santa Ana has not adopted criteria for construction groundborne

vibration impacts. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

vibration impact criteria are utilized to determine the significance of project‐related construction

groundborne vibration levels. The FTA has established industry accepted standards for vibration

impact criteria and impact assessment. These guidelines are published in its Transit Noise and

Vibration Impact Assessment document. The FTA guidelines thresholds for construction vibration

impacts for various structural categories, as shown in Table 14.

Table 14: Federal Transit Administration Construction Vibration Impact Criteria

Building Category PPV (in/sec) Approximate VdB

I. Reinforced—Concrete, Steel or Timber (no plaster) 0.5 102

II. Engineered Concrete and Masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98

III. Non Engineer Timber and Masonry Buildings 0.2 94

IV. Buildings Extremely Susceptible to Vibration Damage 0.12 90

Source: FTA 2019.

Short‐term Construction Vibration Impacts

A significant impact would occur if existing structures at the project site or in the project vicinity

would be exposed to groundborne vibration levels in excess of levels established by the FTA’s

Construction Vibration Impact Criteria for the listed type of structure, as shown in Table 14.

Of the variety of equipment that would be used during construction, small vibratory rollers would

produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels. Small vibratory rollers produce groundborne

vibration levels ranging up to 0.101 inch per second (in/sec) PPV at 25 feet from the operating

equipment. Impact equipment such as pile drivers is not expected to be used during construction of

this project.

The closest structure to the construction footprint is the DC Auto Electric building located

immediately adjacent to the project site to the west. This building would be located approximately

25 feet from the nearest on‐site location where the largest heavy construction equipment would



operate. At this distance, construction‐related groundborne vibration levels could range up to 0.101

PPV from the operation of a small vibratory roller.

Construction equipment would also operate near the western project boundary during the site

preparation phase of construction. Of the variety of equipment that would operate adjacent to the

project boundary, backhoes would produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels. This

equipment may be operated as close as 10 feet to the DC Auto Electric building located to the west.

At this distance, construction‐related groundborne vibration levels could range up to 0.202 PPV from

the operation of a backhoe. These groundborne vibration levels are below the industry standard

vibration damage criteria of 0.5 PPV for this type of structure, a building of reinforced concrete,

steel, or timber (no plaster) construction. Therefore, impacts resulting from construction‐related

groundborne vibration levels would be less than significant.

Operational Vibration Impacts

A significant impact would occur if the project would generate excessive groundborne vibration

levels at sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.

The proposed project would not include any permanent sources of vibration that would expose

persons in the project vicinity to groundborne vibration levels that could be perceptible without

instruments by a reasonable person at any receiving sensitive receptor in the project vicinity.

Therefore, project operational groundborne vibration level impacts are considered less than

significant.

c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where

such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,

would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise

levels?

No impact. A significant impact would occur if the project would expose people residing or working

in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within the vicinity of a private

airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a

public airport or public use airport.

The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest public airport to

the project site is John Wayne Airport, located approximately 4.5 miles south of the project site.

Because of the distance from and orientation of the airport runways, the project site is located well

outside of the 65 dBA CNEL airport noise contours. Therefore, implementation of the project would

not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with

airport activity. Therefore, no impacts associated with private airstrip noise would occur.

Mitigation Measures

MM NOI‐1 To reduce potential construction noise impacts, the following multi‐part mitigation

measure shall be implemented for the proposed project:




The construction contractor shall ensure that all equipment driven by internal

combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition

and appropriate for the equipment.

The construction contractor shall ensure that unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines (i.e., idling in excess of 5 minutes) is prohibited.

The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and

other stationary noise sources where technology exists.

At all times during project grading and construction, the construction contractor

shall ensure that stationary noise‐generating equipment shall be located as far as

practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed

away from the nearest residential land uses.

The construction contractor shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction

noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise

complaints (starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and establishment reasonable

measures necessary to correct the problem. The construction contractor shall

visibly post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the

construction site.

The construction contractor shall limit construction activities to the hours

between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Construction

activities are prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays.





Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

14. Population and Housing Would the project:

a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?


Would the project:

a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by

proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or

other infrastructure)?

Less than significant impact. The CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth inducing if it fosters

economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly

in the surrounding environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d)). New employees from commercial

or industrial development and new populations from residential development represent direct forms

of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local

markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area.

Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of

particular significance to the environment. Typically, the growth‐inducing potential of a project

would be considered substantial if it is unplanned or fosters growth or a concentration of population

in excess of what is assumed in pertinent master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by

regional planning agencies (e.g., SCAG).

The proposed project would require a temporary construction and permanent operational

workforce, both of which could induce population growth in the project area. The temporary

workforce would be needed to construct the convenience store and fueling station canopy and

associated improvements. The number of construction workers needed during any given time period

would largely depend on the specific stage of construction and would be temporary. Because of the

nature of the proposed project, the types of labor skills required for the proposed project are

typically filled by workers who are already present in the local labor force. As such, the employees

would not increase the population since it is likely the workers would be employed from the




surrounding areas of Orange County. Once operational, the employees working at the 7‐Eleven

convenience store would also likely be from the local labor force. Therefore, there would be less

than significant impacts associated with growth inducement.

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of

replacement housing elsewhere?

No impact. The proposed project would not displace existing people or housing, necessitating the

construction of replacement housing elsewhere, because the proposed project is proposed on a

vacant, former restaurant site that does not contain existing housing that would be removed or

affected by the proposed project. Therefore, there will be no impact on existing housing,

necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Mitigation Measures

None.





Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

15. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

a) Fire protection?

b) Police protection?

c) Schools?

d) Parks?

e) Other public facilities?


The OCFA provides fire protection services to the City of Santa Ana. OCFA provides both fire

protection and emergency medical response services to the City of Santa Ana. The OCFA operates 10

stations throughout Santa Ana, and has access to an additional 72 stations in its service area (OCFA

2019). According to the City of Santa Ana Public Safety Element, each station covers a service radius

of approximately 1.5 miles throughout the City of Santa Ana. The first Fire unit response goal is less

than 5 minutes (City of Santa Ana 1982). The closest fire station to the project site is OCFA Station

No. 73 located approximately 0.22 miles south.

The Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD) provides police protection to the City of Santa Ana. The

Santa Ana General Plan Public Safety Element indicates the City’s central police station is located in

Civic Center approximately 0.94 miles northeast of the project site.

The Education Element of the City of Santa Ana General Plan indicates the City is served by four

school districts: Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD), Garden Grove Unified School District,

Tustin Unified School District, and Orange Unified School District (City of Santa Ana 1988). SAUSD

accounts for over 90 percent of school resources in the City.

The City of Santa Ana contains a city library system of a central library in Civic Center Plaza and two

branch libraries in the western section of Santa Ana; the McFadden, and Newhope Branches.

According to the Santa Ana General Plan Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element, the City has

about 400 acres of public park and recreation facilities distributed throughout the City (City of Santa

Ana 1982). Approximately 2 acres of open space exist for each 1,000 residents.




On March 15, 2019, communications via e‐mail were sent out to OCFA, SAPD, SAUSD, Santa Ana Library,

and Santa Ana Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department for comment on possible impacts

to services due to the proposed project. No feedback regarding the project was received.


Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new

or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental

facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to

maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the

public services:

a) Fire protection?

Less than significant impact. The OCFA serves the City of Santa Ana and there are 10 fire stations

within the City. The two nearest stations are Station No. 73—located approximately 0.22 miles south

of the project at 419 South Franklin Street, and Station No. 75—located approximately 1.53 miles

from the project site to the east at 120 West Walnut Street. The proposed project consists of the

construction of a new 7‐Eleven convenience store and fuel station canopy. The project would not

result in a population increase. It is not anticipated that the OCFA response times to the project site

or surrounding vicinity will be affected, however current response times within the City is 8 minutes

39 seconds, which is above the target City response times of 5 minutes (OCFA 2014). As such, prior

to approval, the project’s design would be subject to compliance with the requirements in the

California Building Standards Commission 2016 California Fire Code. The project plans would be

reviewed and approved by the Santa Ana Building and Safety Division and the OCFA, which would

ensure adequate emergency access, fire hydrant availability, and compliance with all applicable

codes and standards. Compliance with the City’s permit process and City of Santa Ana Municipal

Code requirements would ensure that project implementation would result in a less than significant

impact to fire protection services.

b) Police protection?

Less than significant impact. The SAPD provides police services to the project area. The main SAPD

building is located approximately 0.94 mile northeast from the project site at 60 Civic Center Plaza.

The proposed project would not require the construction of new SAPD facilities or expansion of

existing facilities to accommodate the project. Project implementation is not anticipated to increase

SAPD response times to the project site or surrounding vicinity. In addition, the project plans would

be reviewed and approved by the Santa Ana Building and Safety Division and SAPD, which would

ensure that adequate safety and crime prevention measures are provided. Compliance with the

City’s discretionary review process would ensure that project implementation would result in a less

than significant impact to police services.



c) Schools?

No impact. The schools nearest the project area are REACH Academy, located at 1512 West Santa Ana

Blvd. approximately 0.37 mile northeast and Abraham Lincoln Elementary School located

approximately 0.38 mile southwest of the project site. The proposed project would construct a new 7‐

Eleven convenience store and fuel station canopy. It is not anticipated that the project would increase

the population or demand for school services in the City; therefore, no impacts would occur.

d) Parks?

No impact. According to the City’s General Plan Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element, Santa

Ana has approximately 400 acres of public park and recreation facilities and the City strives to

maintain approximately 2 acres of open space for each 1,000 residents. Currently, the City operates

38 parks and recreational facilities within the City as well as playgrounds at several schools. As stated

above, the proposed project is for the construction of a new 7‐Eleven Convenience Store and fuel

station canopy. The implementation of the project would not increase population or demand for

park services in the City; therefore, no impact would occur.

e) Other public facilities?

No impact. The City operates two libraries. The Main Library is located at 26 Civic Center Plaza, and

the Newhope Library is located at 122 North Newhope Street. The population would not increase

because of the proposed project, and, therefore, no impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures

None.






Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

16. Recreation

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?


a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other

recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be

accelerated?

No impact. According to the City General Plan Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element, Santa Ana

has approximately 400 acres of public park and recreation facilities and the City strives to maintain

approximately 2 acres of open space for each 1,000 residents (City of Santa Ana, 1982). Currently,

the City operates 47 parks and recreational facilities within the City as well as playgrounds at several

schools (City of Santa Ana 2019). The proposed project consists of the construction of a new 7‐

Eleven convenience store and fuel station canopy with associated parking lot. Therefore, the

proposed project is not a residential use and implementation of the project would not increase the

use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial

physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of

recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

No impact. The proposed project consists of the construction of a new 7‐Eleven convenience store

and fuel station canopy with associated parking lot. The project is not anticipated to have growth

inducing impacts, as discussed above. There are no plans to construct recreational facilities for the

project; thus, no impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures

None.





Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

17. Transportation Would the project:

a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy of the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?


A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for the project by RK Engineering Group, Inc. dated

September 4, 2018, and is included in this IS/MND as Appendix H.

The traffic analysis evaluates the existing weekday peak‐hour operating conditions at six key study

intersections within the project vicinity, estimates the trip generation potential of the proposed

project, and superimposes the project‐related traffic volumes on the circulation system as it

currently exists. In addition, the analysis forecasts future weekday operating conditions (based on

approved and reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects) with and without the proposed project,

and, if necessary, identifies appropriate intersection improvements/mitigation measures. The

weekday peak‐hours evaluated consist of 1 hour between 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. (referred to as the

AM peak‐hour) and 1 hour between 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. (referred to as the PM peak‐hour). The

traffic report is intended to satisfy the traffic impact requirements of the City of Santa Ana and

Orange County.

This traffic report analyzes existing and future weekday peak‐hour traffic conditions for a future

(year 2020) traffic setting upon completion of the proposed project. Peak‐hour traffic forecasts for

the year 2020 have been projected by increasing existing traffic volumes by an annual growth rate of

2 percent (to account for 2 years of annual growth at 1 percent) and adding traffic volumes

generated by cumulative projects known to the City of Santa Ana and RK Engineering Group at the

time the study was prepared.




Study Area Intersections

Table 15 lists the five key study intersections evaluated in the report in accordance with the scope of

work approved by the City of Santa Ana.

Table 15: Study Area Intersections

Study Intersection

No. North‐South Street East‐West Street

1 Townsend Street West First Street

2 Daisy Avenue West First Street

3 Raitt Street West First Street

4 Project Access Driveway 1 West First Street

5 Daisy Avenue Project Access Driveway 2

6 Daisy Avenue Project Access Driveway 3

Project Description

The proposed project is located at 1904 West First Street and is bound by West First Street to the

north, a vacant parcel to the south, auto repair uses to the west, and Daisy Avenue to the east. The

project currently contains an existing vacant restaurant, which is planned to be displaced by the

proposed project. Although the project proposes to construct a four vehicle‐fueling‐position gas

station, the traffic analysis evaluates the traffic impacts associated with construction of an eight

vehicle‐fueling‐position gas station. Hence, the traffic analysis is considered conservative. The

project is projected for completion by year 2020 and has been evaluated in a single phase.

Site Access

Vehicular access to the site will be provided via three proposed unsignalized driveways, one along

West First Street, and two along Daisy Avenue.

City of Santa Ana LOS and Significance Criteria

The City of Santa Ana utilizes level of service (LOS) metrics for analyzing potentially significant

impacts. The City of Santa Ana target for peak‐hour intersection operation is LOS D or better. For

intersections located within areas of the City designated Major Development Areas, LOS E or better

is considered acceptable. This project is not in a major development area. For signalized

intersections that have an existing LOS of F, a project increase of 1 percent of capacity is considered

significant. Any intersection operating at LOS E or LOS F will be considered deficient and mitigation

measures will need to be identified to achieve acceptable LOS.



LOS Methodology

The methodology used to assess the operation of the signalized study area intersections within the

jurisdiction of City of Santa Ana is Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). Study area intersections

that are stop sign controlled have been analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology.

Existing Conditions

Table 16 summarizes the existing peak‐hour service level calculations for the six study area

intersections based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometry. Review of Table 16

indicates that all of the six study intersections currently operate at an acceptable level of service

during the AM and PM peak‐hours.



Table 16: Existing Peak Hour LOS

Intersection Traffic

Control6

Intersection Approach Lane(s)1,2 Existing Conditons3,4,5

Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

L T R L T R L T R L T R Delay—LOS V/C—LOS Delay—LOS V/C—LOS

1. Townsend Street (NS)/ West First Street (EW)

TS 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.5 N/A 0.358—A N/A 0.538—A

2. Daisy Avenue (NS)/West First Street (EW)

CSS 0.0 1! 0.0 0.0 1! 0.0 1.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 2.5 0.5 42.7—E N/A 31.7—D N/A

3. Raitt Street (NS)/West First Street (EW)

TS 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 2.5 0.5 N/A 0.711—C N/A 0.674—B

4. Project Driveway 1 (NS)/ West First Street (EW)

CSS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

5. Daisy Avenue (NS)/ Project Driveway 2 (EW)




Notes: 1 When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the

through lanes. Where “1” is indicated for the through movement and “0”s are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with through movement. 2 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn; ! = Indicates general purpose lane 3 Deficient operation shown in BOLD; N/A = Not applicable 4 Analysis Software: Delay (HCM 2000 Methodology) and V/C (ICU Methodology) both based on Traffix, Version 8.0 5 V/C Volume to Capacity Ratio. It should be noted that the V/C is not calculated for unsignalized intersections. 6 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop Source: RK Engineering Group, Inc., 2018.



Project Trip Generation

Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted and produced by a development.

The trip generation for the project is based upon the specific land uses that have been planned for

the development. As previously noted, the proposed project consists of constructing a four vehicle‐

fueling‐position gas station, the traffic analysis evaluates the traffic impacts associated with

construction of an eight vehicle‐fueling‐position gas station. Hence, the traffic analysis is considered

conservative.

Trip generation rates for the proposed project are shown in Table 17 and are based on the Institute

of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. This publication

provides a comprehensive evaluation of trip generation rates for a variety of land uses.

Table 17: ITE Trip Generation Rates for Proposed Project

Land Use ITE

Code Units1

AM PM

Daily In Out Total In Out Total

Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps 853 VFP 10.38 10.38 20.76 11.52 11.52 23.04 322.50

Notes: 1 VFP = Vehicle Fueling Position The proposed project consists of a four (4) vehicle fueling position gas station with convenience market. However, this traffic analysis evaluates the traffic impacts associated with the construction of an eight (8) vehicle fueling positon gas station with convenience market. Therefore, this traffic analysis is considered conservative. Source: 2017 ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition)

Utilizing the ITE trip generation rates shown in Table 17, Table 18 summarizes the daily and peak‐

hour trip generation for the proposed project.

Table 18: Daily and Peak Hour Trip Generation Summary of Proposed Project

Land Use Quantity Units1

AM PM

Daily In Out Total In Out Total

Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps 8 VFP 83 83 166 92 92 184 2,580

Notes: 1 VFP = Vehicle Fueling Position The proposed project consists of a four (4) vehicle fueling position gas station with convenience market. However, this traffic analysis evaluates the traffic impacts associated with the construction of an eight (8) vehicle fueling positon gas station with convenience market. Therefore, this traffic analysis is considered conservative. Source: 2017 ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition)

As shown in Table 18, based on ITE trip generation rates, the proposed project is forecast to generate

approximately 2,580 daily trips, which include approximately 166 AM peak‐hour trips and 184 PM

peak‐hour trips.




Project Trip Distribution and Assignment

Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip

distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of residential,

employment, and recreational opportunities, and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The

directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing and proposed land uses, and

highways within the community.

Trip distribution patterns for this study have been based upon near‐term conditions from those

highway facilities that are either in place or will be contemplated over the next few years, which

represents the completion and occupancy for the proposed development.

The project trip distribution assumptions were provided to City of Santa Ana staff for review and

approval prior to preparation of the traffic study.

Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions

Existing Plus Project peak‐hour intersection turning movement volumes were obtained by adding

project trip assignment to existing traffic volumes. Table 19 summarizes Existing Plus Project

Conditions AM peak‐hour and PM peak‐hour LOS of the study intersections.



Table 19: Existing Plus Project Conditions AM and PM Peak Hour Study Intersection LOS


Control6

Intersection Approach Lane(s)1,2 Existing Plus Project Conditons3,4,5




TS 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.5 N/A 0.365—A N/A 0.548—A


CSS 0.0 1! 0.0 0.0 1! 0.0 1.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 2.5 0.5 69.9—F N/A 55.4—F N/A


TS 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 2.5 0.5 N/A 0.718—C N/A 0.686—B


CSS 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 3.0 0.0 27.6—D N/A 22.8—C N/A


CSS 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9—A N/A 9.8—A N/A


CSS 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6—A N/A 9.5—A N/A






As shown in Table 19, all study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS

for Existing Plus Project Conditions, with the exception of the intersection of Daisy Avenue at West

First Street.

Project Opening Year (2020) Without Project Conditions Traffic Conditions

Project Opening Year (2020) Without Project Conditions traffic volumes include existing traffic

volumes on surrounding roadways, traffic associated with cumulative projects, and area wide

growth. Table 20 summarizes Project Opening Year (2020) Without Project Conditions AM peak‐hour

and PM peak‐hour LOS of the study intersections.



Table 20: Project Opening Year (2020) Without Project Conditions AM and PM Peak‐hour Study Intersection LOS


Control6

Intersection Approach Lane(s)1,2 Opening Year (2020) Without Project

Conditions3,4,5




TS 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.5 N/A 0.372—A N/A 0.557—A


CSS 0.0 1! 0.0 0.0 1! 0.0 1.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 2.5 0.5 52.5—F N/A 39.0—E N/A


TS 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 2.5 0.5 N/A 0.735—C N/A 0.701—C













for Project Opening Year (2020) Without Project Conditions, with the exception of the intersection of

Daisy Avenue at West First Street.

Project Opening Year (2020) With Project Conditions Traffic Conditions

Project traffic has been added to background traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, traffic from

cumulative projects, and area‐wide growth to derive Project Opening Year (2020) With Project

Conditions traffic volumes. Table 21 summarizes Project Opening Year (2020) With Project

Conditions AM peak‐hour and PM peak‐hour LOS of the study intersections.



Table 21: Project Opening Year (2020) With Project Conditions AM and PM Peak Hour Study Intersection LOS


Control6

Intersection Approach Lane(s)1,2 Opening Year (2020) With Project Conditons3,4,5




TS 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.5 N/A 0.379—A N/A 0.567—A


CSS 0.0 1! 0.0 0.0 1! 0.0 1.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 2.5 0.5 96.1—F N/A 77.9—F N/A


TS 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 2.5 0.5 N/A 0.742—C N/A 0.712—C


CSS 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 3.0 0.0 30.0—D N/A 24.3—C N/A


CSS 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0—B N/A 9.9—A N/A


CSS 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7—A N/A 9.6—A N/A







for Project Opening Year (2020) With Project Conditions, with the exception of the intersection of


Queueing Analysis

As requested by City staff, a Highway Capacity Manual 95th percentile vehicular queuing analysis has

been prepared for all turning movements at each project access driveway and the intersection of


The vehicular queue analysis has been prepared for the AM and PM peak‐hours of the Project Opening

Year (2020) With and Without Project scenarios which are the most trip‐intensive scenarios evaluated.

Table 22 summarizes the results of the HCM 95th percentile vehicular queueing analysis.

Table 22: HCM 95th Percentile Vehicular Queueing Analysis Summary

Intersection Movement1

Vehicular Queue (Number of Vehicles)2,3

Opening Year (2020) Without Project

Opening Year (2020) With Project

Change in Queue Length

AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

Daisy Avenue (NS)/West First Street (EW) NB Shared Left‐Thru‐Right

4 3 7 6 3 3

SB Shared Left‐Thru‐Right

1 1 1 1 0 0

EB Left‐Turn 1 1 1 1 0 0

WB Left‐Turn 1 1 1 1 0 0

Project Driveway 1 (NS)/West First Street (EW)

NB Shared Left‐Right‐Turn

N/A N/A 1 1 N/A N/A

EB Left‐Turn N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A

WB Left‐Turn N/A N/A 1 1 N/A N/A

Daisy Avenue (NS)/Project Driveway 2 (EW) NB Shared Left‐Thru

N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A

SB Shared Thru‐Right

N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A

EB Shared Left‐Right‐Turn

N/A N/A 1 1 N/A N/A

Daisy Avenue (NS)/Project Driveway 3 (EW) NB Shared Left‐Thru

N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A

SB Shared Thru‐Right

N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A

EB Shared Left‐Right‐Turn

N/A N/A 1 1 N/A N/A



Table 22 (cont.): HCM 95th Percentile Vehicular Queueing Analysis Summary

Intersection Movement1

Vehicular Queue (Number of Vehicles)2,3

Opening Year (2020) Without Project

Opening Year (2020) With Project

Change in Queue Length

AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

Notes: 1 NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound; EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound. 2 Queue reported is the 95th percentile queue per lane. 3 Queue analysis based Traffix, Version 8.0. Intersection worksheet are included in Appendices D and E. Source: RK Engineering Group, Inc., 2018.

As shown in Table 22, the intersection of Daisy Avenue at West First Street is forecast to experience

the maximum vehicular queue length at the northbound approach, with seven vehicles in queue

during the AM peak hour of the Project Opening Year (2020) With Project analysis scenario. The

remaining approaches are forecast to experience a peak queue of one vehicle during both the AM

and PM peak‐hours of the Project Opening Year (2020) With and Without Project analysis scenarios.

For the project access driveway along West First Street, it is forecast that both the egress and ingress

movements will experience a queue of one vehicle during the peak hours of the Project Opening

Year (2020) With Project analysis scenario.

For project access driveways along Daisy Avenue, it is forecast that all egress movements will

experience a queue of one vehicle and all ingress movements will experience a queue of zero

vehicles during the peak‐hours of the Project Opening Year (2020) With Project analysis scenario.

As a result of the low queue lengths, vehicular conflicts at each project access driveway and at the

intersection of Daisy Avenue at West First Street are expected to be minimal.


Would the project:

a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including

transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As stated above, the intersection of Daisy

Avenue at West First Street is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS under future traffic

conditions. To reduce vehicular conflicts with northbound left turn lane from Daisy Avenue onto

West First Street, MM TRANS‐1 is recommended. MM TRANS‐1 recommends that the project access

driveways along Daisy Avenue be restricted to left‐in, right‐in, right‐out only. The change in the 95th

percentile vehicular queues at each project driveway are expected to be minimal. As a result, the

proposed project can be accommodated with the implementation of MM TRANS‐1. As such, impacts

would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.




b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision

(b)?

Less than significant impact. Land use projects within one‐half mile of a major transit stop or a stop

along a high‐quality transit corridor should be presumed to have a less than significant

transportation impact. “Major transit stop” means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a

ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major

bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and

afternoon peak commute periods. A “high‐quality transit corridor” is a corridor with fixed route bus

service with service intervals that do not exceed 15 minutes during peak commute hours. (Public

Resource Code [PRC] §§ 21064.3, 21155.) OCTA, Los Angeles Transit Authority (Metro) and Anaheim

Resort Transportation operate bus lines within the project area. According to the OCTA, transit

Routes 64, 64Xpress, and 150A currently serve the project area. There are 14 existing bus stops

within a 0.5‐mile radius of the project site. As such, the proposed project will have a less than

significant impact on VMT.

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous

intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Less than significant impact. As previously discussed, the TIA includes queuing analysis for all

turning movements at each project access driveway and the intersection of Daisy Avenue at West

First Street. Although a traffic signal is warranted at the intersection of Daisy Avenue at West First

street, installation of a traffic signal is not recommended due to the close proximity of the adjacent

signalized intersections of Townsend Street at West First Street and Raitt Street at West First Street.

Traffic signals located in close proximity to each other may disrupt traffic flow and cause stacking

issues. The change in the 95th percentile vehicular queues at each project driveway are expected to

be minimal. As a result of the low queue lengths, vehicular conflicts at each project access driveway

and at the intersection of Daisy Avenue at West First Street are expected to be minimal. Impacts

would be less than significant.

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project will provide adequate emergency

access in all phases of development. In addition, the project applicant will comply with applicable

Fire Department and Division of Building and Safety regulations relating to emergency access.

Vehicular access for the proposed project will be provided via three proposed unsignalized

driveways, one along West First Street and two along Daisy Avenue. Implementation of MM TRANS‐2

will ensure that the project’s impact on emergency access would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

MM TRANS‐1 The project access driveways along Daisy Avenue shall be restricted to left‐in, right‐

in, right‐out only.



MM TRANS‐2 Ensure adequate sight distance is provided at each project access location per the

City of Santa Ana. Sight distance at all project access points should be reviewed with

respect to City of Santa sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final

grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.

Provide appropriate signage and pavement markings at the project access

driveways, including stop bars and stop signs and restrict project access through

clear signage and other means.

To minimize vehicular conflicts at the northern Project Access Driveway on Daisy

Avenue, left‐turn movements out of the site should be restricted at this location.

Install “No Left Turn” signage and “Right Turn Only” striping at northern project

access driveway on Daisy Avenue for vehicles exiting the site.






Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

18. Utilities and Service Systems Would the project:

a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?


According to the Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element, domestic water services in the City of

Santa Ana are mainly provided by the Santa Ana Municipal Utility Services. Two small water

companies serve a portion of the City through groundwater wells. On average, the Santa Ana Water

Department delivers 43 million gallons of water daily to some 48,000 customers. This service is

provided through 20 groundwater wells, 444 miles of water mains, and eight storage tanks or

reservoirs with a combined capacity of 45 million gallons. Santa Ana is a member city of the

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan), which receives water from the

State Water Project emanating from sources of the Sierra Nevada mountain range, and the Colorado

River via Lake Havasu.

According to the 2017 Santa Ana Water Quality Report, Santa Ana pumps approximately 70 percent

of its water supply from 20 city‐owned wells, and purchases 30 percent of its supply from



Metropolitan. The City’s wells can provide a maximum of 71 million gallons per day (mgd), and

Metropolitan can provide 65 mgd. Approximately 500 miles of local sewer lines are maintained by

the City of Santa Ana, with sewer trunks owned and maintained by the Orange County Sanitation

District (OCSD). The OCSD’s Green Acres Project allows for the reuse of reclaimed wastewater for

industrial and landscape irrigation uses. Waste Management provides solid waste collection services

to the City of Santa Ana. Solid waste is transported by truck to the Sunset Environmental Service

Transfer Station in Irvine and the CVT Transfer Station in Anaheim. The City of Santa Ana has adopted

a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) in 1992. This plan calls for recycling, composting,

special waste disposal, and education and public information programs.


Would the project:

a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater

treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities,

the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Less than significant impact. The City of Santa Ana 2015 UWMP determined that the City is

expected to fully meet demands for the next 3 years. In addition, this project is located in an

urbanized area that is currently served by the Santa Ana Municipal Utility Services and accounted for

in the Water Supply Allocation Plan as described in Section 5.2.2 of the Santa Ana 2015 UWMP. The

project would not create the need for new water facilities or result in insufficient water supply. Thus,

there would no need to construct new or expand existing water treatment facilities. Therefore,

impacts related to need for relocation or construction of new or expanded water supply facilities

would be less than significant.

Wastewater from the project would mainly consist of effluent typical of commercial uses. None of

the proposed uses would generate atypical wastewater such as industrial or agricultural effluent. All

wastewater generated by the project is expected to be domestic sewage. The convenience store

would contain small quantities of household hazardous materials such as cleaning solvents, but

these quantities would not be sufficient to exceed treatment requirements. Additionally, the project

would be required to comply with all applicable regulations and standards, including the NPDES

permit requirements and RWQCB standards. The City of Santa Ana currently has sewage facilities

available to serve the proposed project. The increase in wastewater generation would result in an

incremental increase in the demand for wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities. The

project’s wastewater would be carried off‐site through connections with existing sewer system lines

surrounding the project site.

According to the project’s WQMP (Fielder Group 2018, Appendix F), the project site currently

contains a total of 17,237 square feet of impervious surface area and 99 square feet of pervious

surface area. The project would result in the development of 14,360 square feet of impervious

surface area and 2,795 square feet of pervious surface area. The on‐site stormwater will be

mitigated by an underground infiltration system. Existing draining and topography will be maintained




and continue to sheet flow southeasterly. As such, the project would not require or result in the

construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities.

SCE currently provides the project area with electricity and will not require new or expanded

facilities to service the project. SoCalGas has currently provides natural gas to the project area and

will not require new or expanded facilities to service the project. The project would not need new

telecommunications facilities because it is located in an urban area that already contains sufficient

telecommunications facilities. The installation of the UST is not anticipated to impede any existing

facilities. Therefore, impacts related to need for relocation or construction of new or expanded

relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater

drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities would be less than significant.

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future

development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

Less than significant impact. The project would require water for the daily needs of customers as

well as for landscaping, maintenance, and the operation of the facility. As mentioned previously, the

City of Santa Ana 2015 UWMP determined that the water supplies are projected to meet full‐service

demands; Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP find that Metropolitan is able to meet, full‐service demands

of its member agencies starting 2020 through 2040 during normal years, single dry year, and

multiple dry years. In addition, this project is located in an urbanized area that is currently served by

the Santa Ana Municipal Utility Services Water and accounted for in the Water Supply Allocation

Plan as described in Section 5.2.2 of the Santa Ana 2015 UWMP. Therefore, impacts related to

sufficient water supply availability would be less than significant.

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the

project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the

provider’s existing commitments?

Less than significant impact. The City does not own or operate wastewater treatment facilities and

sends all collected wastewater to OCSD for treatment and disposal. The City operates and maintains

the local sewer system consisting of over 390 miles of pipeline, 7,630 manholes, and two lift stations

that connect to OCSD’s trunk system to convey wastewater to OCSD’s treatment plants. Wastewater

generated by the proposed project would be conveyed to existing OCSD operated sewer lines. As

wastewater generation rates are not listed in the City of Santa Ana’s UWMP, wastewater generation

rates from the City of Los Angeles’ CEQA Threshold Guidelines were used to estimate the projected

wastewater generated by the proposed project. The proposed project is anticipated to generate a

net increase of approximately 430 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. This increase represents a

nominal percent of the 24 million gpd remaining capacity at the OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 2.

Therefore, the OCSD has adequate remaining capacity to serve the proposed project. Thus, impacts

related to wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant.



d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local

infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

Less than significant impact. During the project’s construction phase, the existing vacant restaurant

would be demolished, which would in turn result in construction‐related solid waste. Waste

Management has contracted with the City to provide solid waste collection services to the City of

Santa Ana. Solid waste is transported by truck to the Sunset Environmental Service Transfer Station

in Irvine and the CVT Transfer Station in Anaheim, with final transfer to the Frank R. Bowerman

Landfill in Irvine. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill has a total remaining capacity of 205 million cubic

yards for solid waste and an allowance of 11,500 tons throughput per day. Using estimated solid

waste generation rates provided by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery

(CalRecycle), the proposed project is projected to generate approximately 86.68 pounds of solid

waste daily at full buildout. The project would not result in a significant increase in solid waste

generated on‐site, as there will only be an incremental increase in solid waste that would be

transported off‐site. Waste Management will service the site, pick‐up the bin at the on‐site trash

enclosures. Less than significant impacts would occur.

e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations

related to solid waste?

Less than significant impact. In 1989, the Legislature adopted the California Integrated Waste

Management Act of 1989 (Assembly Bill [AB] 939), in order to “reduce, recycle, and re‐use solid

waste generated in the state to the maximum extent feasible.” AB 939 established a waste

management hierarchy: Source Reduction, Recycling, Composting, Transformation, and Disposal. The

law also required that each county prepare a new Integrated Waste Management Plan and each city

prepare an SRRE by July 1, 1991. The SRRE is required to identify how each jurisdiction will meet the

mandatory State waste diversion goal of 50 percent by the year 2000. The Act mandated that

California’s 450 jurisdictions (cities, counties, and regional waste management compacts) implement

waste management programs aimed at a 25 percent diversion rate by 1995 and a 50 percent

diversion rate by 2000. If the 50 percent goal was not met by the end of 2000, the jurisdiction was

required to submit a petition for a goal extension to CalRecycle.

Senate Bill (SB) 2202 made a number of changes to the municipal solid waste diversion requirements

under AB 939. These changes included a revision to the statutory requirement for 50 percent

diversion of solid waste to clarify that local governments shall continue to divert 50 percent of all

solid waste on and after January 1, 2000.

SB 1016 introduced a per capita disposal measurement system that measures the 50 percent

diversion requirement using a disposal measurement equivalent. The Bill repealed the State Water

Board’s 2‐year process, requiring instead that the State Water Board make a finding whether each

jurisdiction was in compliance with the Act’s diversion requirements for calendar year 2006 and to

determine compliance for the 2007 calendar year and beyond, based on the jurisdiction’s change in

its per capita disposal rate. The State Water Board is required to review a jurisdiction’s compliance

with those diversion requirements in accordance with a specified schedule, which is conditioned




upon the State Water Board finding that the jurisdiction complies with those requirements or has

implemented its source reduction and recycling element and household hazardous waste element.

The Bill requires the State Water Board to issue an order of compliance if the State Water Board

finds that the jurisdiction has failed to make a good faith effort to implement its source reduction

and recycling element or its household hazardous waste element, pursuant to a specified procedure.

The per capita disposal rate is a jurisdiction‐specific index, which is used as one of several “factors”

in determining a jurisdiction’s compliance with the intent of AB 939, and allows CalRecycle and

jurisdictions to set their primary focus on successful implementation of diversion programs. Meeting

the disposal rate targets is not necessarily an indication of compliance. CalRecycle reports that Santa

Ana’s Disposal Rate Targets for Reporting Year 2011 are 4.8 pounds per day per resident and 11.3

pounds per day per employee.

The proposed project is expected to be serviced by Waste Management. Any changes in locations for

trash carts and bulky pickup, sufficient clearance, and appropriate routing for trucks would be

coordinated by the City and Waste Management.

Participation in the City’s recycling programs during project construction and operation, including

CalRecycle’s requirements, would ensure that the project would not conflict with federal, State, and

local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Furthermore, the project would meet or exceed

standards set forth in California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) as well as Title 24. Less

than significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures

None.





Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

19. Wildfire If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes?


If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity

Zones would the project:

a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

No impact. According to CAL FIRE, Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, the project site is not located

within or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone;

therefore there are no impacts. The proposed project does not possess characteristics that would

physically impair or otherwise interfere with emergency response as outlined in the OCFA Standards

of Cover and Deployment Plan 2014 or with emergency evacuations in the project vicinity (OCFA

2014). As such, no impacts would occur.

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose

project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a

wildfire?

No impact. According to the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, the project site is not located

within a State responsibility areas or lands classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone;




therefore, there are no impacts. The proposed project is located in an urban built up area and is

surrounded by urban development on all sides. Additionally, prior to approval, the project’s design

would be subject to compliance with the requirements in the California Building Standards

Commission 2016 California Fire Code. The project plans would be reviewed and approved by the

Santa Ana Building and Safety Division and the OCFA, which would ensure adequate compliance with

the City’s permit process and City of Santa Ana Municipal Code requirements. This would ensure

that the project would not expose occupants to pollutant concentrations risks or uncontrolled

spread due to slope, prevailing winds, wildland fires and other factors. Therefore, no impacts would

occur.

c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,

emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may

result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

Less than significant impact. According to the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, the project

site is not located within or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as a Very High Fire

Hazard Severity Zone; therefore, there are no impacts. The proposed project would construct a new

7‐Eleven convenience store and fuel station canopy. Impacts related to installation or maintenance

of infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, electrical power lines, or

natural gas lines) that may exacerbate fire risk are limited to operational impacts. No respective

construction impacts related to infrastructure that exacerbates fire risk would occur.

The proposed project would include adequate emergency access via three proposed unsignalized

driveways; one along West First Street and two along Daisy Avenue. The project site is an urban area

surrounded by existing roadways. The project would not require the installation of firebreaks,

because it is in an urban area surrounded by existing development with little natural vegetation. The

project would not require emergency water sources, because potable water is currently provided by

the Santa Ana Water Department, which has adequate water supplies available to serve the project

and future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Therefore, impacts related to

infrastructure that exacerbates fire risk would be less than significant.

d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or

landslides, as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

No impact. According to the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, the project site is not located

within or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone;

therefore, there are no impacts. Further, the proposed project is comprised of relatively flat parcels

located in an urbanized area surrounded by commercial, residential and light industrial uses. Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06059C0257J,

indicates the project site is located in Zone X: a zone that corresponds to areas outside of the 500‐

year flood or areas protected from the 100‐year flood by levees. In other words, Zone X is defined as

areas with a 0.2 percent annual chance of flood (i.e., a 500‐year flood hazard area). These conditions

preclude the possibility of subjecting people or structures to significant risks related to post‐fire slop



instability and landslides. Therefore, the proposed project would not be built within a 100‐year flood

hazard area. As such, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures

None.






Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

20. Mandatory Findings of Significance

a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?


a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,

substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to

drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,

substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or

eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. With implementation of MM BIO‐1a and

MM BIO‐1b, and SC 2.5‐1 and SC 2.5‐2, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the

quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or

wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal

community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or

eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

MM BIO‐1a and MM BIO‐1b, and SC 2.5‐1 to SC 2.5‐2 would protect the potential biological integrity

of the site from potential construction impacts.



b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?

(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable

when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current

projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project would result in potentially

significant project‐level impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology, hazards

and hazardous materials, noise and transportation (design hazards). However, MM BIO‐1a, MM BIO‐

1b, SC 2.5‐1 and SC 2.5‐2, MM GEO‐1 through MM GEO‐7, MM HAZ‐1, MM NOI‐1, and MM TRANS‐1

and MM TRANS‐2 shall be implemented as part of the project. The mitigation measures will,

amongst other things, remove potential hazardous material release from past projects, reduce noise

impacts from the proposed project, and reduce transportation impacts to the surrounding area. The

mitigation measures will reduce each impact to a level of less than significant.

All other impacts of the project were determined either to have no impact or to be less than

significant without the need for mitigation. Cumulatively, the project would not result in any

significant impacts that would substantially combine with impacts of other current or probable

future impacts. Therefore, the project, in conjunction with other future development projects,

would not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts.

c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on

human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The previous sections of this IS/MND

reviewed the project’s potential impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology,

hazards and hazardous materials, and noise, among other environmental issue areas. As concluded

in these previous discussions, the project would result in less than significant impacts with

implementation of MM BIO‐1a, MM BIO‐1b, SC 2.5‐1 and SC 2.5‐2, MM GEO‐1 through MM GEO‐7,

MM HAZ‐1, MM NOI‐1, and MM TRANS‐1 and MM TRANS‐2. Therefore, with implementation of the

specified mitigation and standard BMPs and conditions of approval, the project would cause less

than significant adverse effects on human beings.

Mitigation Measures

Implement MM BIO‐1a, MM BIO‐1b, SC 2.5‐1 and SC 2.5‐2, MM GEO‐1 through MM GEO‐7, MM

HAZ‐1, MM NOI‐1, and MM TRANS‐1 and MM TRANS‐2.


City of Santa Ana 7‐Eleven Convenience Store and Service Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration References


SECTION 3: REFERENCES

Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 2008. Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. Website: https://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/JWA_AELUP‐April‐17‐2008.pdf. Assessed March 21, 2019.

California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). 1997. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5‐Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 03. Website: http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Reports/SHZR/SHZR_003_Anaheim_Newport_Beach.pdf. Assessed March 14, 2019.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2019. Orange County Tsunami Inundation Maps Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/orange. Assessed April 8, 2019. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Scenic Highways Map. Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/lap/livability/scenic‐highways/. Assessed March 22, 2019.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates#Commercial. Accessed March 31, 2019.

California Employment Development Department (EDD). 2019. Labor Market Information Division. Website: https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/oran$pds.pdf. Assessed March 19, 2019.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019. Energy Reports. Website: https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed March 22, 2019.

CalRecyle Waste Generation Rate. Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Accessed April 10, 2019.

City of Santa Ana. 1982. City of Santa Ana General Plan Energy Element. September. Website: https://www.santa‐ana.org/general‐plan/current‐general‐plan. Accessed March 21, 2019.

City of Santa Ana. 1982. General Plan Noise Element. Website: https://www.santa‐ana.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Noise.pdf. Accessed March, 14 2019.

City of Santa Ana. 1982. General Plan Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element. Website: https://www.santa‐ana.org/sites/default/files/Documents/OpenSpace_Parks_Rec.pdf. Assessed March 19, 2019.

City of Santa Ana. 1982. General Plan Public Facilities Element. Website: https://www.santa‐ana.org/sites/default/files/Documents/PublicFacilities.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2019.


References Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration



City of Santa Ana. 1982. General Plan Public Safety Element. Website: https://www.santa‐ana.org/sites/default/files/Documents/PublicSafety.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2019.

City of Santa Ana. 1982. General Plan Scenic Corridors Element. Website: https://www.santa‐ana.org/sites/default/files/Documents/ScenicCorridors.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2019.

City of Santa Ana. 1998. General Plan Land Use Element. Website: https://www.santa‐ana.org/sites/default/files/Documents/LandUseElement.pdf. Accessed February 21, 2019.

City of Santa Ana. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Website: https://www.santa‐ana.org/sites/default/files/Documents/urban_water_management_plan.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2019.

City of Santa Ana. 2017 Water Quality Report. Website: http://santaanaccr.org/index.php/download‐report/view‐online?start=1. Accessed March 29, 2019.

City of Santa Ana. 2017. City of Santa Ana Municipal Code. Website: https://library.municode.com /ca/santa_ana/codes/code_of_ ordinances. Accessed March 19, 2019.

City of Santa Ana. 2018. City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Noise Control Ordinance. August. Website: https://library.municode.com/ca/santa_ana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH18HESA_ARTVINOCO. Accessed March 14, 2019.

City of Santa Ana. 2018. City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Sec. 18‐314. August. Website: https://library.municode.com/ca/santa_ana/codes/code_of_ordinances. Accessed March 21, 2019.

City of Santa Ana. 2019. Parks Recreation and Community Services. Website: https://www.santa‐ana.org/parks. Assessed March 19, 2019.

Department of Conservation (DOC). 2012. Williamson Act Map. Website: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/. Assessed March 13, 2019.

Department of Conservation (DOC). 2016. Orange County Important Farmland Map. Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Orange.aspx. Assessed on March 13, 2019.

Department of Conservation (DOC). 2019. The Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist‐priolo. Assessed March 14, 2019.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Highway Construction Noise Handbook. August.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May.

Fiedler Group. 2018. 7‐Eleven Convenience Store & Service Station Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). October.

City of Santa Ana 7‐Eleven Convenience Store and Service Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration References


Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI). 2015. Santa Ana Climate Action Plan. December. Website: https://www.santa‐ana.org/pw/santa‐ana‐green/climate‐action‐plan/climate‐action‐plan‐vision. Accessed March 21, 2019.

Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). 2014. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan. Website: https://www.ocfa.org/_uploads/pdf/Orange%20County%20Fire%20Authority%20SOC_FINAL.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2019.

Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). 2019. General Information. Website: https://www.santa‐ana.org/orange‐county‐fire‐authority/general‐information. Accessed March 27, 2019.

Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Website: https://www.octa.net/Bus/Routes‐and‐Schedules/NextRide/Location/?location=33.7450949,‐117.8949882. Accessed March 26, 2019.

Pierson, Elizabeth D. & Rainey, William E. 1998. Terrestrial Mammal Species of Special Concern in California, Bolster, B.C., Ed. Website: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=84485. Accessed May 1, 2019.

RK Engineering Group, Inc. (RKEG). 2018. 1904 West First Street 7‐Eleven Convenience Market and Gas Station Traffic Site Analysis. September.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/ceqa/handbook/localized‐significance‐thresholds/final‐lst‐methodology‐document.pdf. Accessed: April 16, 2019.

Southern California Edison (SCE). 2018. 2017 Power Content Label. July. Website: https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/inline‐files/2017PCL_0.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2019.

Southern California Edison (SCE). 2019. Southern California Edison. Website: https://www.sce.com/. Accessed March 21, 2019.

Southern California Gas (SoCalGas). 2019. SoCalGas. Website: https://www.socalgas.com/. Accessed March 21, 2019.

Stantec. 2017. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.

United States Census Bureau (US Census). 2018. 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria. Website: https://www.census.gov/programs‐surveys/geography/guidance/geo‐areas/urban‐rural/2010‐urban‐rural.html. Accessed April 8, 2019.

United States Census Bureau (US Census). 2019. Population Estimates, 2018. Website: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/santaanacitycalifornia Accessed April 8, 2019.


City of Santa Ana 7‐Eleven Convenience Store and Service Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration List of Preparers


SECTION 4: LIST OF PREPARERS

FirstCarbon Solutions 250 Commerce, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92602 Phone: 714.508.4100 Fax: 714.508.4110

Project Director ...................................................................................................................... Kerri Tuttle

Project Manager ........................................................................................................................ Cecilia So

Senior Noise Scientist ............................................................................................................... Philip Ault

Air Quality Analyst ............................................................................................................... Jessica Wang

Biologist .............................................................................................................................. Robert Carroll

Archaeologist ......................................................................................................................... David Smith

Environmental Services Analyst .........................................................................................Victoria Chung

Environmental Services Analyst ........................................................................................ Brittany Hagen

Environmental Services Analyst .............................................................................................Eric Soycher

Editor ..................................................................................................................................... Susie Harris

Word Processor .............................................................................................................. Ericka Rodriguez

GIS/Graphics ................................................................................................................ Karlee McCracken

Reprographics ..................................................................................................................... Octavio Perez

Stantec Consulting Services Inc.—Geotechnical Subconsultant RK Engineering Group Inc.—Transportation Subconsultant Fidler Group—Water Quality Subconsultant
