Orange City Council
April 11, 2023

541
Comments to the City of Orange Planning Commission
Re: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project
February 22, 2023

environmental impacts. Therefore, CEQA requires that the City of Orange (“City”) prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. SAFER respectfully requests that you do not adopt the MND and instead undertake the necessary efforts to prepare an EIR, as required under CEQA.

LEGAL STANDARD
As the California Supreme Court has held, “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 (CBE v. SCAQMD) (citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504–505).) “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code (“PRC”) § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382.) An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” (No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at 83.) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Res.

Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 (CBE v. CRA).)
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” (Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220.) The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” (Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” (PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR § 15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant environmental effect. (PRC §§ 21100, 21064.) Since “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases where “the proposed project will not affect the environment at all.” (Citizens of Lake Murray v.

DRURY

542
Comments to the City of Orange Planning Commission
Re: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project
February 22, 2023

San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440.)
Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. (14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602.) The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:

This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in their decision making. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citation]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. (Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, §6.37 (2d ed. Cal.

CEB 2021).) The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original).) I. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument That the Project Will have Significant Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Energy, and Hazardous Waste Impacts.

Air quality experts Patrick Sutton, PE and Yilin Tian, Ph.D. of Baseline Environmental Consulting (“Baseline”) reviewed the IS/MND and related documents for the Project. Baseline’s comments are attached as Exhibit A. Baseline found that there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will have significant air quality, greenhouse gas, energy, and hazardous waste impacts. Therefore, an EIR must be prepared to further evaluate and mitigate these impacts.

A. Air Quality.

According to the MND, project construction will produce emissions of toxic diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) and will last approximately one and a half years. (Ex. A., p. 6.).

However, the MND failed to include a quantified health risk assessment for the Project. This is directly contrary to guidance from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment DRURY

543
Comments to the City of Orange Planning Commission
Re: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project
February 22, 2023

(“OEHHA”), which provides that a health risk assessment (“HRA”) should be prepared for any project lasting substantially longer than two months.

Furthermore, any future HRA “should be conducted to calculate the incremental increase in cancer risk for sensitive receptors (e.g., single‐family homes south of the southern project site boundary) exposed to diesel particulate matter emissions during project construction in accordance with the OEHHA guidance for sources with variable emission rates,” including by accounting for age and pregnancy status (Id.)
Additionally, the MND suggests that “health risks from exposure to diesel particulate matter would not be significant because the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for construction‐generated criteria pollutants.” (Id., p. 7.) However, as Baseline explains, “LSTs only apply to criteria air pollutants and were not designed to evaluate localized health risks from exposure to diesel particulate matter.” (Id.) CEQA requires an analysis to determine whether a Project’s toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions—including DPM emissions—will have potentially adverse impacts on human health. Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 518 (an EIR must make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”) The failure to address potential health-related impacts resulting from the Project’s likely air emissions is problematic because operation of construction equipment during construction, as well as truck trips during future operations, will release DPM emissions into the air, affecting local and regional air quality.

DPM is a known human carcinogen which poses unique health risks to nearby sensitive receptors.. DPM contains 40 toxic chemicals, including benzene, arsenic and lead. (www.p65warnings.ca.gov/fact-sheets/diesel-engine-exhaust.) DPM is also listed by the State of California as a toxic air contaminant known to cause cancer in humans. (https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition65//p65chemicalslistsinglelisttable2021p.pdf.) According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Exposure to diesel exhaust can lead to serious health conditions like asthma and respiratory illnesses and can worsen existing heart and lung disease, especially in children and the elderly. These conditions can result in increased numbers of emergency room visits, hospital admissions, absences from work and school, and premature deaths.” (https://www.epa.gov/dera/learn-about-impacts-diesel-exhaust-and-diesel-emissions-reductionact-dera).

Without an HRA, the MND’s conclusion that the Project will not have a significant impact on human health from the Project’s construction-related and operational DPM emissions is not supported by substantial evidence. An EIR must be prepared to further address and mitigate these impacts.

B. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

DRURY

544
Comments to the City of Orange Planning Commission
Re: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project
February 22, 2023

The MND states that the Project’s greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions impact would be less than significant because the Project’s estimated emissions rate is below the draft interim GHG threshold set by the South Coast Air Quality Management (“SCAQMD”). However, this finding is improper because SCAQMD has never formally adopted the interim threshold (Ex. A., p. 2.). Furthermore, the 3,000 MTCO2e annual GHG threshold fails to comply with the State’s long term climate goals, as detailed by the 2022 California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) Scoping Plan (Id.)
In fact, neither the SCAQMD Governing Board, nor the California Air Resources Board or the California Air Pollution Control Officers’ Association – nor any state or regional agency – has adopted the 3000 MTCO2e annual GHG threshold. (Id.) The City issued guidance recommending use of the threshold in 2020; but this, too, is improper because the threshold is not supported by substantial evidence. (Id). In contrast, local and regional agencies throughout California have adopted significantly lower GHG thresholds, ranging from 900 to 2,500 MTCO2e (Id., p. 3.)
In accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Center for Biological Diversity v.

Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, a project’s GHG emissions should be evaluated based on its effect on California’s efforts to meet the State’s long-term climate goals.

Pursuant to Executive Order B-55-18, California is committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. However, the City has failed to evaluate to what extent, if any, the Project will contribute its “fair share” in GHG reductions that will be necessary to meet this ambitious goal. (Id., p. 4.) For instance, the MND states that the project would be served with natural gas provided by Southern California Gas. However, the project “could replace natural gas with electric power which will support California’s transition away from fossil fuel–based energy sources and will bring the project’s GHG emissions associated with building energy use down to zero as the electric supply becomes 100 percent carbon free.” (Id.) Similarly, the “project could be designed to provide sufficient electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure beyond the CalGreen mandatory level to support the shift to zero-emission vehicles (e.g., implement the voluntary CalGreen Tier 2 EV charging standards). The ISMND does not evaluate and incorporate the use of all‐electric buildings or EV charging infrastructure into the project design.” (Id.) Lastly, the MND fails to evaluate consistency with CARB’s 2022 Carbon Neutrality Scoping Plan, and instead only evaluates compliance with the 2017 Scoping Plan. (Id., p. 5.) This is improper because the 2022 Scoping Plan is the agency’s most current guidance.

Moreover, the 2022 Scoping Plan specifically identifies building decarbonization as a “key strategy for achieving California’s climate change mitigation and air quality goals.” (Id.) According to the 2022 Scoping Plan, “several studies estimate that the costs of constructing all‐ electric homes are lower than constructing mixed‐fuel new homes, primarily due to the avoided costs of fossil gas infrastructure at the building site, with cost savings in the range of $2,000 to $10,000 per unit.” (Id.)
DRURY

545
Comments to the City of Orange Planning Commission
Re: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project
February 22, 2023

Accordingly, by “failing to evaluate building decarbonization methods such as an allelectric building design, the ISMND has not demonstrated consistency with the key GHG reduction strategies under the 2022 Scoping Plan.” (Id.) Therefore, there is a fair argument that the Project may have a significant GHG emissions impact. As such, an EIR must be prepared to more accurately account for and mitigate this impact.

C. Energy Use.

CEQA provides that all Projects must include mitigation measures “to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3).) Energy conservation under CEQA is defined as the “wise and efficient use of energy.” (CEQA Guidelines, app. F, § I.) The “wise and efficient use of energy” is achieved by “(1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy resources.” (Id.) Mere compliance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24, part 6 (“Title 24”) does not constitute an adequate analysis of energy. League to Save Lake Tahoe, 75 Cal. App. 5th at 165; Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 256, 264-65. Notably, in California Clean Energy v. City of Woodland, the court held unlawful an EIR’s energy analysis which relied solely upon compliance with Title 24 to conclude that energy impacts would be less than significant. California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 209-13 (City of Woodland).

The courts have recently affirmed City of Woodland, explaining that even where “[an] EIR [has] determined the project’s impacts on energy resources would be less than significant,” a lead agency must still analyze implementation of all “renewable energy options that might have been available or appropriate for [a] project,” including to achieve 100 percent on-site renewable power generation. (League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area Preservation Foundation v.

County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, 166-67.) Furthermore, the court explained, a lead agency’s failure to consider implementation of all feasible renewable energy proposals raised during the environmental review process constitutes a “prejudicial error.” (Id. at 168.) Here, the MND “evaluates the local utility provider’s energy mix, including the percentages of eligible renewable, but fails to adequately consider feasible design features or mitigation measures to reduce the project’s fossil fuel consumption, such as eliminating natural gas heating and appliances, installing rooftop solar panels, or installing EV charging infrastructure that exceeds the minimum Title 24 requirements.” (Ex. A., p. 6.) Therefore, the MND’s energy impacts analysis is inadequate and its conclusion that the Project’s energy impacts will be less than significant is unsupported. Stated otherwise, there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will have a significant energy impact and an EIR is required.

D. Hazardous Materials.

DRURY

546
Comments to the City of Orange Planning Commission
Re: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project
February 22, 2023

According to the MND, a dry-cleaning business was located at the residential portion of the Project site from at least 1989 until 2012. Accordingly, a “release of tetrachloroethene (PCE) from the dry cleaning service has affected soil and soil gas at the project site.” (Ex. A., p. 7).

Therefore, in 2017, “the current property owner entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for assessing and remediating the PCE at the project site.” (Id.) However, “according to the DTSC EnviroStor database, it does not appear that the Indoor Air Quality Assessment has been reviewed and approved by DTSC.” (Id.) Finally, “It also appears that additional environmental investigation activities were performed at the project site in October and September 2022 to further evaluate the chemical quality of soil gas and groundwater, but the results of those investigation activities were not disclosed in the ISMND.” (Id.)
The findings from the most recent environmental investigations at the project site should be disclosed in the ISMND for public review. In addition, DTSC should review and approve the findings of all investigative reports and issue a letter of No Further Action prior to the issuance of buildings permits. Accordingly, “To ensure that future residents, workers, and patrons are not exposed to substantial concentrations of hazardous chemicals from vapor intrusion, a mitigation measure should be prepared that requires the applicant to submit a copy of the DTSC letter of No Further Action to the City prior to the issuance of buildings permits.” (Id.) Unless and until these corrective actions are taken, there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will have significant hazardous waste impacts which may continue to affect the environment and the health of future residents. Therefore, an EIR must be prepared to further evaluate and more appropriately mitigate these impacts.

II. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument That the Project Will Have Significant Adverse Indoor Air Quality and Health Impacts.

Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, has reviewed the MND and all relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. Based on this review, Mr. Offermann concludes that the Project will likely expose future residents living at the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offermann’s CV and expert comments are attached as Exhibit B.

Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen and is listed by the State of California as a Toxic Air Contaminant (“TAC”). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), the agency responsible for regulating air quality within the South Coast Air Basin—which includes the City of Orange—has established a cancer risk significance threshold from human exposure to carcinogenic TACs of 10 per million. (Ex. B., p. 2.) Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products routinely used in indoor building materials and furnishings commonly found in offices, residences, and hotels contain DRURY

547
Comments to the City of Orange Planning Commission
Re: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project
February 22, 2023

formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over long periods of time. He states that “[t]he primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard.

These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” (Id., pp. 2-3.) Mr. Offermann concludes that future residents of the proposed Project will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 per million, even assuming compliance with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Id., p.

4.) This risk level is 12 times greater than the SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million.

The California Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of air district significance thresholds in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse environmental impact under CEQA. (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 327 [“As the [South Coast Air Quality Management] District’s established significance threshold for NOx is 55 pounds per day, these estimates [of NOx emissions of 201 to 456 pounds per day] constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact.”].) Since expert evidence demonstrates that the Project will exceed the SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold, there is substantial evidence that an “unstudied, potentially significant environmental effect[]” exists. (See, Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 958.)
Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant impacts should be further mitigated to reduce the significant health risks that will result from indoor formaldehyde emissions. (Id., pp. 12-14.) Mr. Offermann proposes various feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts, including by imposing a requirement that the Project applicant install high-capacity air filters throughout the building and commit to using only composite wood materials that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, for all of the buildings’ interior spaces.

Mr. Offermann’s observations constitute substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will likely produce potentially significant air quality and health impacts which the MND has failed to address. Therefore, the City must prepare an EIR to further evaluate and mitigate these impacts to the Project’s future residents.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the MND for the proposed Project fails to comply with CEQA.

Namely, there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may have significant impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, and hazardous materials.

Moreover, the MND failed to adequately mitigate the Project’s likely impacts. SAFER therefore respectfully requests that you decline to adopt the MND and instead direct staff to undertake the DRURY

548
Comments to the City of Orange Planning Commission
Re: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project
February 22, 2023

necessary efforts to prepare an EIR for the proposed Project. Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,
Adam Frankel
LOZEAU | DRURY LLP
DRURY

549

EXHIBIT A
DRURY

550
388 17th Street, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612 | P: (510) 420-8686 | www.baseline-env.com 16 January 2023
22228‐00
Adam Frankel
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Review of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy, Air Quality, and Hazardous Materials Impacts Analyzed in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 840 The City Drive Apartment Project Dear Mr. Frankel:

Baseline Environmental Consulting (Baseline) has reviewed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for 840 The City Drive Apartment Project (project) in the City of Orange (City), California to determine whether potential environmental impacts related to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, energy, air quality, and hazardous materials were appropriately evaluated. Based on our review, we have identified flaws in the ISMND analysis used to support the significance determinations, such as inadequate analysis to demonstrate the project’s consistency with the State’s long‐term climate goals. The specific concerns identified in the ISMND analysis for potential environmental impacts related to GHG emissions, energy, air quality, and hazardous materials are described in detail below.

INVALID USE OF GHG SCREENING LEVEL THRESHOLD
In 2008, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) released a draft guidance document1 prepared by the GHG Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group) that proposed an interim CEQA GHG significance threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) for residential/commercial projects. As stated on page 98 of the ISMND, the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold was used to determine whether the project would have a significant GHG emissions impact, as the City has not adopted its own GHG thresholds or Climate Action Plan. In Section 5.8.(a) of the ISMND, the project’s net GHG emissions were estimated to be 2,318 MTCO2e per year, which would be less than significant because the emission rate is below the draft interim GHG threshold. This impact determination is not valid for the following three reasons:
1 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October.

DRURY

551
Mr. Adam Frankel
16 January 2023

22228‐00 Baseline Comment Letter

1. Neither the lead agency nor any other state or regional agencies have adopted the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold.

2. The 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold is not supported by substantial evidence.

3. The 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold does not meet the State’s long‐term climate action goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.

Each of these concerns are discussed further, below.

Threshold Not Adopted
Regarding thresholds of significance, CEQA Guidelines §15064.7(a) states, "Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects.” Subsection (b) of the same section states further, “Thresholds of significance to be adopted for general use as part of the lead agency’s environmental review process must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence.”
The SCAQMD Governing Board did not adopt the numerical threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year recommended by the Working Group for residential/commercial projects in 2008.

Similarly, neither the California Air Resources Board, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, the City (lead agency), nor any other state or regional agency has adopted the proposed significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for assessing GHG emissions impacts for land use projects.

In 2020, the City issued a Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis memorandum2 (memo) to provide a local framework for analyzing GHG emissions in CEQA documents for non‐ exempt projects in which the City of Orange is the CEQA lead agency. While not formally adopting a GHG threshold for CEQA analysis, the memo recommends using a significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for residential/commercial projects because it is supported by substantial evidence in the SCAQMD’s Interim Thresholds. As discussed below, this threshold is not supported by substantial evidence.

Lack of Substantial Evidence
In 2008, the Working Group recommended 3,000 MTCO2e per year as a bright‐line threshold based on a 90‐percent market capture approach. This approach is intended to take into account expected development and the amount of market capture necessary to support GHG reduction 2 Ashley Brodkin, 2020. Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis. March 24 DRURY

552
Mr. Adam Frankel
16 January 2023

22228‐00 Baseline Comment Letter
efforts through further project‐level evaluation and mitigation. Another common approach for developing a bright‐line threshold for GHG emissions is a gap‐based analysis, where the necessary reduction in GHG emissions from the land use sector to meet statewide climate action goals (i.e., the “gap”) is evaluated after taking into account the GHG reductions from adopted Scoping Plan regulations. Examples of bright‐line thresholds that have been adopted for the evaluation of GHG emissions from land use projects include:
 900 MTCO2e: California Air Pollution Control Offices Association.  1,100 MTCO2e: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.  1,100 MTCO2e: Bay Area Air Quality Management District.  1,150 MTCO2e: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District.  2,500 MTCO2e: County of San Diego.

The SCAQMD never adopted the threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e that was recommended by the Working Group in 2008. This was because the Working Group could not come to a consensus on either the scientific approach or the estimated numerical values used for the proposed threshold, as documented in the minutes and presentations of numerous meetings held by the Working Group from 2008 until 2010 when the group became inactive.3 Some of the reasons the Working Group could not establish substantial evidence to support the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold included the following:
 The 3,000 MTCO2e is substantially higher than the bright‐line thresholds adopted by other agencies (see examples above).
 An efficiency‐based threshold may be more appropriate than a bright‐line threshold.  Separate land use sector thresholds may be more appropriate (e.g., 1,400 MTCO2e/year was recommended by the Working Group for commercial projects).  The 90‐percent market capture rate approach is inadequate.  All projects should be subject to some kind of GHG reduction requirement or performance standard.
3 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2022. GHG Significance Thresholds webpage.  Available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules‐compliance/ceqa/air‐quality‐analysis‐handbook/ghg‐significance‐ thresholds. Last updated 2022.

DRURY

553
Mr. Adam Frankel
16 January 2023

22228‐00 Baseline Comment Letter
Furthermore, the approach used by the Working Group for developing the draft 3,000 MTCO2e threshold in 2008 is now outdated because it does not account for current projections in long‐ term market growth. As a result, the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold used in the ISMND is not supported by substantial evidence.

Inadequate Analysis of Carbon Neutrality by 2045
Based on the California Supreme Court findings for Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) (62 Cal.4th 204), a project’s GHG emissions should be evaluated based on its effect on California’s efforts to meet its long‐term climate goals. As the Supreme Court held in that case, a project that would be consistent with meeting those goals can be found to have a less‐than‐significant impact on climate change under CEQA. If a project would contribute its “fair share” of what will be required to achieve those long‐term climate goals, then a reviewing agency can find that the impact will not be significant because the project will help to solve the problem of global climate change (62 Cal.4th 220–223).

In accordance with Executive Order B‐55‐18, California is committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. The 3,000 MTCO2e threshold used in the ISMND has no correlation to the State’s carbon neutrality goal for 2045. To determine an individual project’s “fair share,” the ISMND analysis should have focused on the design elements or performance standards that need to be incorporated into the project to support carbon neutrality by 2045. The primary sources of GHG emissions from the project would be from building energy use and transportation; therefore, the ISMND should have evaluated if the project can be designed to ensure it will achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.

With respect to building energy use, as stated in the ISMND (page 88), the project would be served with gas provided by Southern California Gas. The project could replace natural gas with electric power which will support California’s transition away from fossil fuel–based energy sources and will bring the project’s GHG emissions associated with building energy use down to zero as the electric supply becomes 100 percent carbon free. With respect to transportation, the ISMND states that the project would be designed in accordance with Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards. The project could be designed to provide sufficient electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure beyond the CalGreen mandatory level to support the shift to zero‐ emission vehicles (e.g., implement the voluntary CalGreen Tier 2 EV charging standards). The ISMND does not evaluate and incorporate the use of all‐electric buildings or EV charging infrastructure into the project design. Therefore, the ISMND analysis of the project’s impact on the environment from GHG emissions based on the numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e is inadequate because it fails to demonstrate how the project would meet the State’s long‐term climate action goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.

DRURY

554
Mr. Adam Frankel
16 January 2023

22228‐00 Baseline Comment Letter
FAILURE TO EVALUATE CONSISTENCY WITH 2022 SCOPING PLAN
The ISMND evaluates the project’s consistency with the GHG reduction strategies described in the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) 2017 Scoping Plan Update. As stated on page 102 of the ISMND, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable strategies of the 2017 Scoping Plan Update.

The ISMND fails to discuss the project’s consistency with CARB’s current 2022 Scoping Plan,4 which lays out a path to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045. According to the 2022 Scoping Plan, decarbonization of California’s buildings is a key strategy for achieving California’s climate change mitigation and air quality goals. Building decarbonization refers to an umbrella of strategies to reduce residential and commercial building emissions. All‐electric new construction is one of the most cost‐effective near‐term applications for building decarbonization efforts. As stated in the 2022 Scoping Plan, several studies estimate that the costs of constructing all‐electric homes are lower than constructing mixed‐fuel new homes, primarily due to the avoided costs of fossil gas infrastructure at the building site, with cost‐ savings in the range of $2,000 to $10,000 per unit.

As stated in the ISMND (page 88), the project would be served with gas provided by Southern California Gas. By failing to evaluate building decarbonization methods such as an all‐electric building design, the ISMND has not demonstrated consistency with the key GHG reduction strategies under the 2022 Scoping Plan. By conflicting with the GHG reductions strategies of the 2022 Scoping Plan, the project could have a potentially significant impact related to GHG emissions.

INADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF ENERGY IMPACTS
The ISMND provides quantitative estimates of the project’s construction energy consumption and annual operational energy consumption (pages 87‐88), and then states that the project would be designed in accordance with Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as applicable. The ISMND then concludes that the proposed project’s construction and operational energy use would result in a less‐than‐ significant impact on the environment.

In both the California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173 (CCEC) and Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256, the courts found that compliance with the Title 24 Building Code does not, by itself, constitute an adequate assessment of mitigation measures that can be taken to address the energy impacts during construction and operation of a project. As stated in CCEC, that is because Title 24 “does not extend beyond the buildings themselves” and “does not address many of the 4 California Air Resources Board, 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16.

DRURY

555
Mr. Adam Frankel
16 January 2023

22228‐00 Baseline Comment Letter
considerations required under appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.” According to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, energy conservation is defined as the “wise and efficient use of energy” which is achieved by “(1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy resources.” Therefore, the ISMND reliance on Title 24 does not adequately address potential energy impacts during project construction and operation.

The court recently affirmed in League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area Preservation Foundation v. County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63 that even where “[an] EIR [has] determined the project’s impacts on energy resources would be less than significant,” a lead agency must still analyze implementation of all “renewable energy options that might have been available or appropriate for [a] project,”. The ISMND states that “The proposed project would be served with gas provided by Southern California Gas (SoCalGas)” and “The proposed project would be served with electricity provided by SCE, which was required to meet California’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS) of 33 percent by 2020.” The ISMND evaluates the local utility provider’s energy mix, including the percentages of eligible renewable, but fails to adequately consider feasible design features or mitigation measures to reduce the project’s fossil fuel consumption, such as eliminating natural gas heating and appliances, installing rooftop solar panels, or installing EV charging infrastructure that exceeds the minimum Title 24 requirements. Therefore, the ISMND’s analysis of energy impacts is inadequate and the conclusion that the project’s energy impacts are less than significant is unsupported.

INADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS

matter emissions are short‐term in nature. Moreover, the current methodological protocols required by the SCAQMD and ARB when studying the health risk posed by diesel particulate matter assume the following: (1) 24‐hour constant exposure; (2) 350 days a year; (3) for a continuous period lasting 30 years. In addition, as shown in Impact 5.3(b), the proposed project would not exceed the LST for construction‐generated criteria pollutants. “ According to the ISMND (page 60), construction of the project would take approximately one and a half years. For health risk assessments, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) does not recommend assessing cancer risk for projects lasting less than two months due to the uncertainty in assessing cancer risk from short‐term exposures. Since the construction of the project would be substantially longer than two months, a health risk assessment should be conducted to calculate the incremental increase in cancer risk for sensitive receptors (e.g., single‐family homes south of the southern project site boundary) exposed to diesel particulate matter emissions during project construction in accordance with the OEHHA guidance for sources with variable emission rates.

DRURY

556
Mr. Adam Frankel
16 January 2023

22228‐00 Baseline Comment Letter
Furthermore, it appears that the ISMND is suggesting on page 60 that the health risks from exposure to diesel particulate matter would not be significant because the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for construction‐generated criteria pollutants. The LSTs only apply to criteria air pollutants and were not designed to evaluate localized health risks from exposure to diesel particulate matter.

INADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS
As stated on page 110 of the ISMND, a dry cleaning service called Cecilia’s Cleaners was located at the residential portion of the project site from at least 1989 until 2012. A release of tetrachloroethene (PCE) from the dry cleaning service has affected soil and soil gas at the project site. In 2017, the current property owner entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for assessing and remediating the PCE at the project site.

An Indoor Air Quality Assessment was prepared by SCS Engineers on January 16, 2019. The Indoor Air Quality Assessment concluded that there is no significant risk to groundwater, that the former dry cleaning operation poses no significant risk of vapor intrusion, and that further investigation of soil, soil vapor, or groundwater at the project site is not recommended.

However, according to the DTSC EnviroStor database, it does not appear that the Indoor Air Quality Assessment has been reviewed and approved by DTSC. It also appears that additional environmental investigation activities were performed at the project site in October and September 2022 to further evaluate the chemical quality of soil gas and groundwater, but the results of those investigation activities were not disclosed in the ISMND.

The findings from the most recent environmental investigations at the project site should be disclosed in the ISMND for public review. In addition, the DTSC should review and approve the findings of all the investigation reports and issue a letter of No Further Action prior to the issuance of buildings permits. To ensure that future residents, workers, and patrons are not exposed to substantial concentrations of hazardous chemicals from vapor intrusion, a mitigation measure should be prepared that requires the applicant to submit a copy of the DTSC letter of No Further Action to the City prior to the issuance of buildings permits.

DRURY

557
Mr. Adam Frankel
16 January 2023

22228‐00 Baseline Comment Letter

CONCLUSIONS
Based on our review of the ISMND, there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environmental related to GHG emissions, energy, air quality, and hazardous materials. Therefore, Baseline recommends that the City of Orange prepare an Environmental Impact Report to address the environmental concerns described above.

Sincerely,
Patrick Sutton,  Yilin Tian, PhD
Principal Environmental Engineer Environmental Engineer DRURY

558
Patrick Sutton, P.E.

Principal Environmental Engineer
Areas of Expertise
Air Quality, GHGs, Noise, Hazardous
Materials, Geology, and Hydrology
Education
M.S., Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of
California – Davis
B.S., Environmental Science,
Dickinson College
Registration
Professional Engineer No. 13609 (RI)
Years of Experience
19 Years
Patrick Sutton is an environmental engineer who specializes in the assessment of hazardous materials released into the environment.

Mr. Sutton prepares technical reports in support of environmental review, such as Phase I/II Environmental Site Investigations, Air Quality Reports, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plans, and Health Risk Assessments. He has prepared numerous CEQA/NEPA
evaluations for air quality, GHGs, geology, hazardous materials, and water quality related to residential, commercial, and industrial projects, as well as large infrastructure developments. His proficiency in a wide range of modeling software (AERMOD, CalEEMod, RCEM, CT‐EMFAC) as well as relational databases, GIS, and graphics design allows him to thoroughly and efficiently assess and mitigate environmental concerns.

For mixed‐use development projects, Mr. Sutton has prepared health risk assessments for sensitive receptors exposed to toxic air contaminants based on air dispersion modeling. He has also prepared GHG Reduction Plans to demonstrate how projects can comply with State and/or local GHG reduction goals. For large highway infrastructure improvement projects, Mr. Sutton has prepared air quality and hazardous materials technical reports in accordance with Caltrans requirements. Air quality assessments include the evaluation of criteria air pollutants, mobile source air toxics, and GHG emissions to support environmental review of the project under CEQA/NEPA and to determine conformity with the State Implementation Plan.

Hazardous materials investigations include sampling and statistically analysis of aerially‐deposited lead adjacent to highway corridors.

Project Experience
Oakland Downtown Specific Plan EIR. Prepared a program‐ and project‐level Air Quality and GHG Emissions analysis. Developed a mitigation measure with performance standards to ensure GHG emissions from future projects comply with the Citywide 2030 GHG reduction target.

I‐680 Express Lanes from SR 84 to Alcosta Boulevard Project. Prepared Initial Site Assessment and Preliminary Site Investigation to evaluate contaminants of potential concern in soil and groundwater. Prepared Air Quality Report to determine the project’s conformity to federal air quality regulations and to support environmental review of the project under CEQA and NEPA.

Altamont Corridor Expressway (ACE/Forward) Project EIR/EIS. Prepared a program‐ and project‐level Hazardous Materials analysis for over 120 miles of railroad corridor from San Jose to Merced. Hazardous materials concerns, such as release sites, petroleum pipelines, agricultural pesticides, and nearby school sites were evaluated in GIS.

Stonegate Residential Subdivision EIR. Prepared a project‐level Hydrology and Water Quality analysis for a residential development located within the 100‐year floodplain. The proposed project included modifications to existing levees and flood channels.

BART Silicon Valley Extension Project. Prepared Initial Site Assessment and Hazardous Materials EIS/EIR section for extending 6 miles of proposed BART service through the Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara.

DRURY

559
Yilin Tian, Ph.D
Environmental Engineer
Areas of Expertise
Air Quality, GHGs, Noise, Energy, and
Environmental Compliance
Education
Ph.D./M.S., Environmental Science
and Engineering, Clarkson University
B.S., Environmental Science, Beijing
University of Technology
Registrations/Certifications
40‐hour HAZWOPER training
Engineer‐In‐Training, No. 167986
Years of Experience
10 Years
Yilin Tian is an environmental engineer who specializes in the analysis of air quality and human exposure to toxic air contaminants. For CEQA environmental review, Yilin assists in the analysis of air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG), noise and vibration, and energy impacts. She is also familiar with state/local environmental regulations and guidelines related to CEQA review. Yilin has worked on variety of land uses development projects, including large mixed‐use infill, wetland restoration, levee improvement, and highway expansion projects. She is experienced with preparing health risk assessments for sensitive receptors exposed to toxic air contaminants during construction and operation. Yilin is proficient with air pollution models (e.g., CalEEMod and AERMOD), noise models (e.g., FHA TNM and SoundPLAN), geospatial data analysis, and database management.

Besides CEQA studies, Yilin has worked with the Bay Area Air Management District (BAAQMD) to improve existing emissions estimation techniques and update emission inventories related to wood‐burning devises and ammonia emissions in the Bay Area. Her strong background in statistics and air pollutants emissions allows her to process and analyze data properly and efficiently.

Yilin has assisted the City of Berkeley and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) with environmental compliance and mitigation monitoring, including reviewing submittals and performing environmental field inspections. Beyond that, Yilin has experience with Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, air monitoring, noise monitoring, and the state’s Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund application.

Project Experience
Belvedere Lagoon Levee Project. Prepared project‐level Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Noise and Vibration analyses for construction of a coastal levee system for the City of Belvedere.

Metro Center Hotel Project. Prepared a project‐level Air Quality and GHG Emissions analysis for the development of a new, seven‐story hotel in central Foster City.

I‐80/Ashby Avenue Interchange Improvement Project. Prepared Air Quality Report to determine the project’s conformity to federal air quality regulations and to support environmental review of the project under CEQA and NEPA.

Residential Wood Combustion for San Francisco Bay Area. Updated the methodology and datasets used by the BAAQMD to quantify residential wood combustion emissions within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. This methodology will be used to update the BAAQMD’s residential wood‐burning emissions inventory and reduce uncertainties in the existing emission inventory.

Environmental Compliance Monitoring for the SFPUC. Managed three SFPUC projects including the Sunol Long Term Improvements Projects, Southeast Community Center Project, and the Force Main Rehabilitation at Embarcadero & Jackson Street.

DRURY

560

EXHIBIT B
DRURY

561

INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: December 31, 2022
To: Adam Frankel
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project – City of Orange, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4664)
Pages: 19
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a wellrecognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.

The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, DRURY

562
2 of 19
2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3 , assuming a
continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3 , and 100%
absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3
NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.

Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015).

Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.

The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and DRURY

563
3 of 19
particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.

In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.

A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016-2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3
found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study
where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.

Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products.

This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).

With respect to the 840 The City Drive Apartments Project – City of Orange, CA, the buildings consist of residential and commercial spaces.

DRURY

564
4 of 19
The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction.

Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences.

This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million).

The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels.

Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3
(Singer et. al., 2020)
DRURY

565
5 of 19
Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 161 µg/day.

Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 µg/day.

This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR.

In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 µg/m3
, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus
represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million.

Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures.

Additionally, the SCAQMD’s Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (“MATES V”) identifies an existing cancer risk at the Project site of 446 per million due to the site’s elevated ambient air contaminant concentrations, which are due to the area’s high levels of vehicle traffic. These impacts would further exacerbate the pre-existing cancer risk to the building occupants, which result from exposure to formaldehyde in both indoor and outdoor air.

Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.

DRURY

566
6 of 19
Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.

DRURY

567
7 of 19

1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.

2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).

3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods.

DRURY

568
8 of 19
CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.

If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area-specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.

Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.

DRURY

569
9 of 19

4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.

5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone.

𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 =
𝐸𝐸𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
𝑄𝑄 (Equation 1)
where:

Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.

Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section

3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).

6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).

7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or NonCancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.

Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the DRURY

570
10 of 19
health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:

1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde

2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde
Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:

1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.

Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. PreConstruction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a DRURY

571
11 of 19
result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week.

Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.

The Project is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., Garden Grove Freeway, I5, Garden Grove Boulevard, etc.), and thus the Project site is a sound impacted site.

According to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – 840 The City Drive Apartments Project (FirstCarbon Solutions, 2022), the 2024 plus Project traffic noise levels reported in Table 19, range from 66.6 dBA to 68.3 dBA CNEL.

As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.

PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. According to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – 840 The City Drive Apartments Project (FirstCarbon Solutions, 2022), the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5.

Additionally, the SCAQMD’s MATES V study cites an existing cancer risk of 446 per million at the Project site due to the site’s high concentration of ambient air contaminants resulting from the area’s high levels of motor vehicle traffic.

DRURY

572
12 of 19
An air quality analyses should be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.

It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.

Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

DRURY

573
13 of 19
Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.

PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems,such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.

Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the DRURY

574
14 of 19
occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement.

References
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2004. Formaldehyde in the Home. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov › research › indoor › formaldgl08-04.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.

California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.

California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf.

DRURY

575
15 of 19
California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.

California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2018011001.

EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors.

Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

FirstCarbon Solutions. 2022. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – 840 The City Drive Apartments Project – City of Orange, CA.

Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf DRURY

576
16 of 19
OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX.

Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-qualityanalysis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
DRURY

577
17 of 19

APPENDIX A

INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS

AND THE

CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”.

Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.

Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile OrganicChemical EmissionsforIndoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,Version1.1, 2017, California Department of Public Health, DRURY

578
18 of 19
Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/
DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3
/h) calculated for this model residence.

For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates.

The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2
(2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area).

For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA DRURY

579
19 of 19
cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins.

DRURY

580
Vicinity Map
840 The City Drive South
Conditional Use Permit No. 3138-21, Major Site Plan Review No. 1040-21, Design Review No. 5030-21, Administrative Adjustment No. 0051-21, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1875-21
City of Orange
Community Development Department
581
Agenda Item
Design Review Committee
Item #: 4.1. 12/7/2022 File #: 22-0614
TO: Chair and Members of the Design Review Committee
THRU: Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director FROM: Monique Schwartz, Associate Planner

1. SUBJECT
Design Review No. 5030-21, Street Lights Mixed-Use Apartment Development, 840 The City Drive South

2. SUMMARY
Recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission.

The applicant proposes to demolish an existing multi-tenant retail building to construct a new 225-unit mixed-use apartment development with a ground floor retail/restaurant area, subterranean parking, residential amenities, open parking structure for the adjacent office complex use, and related site improvements.

3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Applicant: SLR Orange Development, LLC / Scott Levy
Property Owner: GPI-OCA, LLC / Jason Purvis
Property Location: 840 The City Drive South
General Plan Designation: Urban Mixed Use, 30-60 dwelling units/acre, 1.5-3.0 FAR (UMIX) Zoning Classification: Urban Mixed Use (UMU)
Existing Development: The project site includes three parcels totaling 5.86 acres. The site is currently developed with a 12,923-square-foot, single-story multi-tenant commercial building, a 98,800-squarefoot four-story office building (790 The City Drive South), shared two-way entry drive and circular turn -about, surface parking, landscaping, and site improvements. The 5.86-acre site is part of a larger

15.1-acre office complex consisting of a 98,800-square-foot four-story office building (750 The City Drive South), a 189,600-square-foot eight-story office building (770 The City Drive South), perimeter storage buildings totaling 5,495 square feet, open structured and surface parking with 1,420 spaces, and related site improvements. An existing three-story hotel to the north, and three-story office building to the west are not part of the proposed project or larger 15.1-acre office complex site.

Associated Applications: Conditional Use Permit No. 3138-21, Major Site Plan Review No. 1040-21, Administrative Adjustment No. 0051-21, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1875-21.

City of Orange Page 1 of 10 Printed on 4/5/2023
powered by Legistar™582
Item #: 4.1. 12/7/2022 File #: 22-0614
Previous DRC Project Review: None

4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing 12,923-square-foot, one-story multi-tenant commerical building and surface parking lot in order to construct a 225-unit vertical mixed-use apartment development, including 9,000 square feet of ground level retail/restaurant area, a 421 space, three-level subterranean parking structure beneath the footprint of the building, 13 parallel surface parking spaces, residential amenities, and related site improvements. A two-story open parking structure for use by the ajdacent multi-building office complex is proposed to replace the parking that is being displaced by the project.

The project site includes three parcels (Parcels 3, 5, and 6). A lot line adjustment is proposed to the southeast corner parcel (Parcel 6) to accommodate the new mixed-use apartment development and for property ownership purposes. The new mixed-use building is designed to safely interface with the adjacent street frontages. Apartment units and residential amenity courtyards are elevated on a fivefoot podium, which allows for a separation of the apartment units from roadway traffic and the sidewalk, as well as increased safety from the heavily trafficked intersection of Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive South.

Proposed Apartment Unit Sizes
Apartment Type Size Total Units
Studio 558-680 sq. ft. 36
One Bedroom 603-868 sq. ft. 102
Two Bedroom 1,039-1,533 sq. ft. 87
Residential common amenities include a fitness center that will be shared with the adjacent office complex, club house and lounge area, landscaped pool/spa courtyard, and passive open courtyard equipped with a shade structure, barbeque counters, outdoor kitchen/bar area, fire pits, outdoor seating with umbrellas, a pet lounge, and pet park. The project also provides quasi-public plaza areas on the northeast corner and southern frontage of the building that will contain bench and lounge seating. Access to the individual units will be from basement level parking to an interior corridor system, stair/stoop entries along the west side of the building, and two interior stairway access points off the sidewalk along The City Drive South. An integrated ground level retail/restaurant area will be located on the north side of the building, oriented to the primary vehicular access to the larger complex. This frontage will also incorporate outdoor dining and a public seating area. There are no tenants proposed at this time; however, it is anticipated that the space will be used for small retail and/or take-out restaurant use.

The project also proposes a new 43,059-square-foot, two-story open parking structure with 145 parking spaces to replace parking lost from implementation of the mixed-use development. The parking structure will be located west of the mixed-use project and parallel to the south property line, and will be used by the 790 The City Drive South office building as well as the overall existing office complex.

Site and Building Design/Architecture
The project has a pedestrian oriented design, whereby the mixed-use component of the project is located close to the street, with apartment units and residential amenity courtyards slightly elevated on a five-foot podium with stairway access along the eastern frontage (The City Drive South), and City of Orange Page 2 of 10 Printed on 4/5/2023
powered by Legistar™583
Item #: 4.1. 12/7/2022 File #: 22-0614
on a five-foot podium with stairway access along the eastern frontage (The City Drive South), and stair/stoop access to apartment entries on the west side (parking lot/office complex), allowing for increased comfort of a residential interface along the busy street frontage and office complex interior.

The building is designed around apartment amenity courtyards, the larger of which is exposed to the eastern edge. This allows for a visual break in the perceived length of the project, creating the apperance of smaller walkable buildings along The City Drive South.

The proposed sidewalk interface of the project along The City Drive consists of the five-foot exposure of the podium parking wall, with active elevated common open space areas above (pool courtyard and dog park). This condition represents a blended approach to minimizing the building wall setback in alignment with the urban building-sidewalk interface anticipated in mixed-use urban environments, while also activating and creating pedestrian-oriented development. The sidewalk interface condition of the podium wall and landscaping is particularly important along The City Drive South. The applicant has proposed a board-formed concrete finish for the podium wall. Staff believes that the treatment of the wall and landscape design warrants further development. A condition of approval has been included that calls for the applicant to continue to refine the design of this interface for staff approval prior to the issuance of grading permits, however, staff is seeking feedback from the DRC to guide design details.

The main public entrance (leasing office) to the building is oriented to the street sidewalk along Garden Grove Boulevard and is designed as a quasi-public plaza with enhanced landscaping, bench seating, and decorative monument signage. Outdoor dining and public seating are integrated along the northern edge, which creates an attractive and appealing link for pedestrians that may be walking to the site from other offices or residential areas in the vicinity. There will be a new traffic signal with associated crosswalk at the main driveway entrance along The City Drive South that will provide additional pedestrian connectivity between the project and offices to the east. The project also takes into consideration the City’s Urban Mixed Use land use designation and the future development objectives of the West Chapman Avenue/Uptown Orange General Plan Focus Area in that the project integrates with surrounding retail, professional offices, and residential development, provides high density innovative housing options, has convenient access to surrounding uses and transit stops, considers existing pedestrian activity in relation to adjacent office and retail uses, as well as future pedestrian activity that is expected to increase over time as infill development occurs in the area.

The project features a modern architectural style that reflects an urban mixed-use housing aesthetic.

The ground level incorporates store front windows with metal awnings to help activate the street frontages. The north portion of the building is six stories in height (75 feet), while the middle and southern portions are five stories (63 feet-4 inches), allowing for better integration with the existing on -site commercial office buildings, four-story office building to the east, and two-story apartments and single family residences to the south across Garden Grove Boulevard in the City of Santa Ana. The scale of the project is well-suited to the expansive widths of The City Drive South and Garden Grove Boulevard. This, combined with the orientation of the building to the streets, helps to define the street edge and anchors the southern gateway to the Uptown Orange mixed-use district.

Architectural features include varied flat roof lines, extensive use of windows and balconies, alternating wall planes, and vertical and horizontal accent details. The use of a variety of exterior building materials also contributes to this distinctive architectual style, including painted stucco, vinyl windows, metal railings at balconies, metal awnings over ground level aluminum store front windows, horizontal fiber cement siding and trim, stone veneer, cast stone base, smooth and boardform textured concrete, and decorative metal screening on the south elevation. The building will City of Orange Page 3 of 10 Printed on 4/5/2023
powered by Legistar™584
Item #: 4.1. 12/7/2022 File #: 22-0614
textured concrete, and decorative metal screening on the south elevation. The building will incorporate a coordinated color scheme in shades of beige, gray, and brown.

Although the project presents a contemporary architectural style that differs from the existing brick clad office development, the scale of the building, incorporation of a flat roof design, and use of exterior materials including brown fiber cement siding that reflects the horizontal rows of brown brick veneer between the large windows on the office buildings, dark metal used for balcony railing, window frames, and store front awnings that match the dark window frames and tinted windows on the office buildings, and a warm earth tone color scheme lend to a visually integrated condition despite being different.

The proposed two-story (15 feet-10 inches) open parking structure will coordinate with the existing office complex buildings and open parking structure. Exterior finishes will include natural gray concrete and brown brick veneer.

Streetscape and Landscape
The proposed project contributes to the existing office complex streetscape by providing an updated, pedestrian friendly interface along both street frontages. Due to the position of the building on the site, some existing mature landscaping will be removed. Sheet L10 (Tree Removal Plan) shows the removal of 63 trees in order to accommodate the new mixed-use development and open parking structure.

The project incorporates a variety of water efficient plant material along the street frontages, perimeter boundaries, and project interior, including a total of 66 new trees. Streetscape treatment along The City Drive South includes a 5-foot wide landscape buffer, and planters between the public sidewalk and 5-foot tall boardformed textured concrete podium wall that will include a mix of Eastern/Western Redbud, Red Edged Dracaena, Pinapple Guava, Crape Myrtle and Date Palm trees, and a variety of shrubs and ground cover including Wax Leaf Privet, Indian Hawthorn, Foxtail Agave, Bougainvillea, Bottlebrush, and White Carpet Rose. The quasi-public plaza along the Garden Grove Boulevard frontage will include Date Palm trees and landscape planters with a similar variety of shrubs and goundcover to accentuate the main project entrance. Street trees along both street frontages will include the retention of existing Crape Myrtle or replacement with Brisbane Box trees.

The proposed streetscape landscaping will articulate and soften the five and six-story building design and provide a friendly pedestrian-oriented interface with the building and sidewalk.

Landscape treatment in the commercial outdoor dining and quasi-public plaza areas along the north property line includes foundation planters along the building frontage, and planters along the sidewalk and parallel parking spaces with a mix of Arbutus Standard, Thornless Palo Verde, Bronze Loquat, Swan Hill Olive, and Carrot Wood trees, and similar shrubs and ground cover. The public sidewalk along the Garden Grove street frontage will connect to a landscaped pedestrian pathway on the west side of the building that leads to parallel guest parking, stair/stoop entries to residential units, and linkage of residential units to the retail area on the north and other commercial center businesses. Landscaping along the west side includes a mix of Southern Magnolia, African Tulip, and Carrot Wood trees in planters between the parallel parking spaces, and foundation planters with smaller accent trees, shrubs and groundcover. The trees and foundation landscaping along the north and west sides will enhance the building elevations, as well as provide a visual buffer for the adjacent hotel to the north, and the 790 The City Drive South office building to the west.

The amenity courtyards and project interior will consist of landscape planters that contain a mix of City of Orange Page 4 of 10 Printed on 4/5/2023
powered by Legistar™585
Item #: 4.1. 12/7/2022 File #: 22-0614
The amenity courtyards and project interior will consist of landscape planters that contain a mix of Eastern/Western Redbud, Pineapple Guava, Crape Myrtle, King and Royal Palm trees and similar shrubs and groundcover. The amenity courtyards, outdoor dining and public seating areas on the north side, and the public plaza on the south side will contain enhanced paving. The pedestrian pathways that provide connectivity throughout the project will consist of natural gray concrete paving.

The proposed two-story open parking structure will be screened along the Garden Grove Boulevard street frontage with Giant Timber Bamboo foundation planting, existing mature trees, and Brisbane Box or Crape Myrtle street trees.

Lighting
Sheets A1.031, A1.051, and E6.1 provides conceptual exterior lighting for the project. LED wall mounted light fixtures, bollards for pedestrian walkways, ground mounted decorative lighting for landscape and architectural features, overhead festoon lighting in the amenity courtyards, step lights for outdoor stairways, and light poles in a bronze or black finish will be provided in the residential, commercial, and associated parking areas. All project lighting will be shielded and oriented to prevent glare or light spillage onto neighboring properties. The proposed fixture styles are contemporary and compatible with the architecture of the building and parking structure.

Signage/Wall Graphics
Conceptual signage and wall graphics are included for illustrative purposes and are not part of this project proposal. Monument signage including oversized letters with the project name is proposed at the southeast corner of the site at the intersection of Garden Grove Bouelvard and The City Drive South. Enlarged wall graphics are included on the east elevation facing The City Drive South.

Proposed signage and wall graphics will return to the DRC at a later date.

Overall, the project’s coordinated architectural style, use of matching colors and materials, as well as streetscape and landscape design as proposed presents an overall integrated design theme.

5. EXISTING SITE
The project site includes three parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 231-261-13 [1.12 acres], 231-361-16 [0.95 acres], and 231-261-17 [3.77 acres]) totaling 5.86 acres. The site is part of a larger

15.1-acre multi-building office complex located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive South. The project site is currently developed with a 12,923- square-foot, single-story, multi-tenant commercial building constructed in 1989, a 98,800-square-foot, four-story office building that is part of the larger existing multi-building office complex, shared twoway entry drive and circular turn-about, surface parking, landscaping, and site improvements. The multi-building office complex was constructed in the 1980’s.

6. EXISTING AREA CONTEXT
To the north of the project site is the larger multi-building office complex, surface parking lot, and three-story hotel (Best Western Plus). Further north, beyond the office complex and hotel is West Park Central Avenue, a three-story senior assisted living/memory care facility (Oakmont of Orange), and two-story multi-family residential uses. To the south is Garden Grove Boulevard. Further south is a two-story apartment development (Vista Del Rio) and one-story single-family residences in the City of Santa Ana. To the east is The City Drive South. Further east is a four-story office building and surface parking lot, and the Santa Ana River. To the west, is a two-story office building (3707 W.

Garden Grove Boulevard) and surface parking lot. Further west are duplex and multi-family City of Orange Page 5 of 10 Printed on 4/5/2023
powered by Legistar™586
Item #: 4.1. 12/7/2022 File #: 22-0614
Garden Grove Boulevard) and surface parking lot. Further west are duplex and multi-family residences and South Park Vine Street.

7. ANALYSIS AND STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Issue 1: Increased Building Height
The project proposes a five and six-story building height (63-75 feet), which is in character with other similar high density housing projects in the UMU zone. The applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the maximum 45-foot (3 stories) building height limitation. The building height and massing as proposed integrates with the adjacent four and eight-story office complex buildings, and four-story office building located to the east, across The City Drive South. The five-story building height along the southern edge takes into consideration the existing two-story apartments and one-story single-family residences located across Garden Grove Boulevard in the City of Santa Ana. The single-family residences are not street facing and are located approximately 106 feet from the southern footprint of the building. The proposed streetscape enhancements, including street trees, will help soften and screen the varied building height and massing.

Issue 2: Open Space Deficiency
Sheet A1.003 (Open Space Exhibit) illustrates open space provided by the project. The project requires a total of 31,178 square feet of open space (private and common open space), while the project has provided a total of 30,509 square feet. The applicant is seeking an Administrative Adjustment for a 670 square foot (0.98%) deficiency. Staff feels that with the inclusion of the various residential common open space amenities, including, but not limited to a fitness center, club house and lounge area, landscaped pool/spa courtyard, and passive open courtyard, private patios and balconies for the majority of the units, and quasi-public plazas that contribute to an active street environment, it is not anticipated that the requested reduction of open space would negatively impact the project.

8. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Staff Review Committee (SRC) conducted reviews of the project on April 27, 2022, August 10, 2022, and October 12, 2022. On November 16, 2022, SRC recommended that the project proceed to the Design Review Committee.

9. PUBLIC NOTICE
A Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1875-21 was sent to 609 property owners and tenants within a 400-foot radius of the project site, adjacent cities, and other potentially affected public agencies and utility service providers. This notification is also on file with the Orange County Clerk Recorder and was posted at the site. Additional notification and posting of the site will occur in preparation for the Planning Commission public hearing.

10. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is subject to environmental review per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1875-21 has been prepared for this project and is included as Attachments 3 and 4 for the DRC’s review and consideration. The issues subject to DRC purview are impacts relating to Aesthetics (pages 37-49) and Cultural/Tribal Cultural Resources (pages 76-84). The role of the DRC is to provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission, and comments provided by the DRC will be included City of Orange Page 6 of 10 Printed on 4/5/2023
powered by Legistar™587
Item #: 4.1. 12/7/2022 File #: 22-0614
in the Planning Commission Staff Report.

MND No. 1875-21 analyzes the physical environmental impacts of the project. The MND concludes that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures related to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, and Transportation. There were no impacts identified related to Aesthetics. The public review period began on November 23, 2022 and ends on December 14, 2022. The MND was made publicly available at the Community Development Department, City Clerk’s office, and the City’s website.

11. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUIRED FINDINGS
Findings for DRC applications come from four sources:
· The Orange Municipal Code
· The Infill Residential Design Guidelines
· The Historic Preservation Design Standards for Old Towne (commonly referred to the Old Towne Design Standards or OTDS)
· Orange Eichler Design Standards (or OEDS)
The Findings are applied as appropriate to each project. Based on the following Findings and statements in support of such Findings, staff recommends the DRC approve the project with recommended conditions.
· The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards, and their required findings (OMC 17.10.07.G.3).

The project is neither located in a specific plan area nor an area of the City subject to design standards. The West Chapman Avenue/Uptown Orange General Plan Focus Area, located west of the SR-57 and south of SR-22, is characterized by an eclectic mix of contemporary architectural styles consisting of mid-rise office, senior housing, public facilities/institutions (UCI Medical Center), multi-family residential, and commercial retail uses. The intent of the land use and urban design policies included in the General Plan and zoning is to transition the area into an integrated mixed-use district with comfortable pedestrian linkage and peopleoriented streetscape conditions. The architecture and landscape design of the proposed project will revitalize the urban fabric by replacing an existing retail building and surface parking lot with a distinctive, larger scale, contemporary, mixed-use development that is in scale and integrates with surrounding development along The City Drive South and Garden Grove Boulevard. The project provides varied and articulated building elevations and streetscape enhancements that provide an appealing pedestrian environment to encourage pedestrian activity and linkage between the project and surrounding office, retail and residential uses. The project presents an overall internally consistent and integrated design theme that upholds community aesthetics.

12. CONDITIONS
The approval of this project is subject to the following conditions:

City of Orange Page 7 of 10 Printed on 4/5/2023
powered by Legistar™588
Item #: 4.1. 12/7/2022 File #: 22-0614

1. The project shall conform in substance and be maintained in general conformance with plans and exhibits labeled as Attachment 5 in the staff report (date stamped received November 30, 2022), including modifications required by the conditions of approval, and as recommended for approval by the Design Review Committee.

2. Except as otherwise provided herein, this project is approved as a precise plan. After any application has been approved, if changes are proposed regarding the location or alteration of any use or structure, a changed plan may be submitted to the Community Development Director for approval. If the Community Development Director determines that the proposed change complies with the provisions and the spirit and intent of the approval action, and that the action would have been the same for the changed plan as for the approved plot plan, the Community Development Director may approve the changed plan administratively.

3. Subsequent modifications to the approved architecture and color scheme shall be submitted for review and approval to the Community Development Director or designee. Should the modifications be considered substantial, the modifications shall be reviewed by the Design Review Committee.

4. The applicant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all liability or claims that may be brought against the City arising out of its approval of this permit, save and except that caused by the City’s active negligence. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceedings and shall cooperate fully in the defense.

5. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, including all City regulations.

Violation of any of those laws in connection with the use will be cause for revocation of this permit.

6. Building permits shall be obtained for all future construction work, as required by the City of Orange, Community Development Department’s Building Division. Failure to obtain the required building permits will be cause for revocation of this permit.

7. All signage shall comply with Chapter 17.36 Sign Regulations of the Orange Municipal Code.

Project signage and building graphics shall be subject to Design Review Committee approval.

8. If not utilized, project approval expires twenty-four months from the approval date. Extensions of time may be granted, if requested in writing in accordance with OMC Section 17.08.060. The Planning entitlements expire unless Building Permits are pulled within two years of the original approval.

9. In conjunction with construction, all activity will be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction activity will be permitted on Sundays and Federal holidays.

10. These conditions shall be reprinted on the second page of the construction documents when City of Orange Page 8 of 10 Printed on 4/5/2023
powered by Legistar™589
Item #: 4.1. 12/7/2022 File #: 22-0614
submitted to the Building Division for the plan check process.

11. Any graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours from the time the City of Orange Notice of Violation is received by the applicant/property owner.

12. The applicant shall refine the design of the eastern frontage interface of the exposed podium parking wall and public sidewalk for staff approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.

Consideration shall be given to wall finish and landscape treatment that results in a comfortable pedestrian experience for individuals using the sidewalk.

13. Any new lighting on the premise shall be installed in such a way to direct, control, and screen the lighting to prevent off site light spillage onto adjoining properties and shall not be a nuisance to any point beyond the exterior boundaries of the property.

New parking lot lighting shall be limited to 3,500 degrees Kelvin (K).

14. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall schedule a light reading inspection with the Crime Prevention Bureau. The lighting shall be tested and confirmed to determine if the lighting meets or exceeds the exterior boundary standards. The applicant shall use shielding so as to ensure that the light standards meet the requirements of OMC Section

17.12.030 for areas beyond the property’s exterior boundaries; light spillage or pollution to surrounding residential areas shall not exceed a maintained minimum of 0.5 foot-candle.

15. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that all mechanical and air conditioning equipment shall be shielded and screened from view from adjacent streets and properties. The screening shall be integrated architecturally with the building and painted to match the walls of the building.

16. Plans submitted for Building Plan Check shall comply with the California Fire Code as amended by the City and as frequently amended and in effect at the time of application for Building Permit.

17. Prior to building permit issuance, final landscaping plans for the project shall be designed to comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines as described in Section IX et al of the City of Orange Landscape Standards and Specifications. The project landscape architect shall submit documentation verifying compliance with this requirement for review and approval by the Community Development Director or designee in coordination with the Public Works Director or designee.

18. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall prepare a final landscaping and irrigation plan consistent with the grading plans, site plans, and the conceptual landscaping plan as proposed for the project for the review and approval of the Director of Community Development or designee in coordination with the Public Works Director or designee.

19. Landscape maintenance shall be performed in such a manner as to allow all trees to retain their full canopy height for screening and full canopy breadth for shade at point of maturity, except as required for public safety purposes.

City of Orange Page 9 of 10 Printed on 4/5/2023
powered by Legistar™590
Item #: 4.1. 12/7/2022 File #: 22-0614

20. Prior to building permit issuance, City required irrigation and landscape inspection notes, in accordance with the City of Orange Landscape Standards and Specifications, shall be placed on the final landscape plan, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or designee in coordination with the Public Works Director or designee.

21. Prior to certificate of occupancy, all landscaping improvements shall be completed according to the approved plans, the City of Orange Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, and City of Orange Landscape Standards and Specifications. The project landscape architect shall submit documentation certifying compliance with this requirement (Appendices B and E of City of Orange Landscape Standards and Specifications) for review and approval by the Community Development Director or designee, in coordination with the Public Works Director or designee.

22. The final landscape plan shall include a note that a fully automated irrigation system will be provided.

23. Prior to building permit issuance, landscape plans shall include landscape area calculations need for State landscape water use reporting.

24. Prior to building permit issuance, a Tree Removal Permit shall be approved by the Community Services Director in accordance with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. A plan is required for submittal to the City depicting all of the existing on-site trees, the specifies of each tree, and the number of trees proposed for removal and replacement.

13. ATTACHMENTS
· Attachment 1 Vicinity Map
· Attachment 2 Development Standards Reference Table
· Attachment 3 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1875-21, Dated November 14, 2022 · Attachment 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1875-21 Appendices · Attachment 5 Project Plans, Date Stamped Received November 30, 2022; Color and Materials Board Provided at Meeting
City of Orange Page 10 of 10 Printed on 4/5/2023
powered by Legistar™591
592
593
594
Agenda Item
Planning Commission
Item #: 6.2. 2/23/2023 File #: 22-0718
TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
THRU: Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director FROM: Monique Schwartz, Associate Planner

1. SUBJECT
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit No. 3138-21, Major Site Plan Review No. 1040-21, Design Review No. 5030-21, Administrative Adjustment No. 0051-21, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1875-21 - Street Lights Mixed-Use Apartment Development, 840 The City Drive South including adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1875-21 and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

2. SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing multi-tenant retail building in order to construct a new 225-unit mixed-use apartment development with a ground floor retail/restaurant area, subterranean parking, surface parking, residential amenities, an open parking structure for the adjacent office complex use, and related site improvements. The applicant is also requesting an Administrative Adjustment to allow a reduction of 48 parking spaces and 670 square feet of open space.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 33-22 entitled:

A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3138-21, Major Site Plan Review No. 1040-21, Design Review No. 5030-21, Administrative Adjustment No. 0051-21, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1875-21 to demolish an existing retail building in order to construct a new 225-unit mixed-use apartment development, open parking structure for the adjacent office complex use, related site improvements, and a reduction of 48 parking spaces and 670 square feet of open space, located at 840 The City Drive South.

4. AUTHORIZING GUIDELINES
Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Sections 17.08.020, 17.10.030.C, 17.10.060.E, and 17.13.030 authorize the Planning Commission to review and take action on the subject applications and environmental documentation as described in the City’s environmental review guidelines. OMC Section 17.10.070 requires the approval of Design Review when a project requires Major Site Plan Review. OMC Section 17.10.050.D authorizes the Zoning Administrator to take action on adjustments of up to 10% of a development standard; however, footnote (b) of OMC Table 17.08.020 - Reviewing Bodies of the OMC states that when more than one type of application is filed for a single project, the application requiring the highest level of approval shall dictate the review process for the entire group of applications. Therefore, the Planning Commission is acting as the final approving body on all of the City of Orange Page 1 of 17 Printed on 2/16/2023
powered by Legistar™595
Item #: 6.2. 2/23/2023 File #: 22-0718
applications for the project.

5. PROJECT BACKGROUND
Applicant: SLR Orange Development, LLC / Scott Levy
Property Owner GPI-OCA, LLC / Jason Purvis
Property Location 840 The City Drive South
Existing General Plan Land Use
Element Designation
Urban Mixed Use, 30-60 dwelling units/acre, 1.5-3.0 FAR (UMIX) Existing Zoning Classification Urban Mixed Use (UMU)
Old Towne No
Specific Plan/PC NA
Site Size 255,262 square feet (5.86 acres)
Circulation The site is currently accessed via an existing driveway and divided twoway shared drive aisle off of The City Drive South, and an existing shared driveway along Garden Grove Boulevard, approximately 189 feet west of the intersection of Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive South. The City’s Master Plan of Streets and Highways identifies The City Drive South as a Major Arterial (6 lanes divided) with an ultimate right of way width of 120 feet. Garden Grove Boulevard is considered a Primary Arterial (4 lanes divided) with an ultimate right of way width of 100 feet. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) currently provides public transit to the project site. The project site is located 125 feet north of a bus stop for Bus Route 56 (Garden Grove to Orange), located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive South. Additionally, a stop for Bus Route 57 (Brea to Newport Beach) is located 110 feet east of the project site. Both bus stops are accessible from the site via crosswalks on Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive South. A bus stop for Bus Routes 47 and 47A (Fullerton to Balboa) are located at the intersection of South Lewis Street and Garden Grove Boulevard, 0.35 mile west of the project site. The Santa Ana River Trail Bikeway is located approximately 291 feet east of the project site. The City’s Bikeway Master Plan identifies this bikeway as an Existing Class 1 (Off Street) bikeway.

Existing Conditions The project site includes three parcels totaling 5.86-acres. The site is currently developed with a 12,923 square foot single-story multitenant commercial building, a 98,800 square foot four-story office building (790 The City Drive South), shared two-way entry drive and circular turn-about, surface parking, landscaping, and site improvements. The 5.86-acre site is part of a larger 15.1-acre office complex consisting of a 98,800 square foot four-story office building (750 The City Drive South), a 189,600 square foot eight-story office building (770 The City Drive South), perimeter storage buildings totaling 5,495 square feet, open structured and surface parking with 1,420 spaces, and related site improvements. An existing three-story hotel to the north, and three-story office building to the west are not part of the proposed project or larger 15.1-acre office complex site.

SdiLd UdTthth f thjt itithlltibildiffi
City of Orange Page 2 of 17 Printed on 2/16/2023
powered by Legistar™596
Item #: 6.2. 2/23/2023 File #: 22-0718
intersection of South Lewis Street and Garden Grove Boulevard, 0.35 mile west of the project site. The Santa Ana River Trail Bikeway is located approximately 291 feet east of the project site. The City’s Bikeway Master Plan identifies this bikeway as an Existing Class 1 (Off Street) bikeway.

Existing Conditions The project site includes three parcels totaling 5.86-acres. The site is currently developed with a 12,923 square foot single-story multitenant commercial building, a 98,800 square foot four-story office building (790 The City Drive South), shared two-way entry drive and circular turn-about, surface parking, landscaping, and site improvements. The 5.86-acre site is part of a larger 15.1-acre office complex consisting of a 98,800 square foot four-story office building (750 The City Drive South), a 189,600 square foot eight-story office building (770 The City Drive South), perimeter storage buildings totaling 5,495 square feet, open structured and surface parking with 1,420 spaces, and related site improvements. An existing three-story hotel to the north, and three-story office building to the west are not part of the proposed project or larger 15.1-acre office complex site.

Surrounding Land Uses and
Zoning
To the north of the project site is the larger multi-building office complex, surface parking lot, and three-story hotel (Best Western Plus) zoned Urban Mixed Use (UMU). Further north, beyond the office complex and hotel is West Park Central Avenue, a three-story senior assisted living/memory care facility (Oakmont of Orange), and twostory multi-family residential uses zoned Urban Mixed Use (UMU) and Residential Duplex, 6,000 square feet (R-2-6). To the south is Garden Grove Boulevard. Further south is a two-story apartment development (Vista Del Rio) and one-story single-family residences in the City of Santa Ana. To the east is The City Drive South. Further east is a fourstory office building and surface parking, and the Santa Ana River zoned Urban Mixed Use (UMU) and Recreation Open Space (R-O). To the west, is a two-story office building (3707 W. Garden Grove Boulevard) and surface parking lot zoned Urban Mixed Use (UMU).

Further west are duplex and multi-family residences and South Park Vine Street zoned Residential Duplex, 6,000 square feet (R-2-6) and Residential Multi-family (R-4).

Previous
Applications/Entitlements
Staff located numerous entitlements related to the larger office complex site, including 720, 750, 760, 790, and 840 The City Drive South to include the following: On December 14, 1976, the City Council denied Zone Change No. 795, a request to change zoning from C-P to RMM-6,000. On February 26, 1985, the City Council denied General Plan Amendment No. 1-84-A, Zone Change No. 1011 (from C-2 to RMM-6,000), and Conditional Use Permit No. 1326, a request to allow for a density bonus to construct 572 three-story apartments at 500 sq. ft. each. On November 18, 1985, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 1471, a request to allow for the construction of one, eight-story office building, two four-story office buildings, one five-story hotel, and a one-story restaurant. On June 16, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 1519, a request to allow construction of a three-story, 124 room hotel with 25% kitchen units. In June, 1986, the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 86-168 to subdivide the 19.43 acre site into 6 contiguous parcels. On September 15, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 1536, a request to allow creation of one lot (lot #2) without frontage on a public street. On December 18, 1986, the Zoning Administrator approved Conditional Use Permit No1561a request to create one lot without direct frontage on a City of Orange Page 3 of 17 Printed on 2/16/2023
powered by Legistar™597
Item #: 6.2. 2/23/2023 File #: 22-0718
the west, is a two-story office building (3707 W. Garden Grove Boulevard) and surface parking lot zoned Urban Mixed Use (UMU).

Further west are duplex and multi-family residences and South Park Vine Street zoned Residential Duplex, 6,000 square feet (R-2-6) and Residential Multi-family (R-4).

Previous
Applications/Entitlements
Staff located numerous entitlements related to the larger office complex site, including 720, 750, 760, 790, and 840 The City Drive South to include the following: On December 14, 1976, the City Council denied Zone Change No. 795, a request to change zoning from C-P to RMM-6,000. On February 26, 1985, the City Council denied General Plan Amendment No. 1-84-A, Zone Change No. 1011 (from C-2 to RMM-6,000), and Conditional Use Permit No. 1326, a request to allow for a density bonus to construct 572 three-story apartments at 500 sq. ft. each. On November 18, 1985, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 1471, a request to allow for the construction of one, eight-story office building, two four-story office buildings, one five-story hotel, and a one-story restaurant. On June 16, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 1519, a request to allow construction of a three-story, 124 room hotel with 25% kitchen units. In June, 1986, the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 86-168 to subdivide the 19.43 acre site into 6 contiguous parcels. On September 15, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 1536, a request to allow creation of one lot (lot #2) without frontage on a public street. On December 18, 1986, the Zoning Administrator approved Conditional Use Permit No. 1561, a request to create one lot without direct frontage on a public street. On October 29, 1987, the Zoning Administrator approved Conditional Use Permit No. 1634, a request to permit the sale of beer and wine in an employee cafeteria, located at 790 The City Drive South. On June 7, 1990, the Zoning Administrator approved Conditional Use Permit No. 1846-90, a request for an on-sale Alcoholic Beverage Control License in a hotel (Woodfin Suites). On October 16, 1995, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2125-95, a request for on-premise sale of beer and wine within a restaurant, located at 840 The City Drive South. On April 4, 2001, the Design Review Committee approved Design Review No. 3632, a request to renovate existing free-standing signs for a commercial center. On June 15, 2011, the Design Review Committee approved Design Review No. 4540-11, a request to modify an existing sign program and make changes to existing landscaping at an office/retail complex consisting of four buildings.

6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 5.86-acre project site is located at the northwest corner of Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive South and is currently developed with a 12,923-square-foot one-story multi-tenant commercial building, a 98,800-square-foot four-story office building, and surface parking lot. The project site is part of a larger 15.1-acre office complex containing four story and eight-story buildings, structured and surface parking, landscaping, and related site improvements.

The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 12,923 square foot, one-story multi-tenant commerical building and surface parking lot in order to construct a new 225-unit vertical mixed-use apartment development, including 9,000 square feet of ground level retail/restaurants, a 421 space, City of Orange Page 4 of 17 Printed on 2/16/2023
powered by Legistar™598
Item #: 6.2. 2/23/2023 File #: 22-0718
apartment development, including 9,000 square feet of ground level retail/restaurants, a 421 space, three-level subterranean parking structure beneath the footprint of the building, 13 parallel surface parking spaces, residential amenities, and related site improvements. A 145 space two-story open parking structure for the adjacent office complex use is also proposed to replace the parking that is being displaced by the project.

The 5.86 acre project site is comprised of three parcels: Parcel 3 (2.99 acres), Parcel 5 (0.95 acres), and Parcel 6 (1.92 acres). The parcels collectively represent the project site given the shared easements linking the parcels together for purposes of vehicular access, utilities, water quality features, and emergency access. A lot line adjustment is proposed to the southeast corner parcel (Parcel 6) to accommodate the new mixed-use apartment development and for property ownership purposes.

The General Plan Urban Mixed Use land use designation allows a density of 30-60 dwelling units per acre. The project represents a density of 38 dwelling units per acre and is in compliance with the density permitted within the zone.

The UMU zone has a minimum 1.5 and maximum 3.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) range for nonresidential uses. The existing project site currently has a nonconforming 0.44 FAR. The proposed project [790 The City Drive South Office Building (98,800 square feet) plus the commercial component of the mixed-use development (9,000 square feet)] results in a 0.50 FAR, which does not meet the minimum 1.5 FAR for the zone. OMC Section 17.19.120(b), however, provides an exception for new infill development when located on a site with existing structures, where the proposed development together with the existing development falls below the required FAR for the site. The overall development is not required to conform with the Code required FAR provided that the new development with the existing development brings the site into closer conformance with City standards. In this case, the proposed project 0.50 FAR is in closer conformance with City standards than the existing development at 0.44 FAR. If Staff considers the spirit and intent of the Urban Mixed Use zone and the proposed integrated commercial and residential development together, the project is even closer in conformance with a 1.4 FAR.

The new mixed-use apartment building is designed to safely interface with the adjacent street frontages. Apartment units and residential amenity courtyards are elevated on a five-foot podium which allows for a separation of the apartment units from roadway traffic and the sidewalk, as well as increased safety from the heavily trafficked intersection of Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive South. Access to the individual units will be from basement level parking to an interior corridor system, stair/stoop entries along the west side of the building, and two interior stairway access points off the sidewalk along The City Drive South. Each apartment is provided with Code required storage within the unit, or an assigned lockable storage unit within the subterranean parking garage. The majority of units have a private balcony or patio with views toward the interior courtyards, office complex interior, or street frontages.

Proposed Apartment Unit Sizes
Apartment Type Size Total Units
Studio 558-680 sq. ft. 36
One Bedroom 603-868 sq. ft. 102
Two Bedroom 1,039-1,533 sq. ft. 87
City of Orange Page 5 of 17 Printed on 2/16/2023
powered by Legistar™599
Item #: 6.2. 2/23/2023 File #: 22-0718
Residential common amenities include a fitness center that will be shared with the adjacent office complex, club house and lounge area, landscaped pool/spa courtyard, and passive open courtyard equipped with a shade structure, barbeque counters, outdoor kitchen/bar area, fire pits, outdoor seating with umbrellas, pet lounge, and pet park. An integrated ground level retail/restaurant area will be located on the north side of the building, oriented to the primary vehicular accss to the larger complex. This frontage also incoporates outdoor dining and a public eating area. While no tenants have been identified at this time, it is anticipated that the space will be used for small retail and/or take-out restaurant use.

The applicant is proposing streetscape enhancements on the site frontages along The City Drive South and Garden Grove Boulevard consisting of trees and landscaped planters. Existing street trees will remain or be replaced as needed, and new street trees are proposed. The frontage landscaping is intended to provide a friendly pedestrian-oriented interface with the sidewalk and building.

The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for increased building height, and an Administrative Adjustment to allow for a 48 space (10%) reduction in required parking and a 670- square-foot (0.98%) reduction in open space for the project.

The project also includes a new 43,059-square-foot, two-story open parking structure with 145 parking spaces to replace parking lost from implementation of the mixed-use development. The parking structure will be located west of the mixed-use project and parallel to the south property line, and will be used by the office building at 790 The City Drive South as well as the overall existing office complex.

Site and Building Design/Architecture
The project has a pedestrian oriented design, whereby the mixed-use component of the project is located close to the street, with apartment units and residential amenity courtyards slightly elevated on a five-foot podium with stairway access along the eastern frontage (The City Drive South), and stair/stoop access to apartment entries on the west side (parking lot/office complex), allowing for increased comfort of a residential interface along the busy street frontage and office complex interior.

The building is designed around two apartment amenity couryards, the larger of which is exposed to the eastern edge. This allows for a visual break in the perceived length of the project, creating the appearance of smaller walkable buildings along The City Drive South frontage.

The proposed sidewalk interface of the project along The City Drive South consists of a 5 to10-foot exposure of the podium parking wall, with active elevated common open space areas above (pool courtyard and dog park). This condition represents a blended approach to minimizing the building wall setback while also activating and creating pedestian-oriented development. (Attachment 12 - Sheets A1.030 and A1.034C)
The main entrance (leasing office) to the building is oriented to the street sidewalk along Garden Grove Boulevard and is designed as a quasi-public plaza with enhanced landscaping, bench seating, and decorative monument signage. Outdoor dining and public seating are integrated along the northern edge, which creates an attractive and appealing link for pedestrians who may be walking to the site from other offices or residential areas in the vicinity. There will be a new traffic signal with associated crosswalk at the main driveway entrance along The City Drive South that will provide additional pedestrian connectivity between the project and offices to the east. The project also takes into consideration the City’s Urban Mixed Use land use designation and the future development City of Orange Page 6 of 17 Printed on 2/16/2023 powered by Legistar™600
Item #: 6.2. 2/23/2023 File #: 22-0718
into consideration the City’s Urban Mixed Use land use designation and the future development objectives of the West Chapman Avenue/Uptown Orange General Plan Focus Area in that the project integrates with surrounding retail, professional offices, and residential development, provides high density innovative housing options, has convenient access to surrounding uses and transit stops, considers existing pedestiran activity in relation to adjacent office and retail uses, as well as future pedestrian activity that is expected to increase over time as infill development occurs in the area.

Access/Circulation
Vehicular access is provided via an existing driveway and divided two-way shared drive aisle with a new traffic signal off of The City Drive South, and an existing shared driveway along Garden Grove Boulevard, approximately 189 feet west of the intersection of Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive South. These access points connect to interior drive aisles that lead to subterranean parking spaces accessed on the west side, and parallel surface spaces along the north and west sides of the mixed-use building.

The proposed two-story open parking structure provides vehicle ramp access off the west side of the structure for existing office complex tenants and visitors.

Architecture
The project features a modern architectural style that reflects an urban mixed-use housing aesthetic.

The ground level incorporates store front windows with metal awnings to help activate the street frontages. The north portion of the building is six stories in height (75 feet), while the middle and southern portions are five stories (63 feet-4 inches), allowing for better integration with the existing on -site commercial office buildings, four-story office building to the east, and two-story apartments and single family residences to the south across Garden Grove Boulevard in the City of Santa Ana. The scale of the project is well-suited to the expansive widths of The City Drive South and Garden Grove Boulevard. This combined with the orientation of the building to the streets, helps to define the street edge and anchors the southern gateway to the Uptown Orange mixed-use district.

Architectural features include varied flat roof lines, extensive use of windows and balconies, alternating wall planes and vertical and horizontal accent details. The use of a variety of exterior building materials also contributes to this distinctive architectual style, including painted stucco, vinyl windows, metal railings at balconies, metal awnings over ground level aluminum store front windows, fiber cement siding and trim, stone veneer, cast stone base, smooth and boardform textured concrete, and decorative metal screening on the south elevation. The building will incorporate a coordinated color scheme in shades of beige, gray, and brown.

Although the project presents a contemporary architectural style that differs from the existing brick clad office development, the scale of the building, incorporation of a flat roof design, use of coordinating exterior materials, and warm color tones lend to a visually integrated condition despite being different.

The proposed two-story (15 feet-10 inches) open parking structure will coordinate with the existing office complex buildings and open parking structure. Exterior finishes will include natural gray concrete and red brick veneer.

Streetscape and Landscape
The proposed project contributes to the existing office complex streetscape by providing an updated pedestrian friendly interface along both street frontages. Due to the position of the building on the City of Orange Page 7 of 17 Printed on 2/16/2023
powered by Legistar™601
Item #: 6.2. 2/23/2023 File #: 22-0718
pedestrian friendly interface along both street frontages. Due to the position of the building on the site, some existing landscaping will be removed, including 63 mature trees in order to accommodate the new mixed-use development and open parking structure.

The project incorporates a variety of water efficient plant material along the street frontages, perimeter boundaries, and project interior including a total of 70 new trees. Streetscape treament along The City Drive South includes a 5-foot wide landscape buffer, and planters between the public sidewalk and minimum 5-foot tall boardformed textured concrete podium wall that will include a mix of trees, shrubs, and groundcover. The quasi-public plaza along the Garden Grove Boulevard frontage will include accent trees and landscape planters to accentuate the main project entrance.

Street trees will include retention of existing and new street trees along both street frontages. The proposed streetscape landscaping will articulate and soften the five and six-story building design and provide a friendly pedestian oriented interface with the building and sidewalk.

Landscape treatment in the commercial outdoor dining and quasi-public plaza areas along the north property line includes foundation planters along the building frontage, and planters along the sidewalk and parallel parking spaces. The public sidewalk along the Garden Grove street frontage will connect to a landscaped pedestrian pathway on the west side of the building that leads to parallel guest parking, stair/stoop entires to residential units, and linkage of residetial units to the retail area on the north and other commercial center businesses. The trees and foundation landscaping along the north and west sides will enhance the building elevations, as well as provide a visual buffer for the adjacent hotel to the north, and the 790 The City Drive South office building to the west.

The amenity courtyards and project interior will consist of landscape planters that contain a mix of accent trees and similar shrubs and groundcover. The amenity courtyards, outdoor dining and public seating areas on the north side, and public plaza on the south side will contain enhanced paving. The pedestrian pathways that provide connectivity throughout the project will consist of natural gray concrete paving.

The proposed two-story open parking structure will be screened along the Garden Grove Boulevard street frontage with foundation planting, existing mature trees, and street trees.

Detailed information about the project landscape palette, including tree, shrub, and groundcover species is provided in Attachment 4.

Lighting
The project provides conceptual exterior lighting for the project. LED wall mounted light fixtures, bollards for pedestrian walkways, ground mounted decorative lighting for landscape and architectural features, overhead festoon lighting in the amenity courtyards, step lights for outdoor stairways, and light poles in a bronze or black finish will be provided in the residential, commercial, and associated parking areas. All project lighting will be shielded and oriented to prevent glare or light spillage onto neighboring properties. The proposed fixture styles are contemporary and compatible with the architecture of the building and parking structure.

Signage/Wall Graphics
Conceptual signage and wall graphics are included for illustrative purposes and are not part of this project proposal. Monument signage including oversized letters with the project name is proposed at the southeast corner of the site at the intersection of Garden Grove Bouelvard and The City Drive South. Enlarged wall graphics are proposed to be included on the east elevation facing The City City of Orange Page 8 of 17 Printed on 2/16/2023 powered by Legistar™602
Item #: 6.2. 2/23/2023 File #: 22-0718
South. Enlarged wall graphics are proposed to be included on the east elevation facing The City Drive South.

Overall, the project’s coordinated architectural style, use of matching colors and materials, as well as landscape and streetscape design as proposed presents an overall integrated design theme.

Development Standards
Required/Permitted Proposed Code Section
Lot Area 40,000 sq. ft. for newly created
lots
No newly created lots
proposed. Parcel 3: 130,244
sq. ft. (2.99 acres) Parcel 5:
41,382 sq. ft. (0.95 acres)
Parcel 6: 83,635 sq. ft. (1.92
acres)

17.19.120
Lot Width 100 ft. for newly created lots No newly created lots proposed. Parcel 3: 215 -
327 ft. Parcel 5: 46 - 156 ft.

Parcel 6: 373 ft.

17.19.120
Residential Density 30-60 dwelling units/acre 38.4 dwelling units/acre 17.19.120 Building Height 45 ft. - 3 stories unless greater
height is approved via a
Conditional Use Permit
Mixed-Use Building: 63 ft. -
75 ft. Conditional Use
Permit applied Open
Parking Structure: 16 ft.

17.19.120
Distance between
structures with building
height of 61-80 ft.
25 ft. window wall to window
wall 25 ft. window wall to nonwindow wall 15 ft. nonwindow wall to non-window wall
76 - 125 ft. 17.19.090
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for
non-residential

1.5 - 3.0 max (Note: Where the
proposed new infill
development, together with
existing development falls
below the required minimum
FAR for the site, the overall
development shall not be
required to conform, provided
the new development together
with the existing development
brings the site into closer
conformance with City
standards.)
Existing Office Complex: 0.61
FAR Existing Project Site:

0.44 FAR Proposed Project:

Commercial: 0.50 FAR
Proposed Project:

Commercial plus Residential:

1.4 FAR

17.19.120,

17.19.120(b)
Fence height 42 in. - front yard or corner
side yard. 6 ft. - All other areas
Pool courtyard fencing along
The City Drive South: 6 ft.
after 10 ft. setback

17.12.070
Landscaping Setbacks and open areas of the
site not occupied by buildings
shall be landscaped, including
surface parking lot areas.
58,104 sq. ft. (open space
areas, streetscape, and
hardscape) 2,710 sq. ft.
(surface parking lot area)

17.19.160
City of Orange Page 9 of 17 Printed on 2/16/2023
powered by Legistar™603
Item #: 6.2. 2/23/2023 File #: 22-0718
conformance with City
standards.)
Fence height 42 in. - front yard or corner
side yard. 6 ft. - All other areas
Pool courtyard fencing along
The City Drive South: 6 ft.
after 10 ft. setback

17.12.070
Landscaping Setbacks and open areas of the
site not occupied by buildings
shall be landscaped, including
surface parking lot areas.
58,104 sq. ft. (open space
areas, streetscape, and
hardscape) 2,710 sq. ft.
(surface parking lot area)

17.19.160
Minimum Open Space,
Residential (Total
includes common open
space plus private open
space)
15% of total floor area of
dwelling units shall be provided
as private and/or common
open space = 31,178 sq. ft. A
maximum of 25% of the total
open space requirement may
be satisfied by 40 sq. ft. private
open space = 7,795 sq. ft.

Common open space shall have
recreational amenities at a
ratio of one for every 25 units =
9 amenities
30,509 sq. ft. Administrative
Adjustment for 670 square
foot (0.98%) deficiency
applied. 17,126 sq. ft. of
qualifying private open space
Patio size: 40 sq. ft.

Balcony size: 60-118 sq. ft.
18 to include: · Fitness
Facility · Indoor Lounge (2) ·
Indoor clubhouse · Pool ·
Spa · Fire pit (2) · Outdoor
lounge seating (4) ·
Barbeque counters (2) ·
Outdoor kitchen · Dog park
area · Quasi-public plaza
areas (2)

17.19.080.E.1.
b
Secured Storage 120 cu. ft. min./ unit Must be
in addition to cabinets and
closets typically found within a
unit (such as kitchen and
bathroom cabinets, clothes
and linen closets)
120 - 148 cu. ft. / unit 99
storage units provided in unit
126 storage units provided in
garage

17.14.140
Parking Mixed-Use
Building
Studio: 1.2 spaces/unit 1
Bedroom: 1.7 spaces/unit 2
Bedrooms: 2 spaces/unit
Guest: 0.2 spaces/unit
Retail/Take-out Restaurant: 5
spaces/1,000 sq. ft. Resident:
391 spaces Guest:
45 spaces Retail/Restaurant: 45
spaces Total Required: 481
spaces Motorcycle: 300 sq. ft.
for 50+ units Bike: 2 bike racks
for 5 bikes each Loading area
for non-residential uses with 1-
50 parking spaces: 10 ft. x 40 ft.
434 spaces Administrative
Adjustment applied for 10%
deficiency (48 spaces)
Residential: 300 sq. ft.

Commercial: 50 sq. ft.

Residential: 2 racks for 10
bikes Commercial: 1 rack for
5 bikes 10 ft. x 60 ft.

17.34.060.A,

17.34.060.B,

17.34.080,

17.34.160
Parking for 750, 770,
and 790 Office Buildings
3 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of gross
floor area (387,200 sq. ft.) =
1,162 spaces 2 space/1,000 sq.
ft. of gross storage area (5,495
sq. ft.) = 11 spaces Total
Required: 1,173 spaces
1,305 spaces (132 extra
spaces)
Table

17.34.060.B
Setback, Front (The City
Drive South)
10 ft. max. Up to 20 ft. where
sidewalk oriented pedestrian
amenities are provided.

Mixed-Use Building (Parcel
6): 5 ft. as measured to
raised podium. Open Parking
Structure (Parcel 3): 75 ft9

17.19.120
City of Orange Page 10 of 17 Printed on 2/16/2023
powered by Legistar™604
Item #: 6.2. 2/23/2023 File #: 22-0718
spaces Motorcycle: 300 sq. ft.
for 50+ units Bike: 2 bike racks
for 5 bikes each Loading area
for non-residential uses with 1-
50 parking spaces: 10 ft. x 40 ft.

Parking for 750, 770,
and 790 Office Buildings
3 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of gross
floor area (387,200 sq. ft.) =
1,162 spaces 2 space/1,000 sq.
ft. of gross storage area (5,495
sq. ft.) = 11 spaces Total
Required: 1,173 spaces
1,305 spaces (132 extra
spaces)
Table

17.34.060.B
Setback, Front (The City
Drive South)
10 ft. max. Up to 20 ft. where
sidewalk oriented pedestrian
amenities are provided.

Mixed-Use Building (Parcel
6): 5 ft. as measured to
raised podium. Open Parking
Structure (Parcel 3): 75 ft. - 9
in.

17.19.120
Setback, Rear 0 ft. Mixed-Use Building (Parcel
6): 14 ft. - 18 ft. - 9 in. Open
Parking Structure (Parcel 3):
17 ft. - 6 in.

17.19.120
Setback, Street Side
(Garden Grove
Boulevard)
10 ft. max. Up to 20 ft. where
sidewalk oriented pedestrian
amenities are provided.

Mixed-Use Building (Parcel
6): 10 ft. min. Open Parking
Structure (Parcel 3): 9 ft. min.

17.19.120
Setback, Side Interior
(North Property Line)
0 ft. Mixed-Use Building (Parcel
6): 26 ft. Open Parking
Structure (Parcel 3): 138 ft.

17.19.120

7. ANALYSIS AND STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Issue 1: Conditional Use Permit for Increased Building Height The project proposes a five and six story (63-75 feet) building height, which exceeds the maximum allowable height of three stories (45 feet) in the UMU zone without discretionary approval, due to its proximity to single-family residential development to the south in the City of Santa Ana. The north portion of the building is six stories in height (75 feet), while the middle and southern portions are five stories (63 feet-4 inches), allowing for better integration with the existing adjacent four and eight story office complex buildings, four-story office building to the east across The City Drive South, and twostory apartments and single-family residences to the south across Garden Grove Boulevard in the City of Santa Ana. These residences are not street facing and are located approximately 106 feet from the southern footprint of the building. Alternating wall planes, variations in building height, exterior materials, and balconies are incorporated into the project design to break up the building’s massing. A comprehensive landscape plan for the development includes a variety of new trees (including street trees), shrubs, and groundcover along the building perimeter, which help soften and screen the varied building height and scale of the project from the adjacent single-family neighborhood across Garden Grove Boulevard, The City Drive South frontage, and office complex interior.

In evaluating the request for the additional building height, a shade and shadow analysis was performed to determine whether the project would block direct sunlight to adjacent buildings and properties. As standard City practice, project impacts are considered significant if a substantial amount of shadow-sensitive uses/areas would be shaded by project-related structures for two continuous hours or more on any given day during the winter and summer solstice or the spring and fall equinox. Applying this threshold, no shade-sensitive land uses or areas surrounding the Project City of Orange Page 11 of 17 Printed on 2/16/2023
powered by Legistar™605
Item #: 6.2. 2/23/2023 File #: 22-0718
fall equinox. Applying this threshold, no shade-sensitive land uses or areas surrounding the Project site would be shaded for more than two continuous hours on any day during the solstices or equinoxes. Therefore, issues related to shade and shadows would not constitute an impact.

Issue 2: Administrative Adjustment for Parking and Open Space Parking
The requested Administrative Adjustment for parking only applies to the mixed-use apartment development. The total required parking for the 750, 770, and 790 The City Drive South office buildings is 1,173 spaces, and the complex provides a total of 1,305 spaces (including the new 145 space two-story open parking structure).

The applicant is requesting a 48-space reduction in parking for the mixed-use apartment development. This represents a 10% reduction in the Code required parking for the residential and commercial components of the development. While the Code requires 481 spaces, only 434 spaces are provided. The applicant has indicated that parking will not be shared with the adjacent office complex.

For multifamily residential development of three or more units, the Orange Municipal Code (OMC) requires calculation of required parking spaces based upon a ratio assigned for each unit type and number of bedrooms. Additionally, regardless of the number of bedrooms, all units are required to be provided with a fractional guest space. For commercial uses, including retail/take-out restaurants, parking is calculated using gross floor area and outdoor seating. The following parking ratios were used to determine the required parking for the project:

OMC Table 17.34.060.A Multifamily Residential (3 units or more), and OMC Table 17.34.060.B NonResidential Uses Studio 1.2 spaces/unit
1 Bedroom 1.7 spaces/unit
2 Bedrooms 2 spaces/unit
Guest 0.2 spaces/unit
Retail/Take-out Restaurant 5 spaces/1,000 square feet of gross floor area. No additional parking for the first
1,000 square feet of outdoor area, with 5
spaces/1,000 square feet of outdoor area
thereafter.

Based on the above referenced parking requirements, the mixed-use development requires a total of 481 parking spaces. This represents a residential parking supply ratio of 1.94 spaces per unit.

Residential
While the City Code applies a tenant and guest parking ratio of 1.94 for the apartments, the submittal Parking Analysis (Attachment 11) that is based on industry standards indicates that actual parking requirements for multifamily residential uses are found to be significantly less than the City’s Code requirement. The ITE Parking Generation, 5th Edition applies a parking ratio of 1.47 spaces/dwelling unit, and the ULI Shared Parking 3rd Edition applies a parking ratio of 1.34 spaces/unit. With the 10% reduction in the required parking, the proposed apartments represent a parking supply ratio of 1.75 City of Orange Page 12 of 17 Printed on 2/16/2023
powered by Legistar™606
Item #: 6.2. 2/23/2023 File #: 22-0718
reduction in the required parking, the proposed apartments represent a parking supply ratio of 1.75 spaces/unit using the ITE and ULI methodology.

Commercial
The Code required parking for the proposed 9,000-square-foot ground floor commercial area of the project requires 45 parking spaces based on the take-out restaurant rate of 5 spaces/1,000 square feet of gross floor area. A 10% adjustment in required parking for this area represents a 4-space reduction, which calculates to 41 required spaces. Because the tenant(s) for the commercial area have not yet been established, staff utilized the higher take-out restaurant parking rate (5 spaces/1,000 square feet of gross floor area = 45 spaces) for the entire space, rather than the retail parking rate (4 spaces/1,000 square feet of gross floor area = 36 spaces) to determine the required parking. A condition of approval has been included that requires the ratio of take-out restaurant and retail area not to exceed the adjusted 41 parking space requirement.

Based on the information provided in the parking study and the utilization of a higher parking rate for the commercial component of the project, the applicant concludes that the proposed parking supply is adequate to support the parking demand for the project. In addition, due to the mixed-use nature of the site, parking demand behavior will likely involve situations where residents and office workers will walk between uses and only park once for multiple activities on the site. Similarly, employees across The City Drive South will likely walk to adjacent retail uses.

Open Space
The project requires a total of 31,178 square feet of open space (private and common open space), while the project has provided a total of 30,509 square feet. The applicant is seeking an Administrative Adjustment for a 670-square-foot (0.98%) reduction. Staff feels that with the inclusion of the various residential common open space amenities, including, but not limited to a fitness center, club house and lounge area, landscaped pool/spa courtyard, passive open courtyard, private patios and balconies for the majority of the units, and quasi-public open space areas that contribute to an active street environment, it is not anticipated that the requested reduction of open space will negatively impact the project. In addition, the project provides convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to the nearby Santa Ana River Trail, which is an off-site recreational amenity in close proximity to the project.

Issue 3: Workforce Housing
The applicant has prepared a Workforce Housing Study (Attachment 10) to demonstrate how the Street Lights Apartment Development would help satisfy the need for workforce housing in the City.

The study generally defines workforce housing as “housing for individuals whose incomes are above the limits under which households can qualify for units that have been subsidized or otherwise incentivized by various programs targeting housing affordability for low-income households”. The report provides a review of 2020 Orange County median income levels in relation to qualifying incomes for the rental rates anticipated for the proposed apartments. The study also considers average salaries associated with representative jobs that are typical examples of types of employees that qualify for workforce housing. Below is a table that illustrates the anticipated monthly rental rates for the project, and the minimum qualifying monthly and annual household incomes for future residents of the Street Lights Apartment Development:

Unit Type Anticipated
Monthly Rent
Qualifying Income
Monthly Annual
Studio $2,200 $7,333 $88,000
1-Bedroom $2,400 $8,000 $96,000
City of Orange Page 13 of 17 Printed on 2/16/2023
powered by Legistar™607
Item #: 6.2. 2/23/2023 File #: 22-0718
Unit Type Anticipated
Monthly Rent
Qualifying Income
Monthly Annual
Studio $2,200 $7,333 $88,000
1-Bedroom $2,400 $8,000 $96,000
2-Bedroom $3,200 $10,667 $128,000
The qualifying income levels would be in alignment with individuals earning the median County income. Additionally, the 30-60 unit/acre density range of the project, in conjunction with the “typical” monthly income of jobs in the area, demonstrates that the project increases the supply of workforce housing in the City of Orange.

Issue 4: Relationship to Housing Element:

Although the applicant did not provide an income affordability breakdown for the apartments, the applicant has indicated that the project contributes to the identified moderate and above-moderate income housing needs identified in the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and supports implementation of the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element as illustrated below.

City of Orange Housing Needs for 2021-2029 and Street Lights Project Income Category (% of County
AMI)
RHNA Number of Units Street Lights Project
Extremely Low (30% or less)534 0
Very Low (31 to 50%) 1,067 0
Low (51 to 80%) 604 0
Moderate (81% to 120%) 677 225 units
Above Moderate (over 120%)1,588
Total 3,936 225 units
City of Orange New Housing Construction Policy
Section 17.14.015 of the OMC requires developers with projects of 11 or more units to participate in discussion with the City to evaluate the feasibility of providing affordable units within the development project, and references various incentives available to assist in making the integration of affordable units economically feasible for developers. This OMC section also references the New Housing Construction Policy contained in the City’s Affordable Housing Plan, which also cites various incentives and funding assistance offered by the City.

Early discussions with the applicant regarding the potential integration of affordable units in the project revealed that the applicant would not be providing dedicated affordable units due to financial feasibility. With the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency, the funding mechanisms referenced in the Affordable Housing Plan are no longer available. Additionally, the development incentives referenced in the Affordable Housing Plan have been addressed through Code changes that have taken place since the adoption of that Plan including more accommodating density, building height, and open space standards for residential projects associated with the Urban Mixed Use development standards. Therefore, while the applicant is not providing dedicated affordable units due to financial City of Orange Page 14 of 17 Printed on 2/16/2023
powered by Legistar™608
Item #: 6.2. 2/23/2023 File #: 22-0718
feasibility, the very nature of its characteristics responds to the spirit of the New Construction policy.

8. PUBLIC NOTICE
On February 13, 2023, the City sent a Public Hearing Notice to a total of 573 property owners/tenants within a 400-foot radius of the project site and persons specifically requesting notice. The project site has also been posted in 3 locations with the notification on that same date.

9. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Mitigated Negative Declaration: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1875-21 was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. The analysis contained in the MND determined that implementation of the project may result in potentially significant environmental effects without mitigation measures related to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, and Transportation. Section 5 of the MND (Attachment 6) summarizes the project’s significant impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of significance after mitigation. Incorporation of mitigation measures into the project results in a reduction of significant impacts to less than significant levels to environmental factors listed above. With the adoption of the MND and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachments 6, 7, and 8) by the Planning Commission, and implementation of conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC 33-22 (Attachment 1), potential environmental concerns are considered resolved.

The 20-day public review period began on November 23, 2022 and ended on December 14, 2022.

On November 23, 2022, the City sent a Notice of Intent to adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1875-21 to a total of 609 property owners and tenants within a 400-foot radius of the project site, adjacent cities, and other potentially affected public agencies and utility service providers initiating the public review period for the environmental document as described above. This notification was also on file with the Orange County Clerk Recorder and was posted in three locations at the site.

Copies of the document were available for public review at Orange City Hall, in the Offices of the City Clerk and Community Development Department, and on the City’s website.

The City received three comment letters during the public review period for the MND from the following responsible agencies: Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Health Division (OCHCA), and Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA). · Caltrans encourages the design of Complete Streets, use of transit by future residents, visitors, and workers, use of Amazon or equivalent lockers to reduce amount of driving by delivery trucks, recommends that bicycle storage facilities be designed to accommodate a range of bicycle styles and weights, that truck parking, access, and staging will not interfere with vehicle parking, pedestrian paths, and bicycle lanes/parking, requests that freight pick-up and drop-off times do not coincide with peak commute hours, and that the applicant works with the community to mitigate truck traffic onto residential streets. Caltrans requested storage lengths of the off-ramp and right turn/left turn lanes to the onramp at the intersections of The City Drive and Eastbound SR22 ramps, storage lengths of the off-ramp and storage lengths of the right turn/left turn lanes to the on-ramp at the intersections of Metropolitan Drive and the City of Orange Page 15 of 17 Printed on 2/16/2023
powered by Legistar™609
Item #: 6.2. 2/23/2023 File #: 22-0718
the right turn/left turn lanes to the on-ramp at the intersections of Metropolitan Drive and the Westbound SR 22 ramps, copies of all traffic related documents, that the Traffic Impact Analysis data shall not be more than 2 years old and based on the Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan Model, and that the analyses utilize the Highway Capacity Manual methodology.
· OCHCA commented that the Phase I Environmental Site Assessments conducted for the project as part of Section 5.9 Hazards and Materials of the MND does not identify the former Orange City Landfill #3, which is located within 1,000 feet to the east of the proposed development. They request inclusion of language within Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 to ensure if unknown contamination or solid waste are encountered on the site during development, that the Lead Enforcement Agency (LEA) is contacted. In addition, the LEA recommends for any residential development located within 1,000 feet from a landfill boundary, to consider installing a landfill gas monitoring protection system and/or structural monitoring to ensure landfill gas buildup will not cause adverse impacts to public health and the environment. · OCTA requests that the bus stop name in Section 5.6 of the MND, “Operational Impacts” (page 87) be revised from “Garden Grove-Memory” to “The City Memory”.

Staff prepared responses to comments to all correspondence received and forwarded those responses to the respective authors in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, and in advance of the City’s consideration of any determination. Copies of the comment letters and responses can be found in Attachment 9.

10. ADVISORY BOARD ACTION
Staff Review Committee:

The Staff Review Committee (SRC) conducted reviews of the project on April 27, 2022, August 10, 2022, and October 12, 2022. On November 16, 2022, the SRC determined that the plans, technical studies, and content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration were satisfactory, and recommended Design Review Committee approval of the project, subject to mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and staff recommended conditions.

Design Review Committee:

The Design Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the subject proposal on December 7, 2022, and recommended project approval with conditions to the Planning Commission by a 4-0-1 vote (Commissioner Farfan absent). The Staff Report and Minutes for the December 7, 2022 meeting are provided as Attachments 4 and 5 to this report. The DRC conditions of approval are included as condition numbers 44-49 within Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 33-22 (Attachment 1). The applicant has since revised the plans to reflect the DRC’s conditions of approval.

11. ATTACHMENTS
· Attachment 1 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 33-22 · Attachment 2 Vicinity Map
City of Orange Page 16 of 17 Printed on 2/16/2023
powered by Legistar™610
Item #: 6.2. 2/23/2023 File #: 22-0718
· Attachment 3 Applicant’s Letter of Explanation
· Attachment 4 December 7, 2022 Design Review Committee Staff Report · Attachment 5 December 7, 2022 Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes · Attachment 6 MND No. 1875-21, Dated November 14, 2022 · Attachment 7 MND No. 1875-21 Appendices
· Attachment 8 MND No. 1875-21 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Dated January 26, 2023.
· Attachment 9 Letters Received from Responsible Agencies and Responses to Comments for MND No. 1875-21
· Attachment 10 Workforce Housing Study, Dated October 1, 2020 · Attachment 11 Parking Analysis by Linscott Law & Greenspan, Dated June 29, 2022 · Attachment 12 Project Plans, Date Stamped Received January 27, 2023; Colors and Materials Board Provided at Meeting
City of Orange Page 17 of 17 Printed on 2/16/2023
powered by Legistar™611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
City of Orange
Planning Commission
February 23, 2023

MINUTES - DRAFT
The Planning Commission of the City of Orange, California convened on February 23, 2023, at 7:01 p.m. in a Regular Meeting in the Council Chamber, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.

1. OPENING/CALL TO ORDER
Chair Vazquez called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.

1.1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Trapesonian led the flag salute.

1.2 ROLL CALL

Present: Glasgow, Simpson, Martinez, Trapesonian, and Vazquez

Absent: None

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR

3.1. Approval of meeting minutes of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange for the December 5, 2022, and the January 16, 2023, Regular Meetings.

ACTION: Approved minutes as presented.

3.2. One-year extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 3006-16, Major Site Plan Review No. 0855-16, and Design Review No. 4855-16 for the construction of a 23-unit age restricted Orange Sky Villas senior apartment building located at 180 N. Tustin Street that is exempt from CEQA
ACTION: Approved a one-year time extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 3006-16, Major Site Plan Review No. 0855-16, and Design Review No. 4855-16 for the construction of a 23-unit age restricted senior apartment building located at 180 N.

Tustin Street.

Approval of the Consent Calendar
A motion was made by Vice Chair Glasgow, seconded by Commissioner Martinez, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Glasgow, Simpson, Martinez, Trapesonian, and Vazquez Noes: None

Absent: None

639
Planning Commission Minutes - Draft February 23, 2023

4. ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORTS
Ms. Pehoushek thanked Commissioner Trapesonian for his service on the Planning Commission.

5. COMMISSION BUSINESS

5.1. Selection of Planning Commission Officers
A motion was made by Commissioner Simpson, seconded by Commissioner Trapesonian, to nominate Chair Vazquez to continue serving as Chair for a one year term.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Simpson, Martinez, Trapesonian, and Vazquez
Noes: Glasgow

Absent: None
A motion was made by Commissioner Simpson, seconded by Commissioner Trapesonian, to nominate Vice Chair Glasgow to continue serving as Vice Chair until his term expires in July 2023.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Simpson, Martinez, Trapesonian, and Vazquez
Noes: Glasgow

Absent: None

6. NEW HEARINGS

6.1. Public Hearing to consider Conditional Use Permit No. 3189-22, El Portal De Veracruz, 4530 E. Chapman Avenue, and finding of CEQA exemption.

Chair Vazquez opened the public hearing.

Public Speakers:

Ankit and Namrata Patel, spoke on behalf of the project.

Chair Vazquez closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Commissioner Simpson, seconded by Commissioner Martinez, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 04-23:

A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3189-22 allowing beer and wine sales for on-site consumption in conjunction with a new State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 41 License (On-Sale Beer and Wine) at an existing restaurant located at 4530 E. Chapman Avenue.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Glasgow, Simpson, Martinez, Trapesonian, and Vazquez Noes: None

Absent: None

640
Planning Commission Minutes - Draft February 23, 2023

6.2. Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit No. 3138-21, Major Site Plan Review No. 1040-21, Design Review No. 5030-21, Administrative Adjustment No. 0051-21, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1875-21 - Street Lights Mixed-Use Apartment Development, 840 The City Drive South including adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1875-21 and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Chair Vazquez opened the public hearing.

Public Speakers:

The following spoke on behalf of the project:

Scott Levy, applicant; Greg Nadeau, Streetlights Director; Cecilia So, Environmental consultant.

Adam Frankel spoke in opposition.

Chair Vazquez closed the public hearing.

The Commissioners discussed the following:
· Breakdown of commercial and guest parking
· Deletion of condition 89, a duplicated water division condition requiring the upgrade of an 8-inch cast iron pipe to a 12- inch main line along Garden Grove Boulevard and the City Drive South.
· Parking requirements for office and retail uses
· Administrative adjustments for parking and open space · Conditional use permit to exceed building height standards A motion was made by Chair Vazquez , seconded by Commissioner Glasgow, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 33-22 entitled:

A Resolution of the Planning Commission PC 33-22 of the City of Orange approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3138-21, Major Site Plan Review No. 1040-21, Design Review No. 5030-21, Administrative Adjustment No. 0051-21, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1875-21 to demolish an existing retail building in order to construct a new 225-unit mixed-use apartment development, open parking structure for the adjacent office complex use, related site improvements, and a reduction of 48 parking spaces and 670 square feet of open space, located at 840 The City Drive South, with the deletion of Condition of Approval #89, and modifications to Design Review Committee Conditions #'s 55-59 to indicate the requested landscape and design features be incorporated into Construction documents prior to issuance of permits.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Glasgow, Simpson, Martinez, Trapesonian, and Vazquez Noes: None

Absent: None

6.3. Public Hearing: Recommendation to City Council regarding amendment of Zoning Code to update references to membership for the Planning Commission

641
Planning Commission Minutes - Draft February 23, 2023
and Design Review Committee and finding of CEQA exemption.

Chair Vazquez opened the public hearing; there being no speakers, Chair Vazquez closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Commissioner Trapesonian, seconded by Commissioner Martinez to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 03-23 entitled: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending pertinent sections of the Orange Municipal Code to reflect an increase in the membership of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Glasgow, Simpson, Martinez, Trapesonian, and Vazquez Noes: None

Absent: None

7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m.

The next Regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, March 6, 2023 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber.
______________________________________
Anna Pehoushek
Assistant Community Development Director

642
840 The City Drive Apartments
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lead Agency:

City of Orange
Community Development Department Planning Division
300 East Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866-1591
(714) 744-7220
(714) 744-7222 (Fax)
www.cityoforange.org
Prepared by:

FirstCarbon Solutions
250 Commerce, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92602
(714) 508-4100
Date:

November 14, 2022
643

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
644
i
Table of Contents
Sections Page #
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1875-21 .......................................................1

1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................3

2.0 EXISTING SETTING .......................................................................................................3

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................6

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ....................................................................33

5.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST AND ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ....................................................................................................................37

5.1 Aesthetics ...............................................................................................................37

5.2 Agricultural Resources ...........................................................................................50

5.3 Air Quality .............................................................................................................53

5.4 Biological Resources .............................................................................................70

5.5 Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................76

5.6 Energy ....................................................................................................................85

5.7 Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................90

5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................98

5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................107

5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................. 116

5.11 Land Use/Planning ...............................................................................................125

5.12 Mineral Resources ...............................................................................................129

5.13 Noise ....................................................................................................................131

5.14 Population and Housing .......................................................................................141

5.15 Public Services .....................................................................................................144

5.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................150

5.17 Transportation ......................................................................................................152

5.18 Utilities/Service Systems .....................................................................................165

5.19 Wildfire ................................................................................................................171

5.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................174

6.0 PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ...........................................................177 Figures
Figure 1:Regional Location Map .............................................................................................15 Figure 2: Local Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................17 Figure 3: Existing Site Map .....................................................................................................19 Figure 4: General Plan Land Use .............................................................................................21 Figure 5: Zoning ......................................................................................................................23 Figure 6: Architectural Site Plan Layout .................................................................................25 645
ii
Figure 7: Site Plan ....................................................................................................................27 Figure 8a: Elevation Plan .........................................................................................................29 Figure 8b: Elevation Plans .......................................................................................................31 Figure 9a: Southeast Corner Rendering ...................................................................................41 Figure 9b: Southwest Corner Rendering..................................................................................43 Figure 9c: Northeast Corner Rendering ...................................................................................45 Figure 10: Shade and Shadow Study .......................................................................................47 Tables
Table 1: Proposed Project Development Summary ...................................................................7 Table 2: Proposed Mixed-Use Development by Building Level ...............................................8 Table 3: Required Mixed-Use Parking .................................................................................... 11 Table 4: SCAQMD Regional Thresholds of Significance .......................................................53 Table 5: SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds ..........................................................55 Table 6: Proposed Construction Schedule ...............................................................................60 Table 7: Unmitigated Construction Localized Significance Analysis .....................................61 Table 8: Operational Localized Significance Analysis ............................................................62 Table 9: Regional Construction Air Pollutant Emissions by Activity ......................................63 Table 10: Regional Operational Air Pollutant Emissions by Activity .....................................64 Table 11: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources ..........................................................68 Table 12: Estimated Annual Project Energy Consumption ......................................................86 Table 13: Estimated Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................99 Table 14: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................100 Table 15: Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update .............................................102 Table 16: Consistency with City of Orange General Plan Climate Change Related Policies .................................................................................................................103 Table 17: Impacts to Existing 54-Inch Drain Along Garden Grove ......................................122 Table 19: Traffic Noise Model Results Summary ..................................................................135 Table 18: Traffic Noise Model Results Summary ..................................................................136 Table 20: Study Area Intersections ........................................................................................153 Table 21: Study Area Roadway Segments .............................................................................153 Table 22: Project Traffic Generation Forecast .......................................................................157 646
iii
Appendices
Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Supporting Information Appendix B: Biological Resources Supporting Information B-1: CNDDB Search Results
B-2: CNPS Inventory Results
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Supporting Information
C-1: NAHC Results
C-2: SCCIC Results
C-3: Pedestrian Survey Site Photos
Appendix D: Energy Calculations
Appendix E: Geology and Soils Supporting Information
E-1: Geotechnical Report
E-2: Paleontological Resources Records Search Results
Appendix F: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Supporting Information F-1: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 840 The City Drive South F-2: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Parking Garages 750 and 790 The City Drive South
F-3: Indoor Air Quality Investigation Report
F-4: Indoor Air Quality Investigation Report
Appendix G: Hydrology Supporting Information
G-1: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
G-2: Preliminary Hydrology Analysis
G-3: Memorandum for Preliminary Reports
Appendix H: Noise Calculations
Appendix I: Workforce Housing Analysis
Appendix J: Public Services Supporting Information
J-1: Fire Master Plan
J-2: Public Services Letters
Appendix K: Transportation Supporting Information
K-1: Transportation Impact Analysis
K-2: VMT Screening Memorandum
Appendix L: Sewer Capacity Analysis
647

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
648
v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AA ambient air
AB Assembly Bill
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADF Average Daily Flow
ADT Average Daily Traffic
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARB California Air Resources Board
ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measure
BERD Built Environmental Resource Directory
BGS below ground surface
BMP Best Management Practice
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CBC California Building Standards Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGS California Geological Survey
CMP Congestion Management Program
CMU concrete masonry unit
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNPSEI California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
649
vi
CREC Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan
dBA A-weighted decibel
DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
du/acre dwelling units per acre
EDD California Employment Development Department
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMFAC Emissions Factors mobile source emissions model
EMT Emergency Medical Technician
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
EV electric vehicle
FAR floor area ratio
FCS FirstCarbon Solutions
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GFA gross floor area
GHG greenhouse gas
GPCD gallons per capita per day
GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Condition
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization
in/sec inch per second
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
kBTU kilo-British Thermal Unit
kBTU/year kilo-British Thermal Unit per year
kWh kilowatt-hour
650
vii
kWh/year kilowatt-hour per year
Leq equivalent sound level
LIP Local Implementation Plan
LLG Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers
Lmax maximum noise/sound level
LMDR Low Medium Density Residential
LOS Level of Service
LST Localized Significance Thresholds
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MDR Medium Density Residential
mgd million gallons per day
MT metric tons
MWS Modular Wetland System
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP/HCP Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan NOA naturally occurring asbestos
NOX oxides of nitrogen
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OC San Orange County Sanitation District
OCFA Orange County Fire Authority
OCFD Orange County Fire Department
OCHCA Orange County Health Care Agency
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
OCWD Orange County Water District
OUSD Orange Unified School District
PCE tetrachloroethene
PM10 particulate matter, including dust, 10 micrometers or less in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter PPV peak particle velocity
PWWF Peak Wet Weather Flow
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC Recognized Environmental Condition
651
viii
R-O Recreation Open Space
RPS renewable portfolio standard
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SL screening level
SLCP Short-Lived Climate Pollutant
SoCAB South Coast Air Basin
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SR State Route
SRA Source Receptor Area
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC toxic air contaminants
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TPA Transit Priority Area
UCI University of California, Irvine
UL Underwriters Laboratories
UMIX Urban Mixed-Use
UMU Urban Mixed-Use
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
USPS United States Postal Service
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
Valley Air District San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds
WATERS Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results System WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
ZEV Zero-Emission Vehicle
652
1 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1875-21
Project Title:
840 The City Drive Apartments
Reference Application Numbers:

Conditional Use Permit No. 3138-21
Major Site Plan Review No. 1040-21
Design Review No. 5030-21
Administrative Adjustment No. 0051-21
Environmental No. 1875-21
Lead Agency and Address:

City of Orange
300 East Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
Contact Person and Telephone No.:

Monique Schwartz
Associate Planner
[email protected]
714.744.7224
Project Proponent and Address:

SLR Orange Development, LLC
350 Tenth Ave., Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101
Contact Person and Telephone No.:

Scott Levy
Development Director California
[email protected]
619.344.2544
Project Location:
840 The City Drive South
Orange, CA
Existing General Plan Designation:

Urban Mixed-Use (UMIX)
30-60 dwelling units/acre; 1.5-3.0 FAR
Existing Zoning Classification:

Urban Mixed-Use (UMU)
653

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
654
3 1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is to identify any potential environmental impacts from developing the proposed 840 The City Drive Apartments project (proposed project) in the City of Orange, California. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Orange has discretionary authority over the proposed project and is the Lead Agency in the preparation of this IS/MND and any additional environmental documentation required for the proposed project. The intended use of this document is to determine the level of environmental analysis required to adequately analyze the proposed 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. This IS/MND also 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 environmental checklist response, as well as a List of Preparers.

2.0 EXISTING SETTING
Regional Setting
The City of Orange is in the north central part of Orange County. The City of Orange is bordered by the City of Anaheim to the north and northwest, the City of Garden Grove to the west, and the cities of Santa Ana and Tustin and portions of unincorporated County of Orange to the south and east.

Existing Site Conditions
The project site, located at 840 The City Drive South, includes three parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs) 231-261-13 [1.12 acres], 231-361-16 [0.95 acres], and 231-261-17 [3.77 acres]) totaling 5.86 acres. The site is part of a larger 15.1-acre multi-building office complex located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive South, in the southwest portion of the City of Orange (Figure 1). It is noted that surrounding existing uses are not part of the proposed project and are under separate ownership. The mixed-use component of the proposed project would be constructed on 5.86 acres.

The 5.86-acre site is currently developed with an approximately 12,923-square-foot, single-story, multi-tenant commercial building that was constructed around 1989.1 Existing tenants include several restaurants, a beauty salon, and a private fitness center for adjacent office uses. 2 The project
site is also currently developed with an asphalt-paved parking lot and landscaping. The larger 15.1- acre site is developed with an existing multi-building office complex, consisting of two 4-story office buildings and one 8-story office building totaling 387,200 square feet of existing office 1 Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2019. Phase I ESA, 840 The City Drive South. 2 Ibid.
655
4 space, surface and structured parking, landscaping, and related site improvements. Directly north of the project site, adjacent to the multi-building office complex, is an existing 3-story hotel that is not part of the proposed project or larger 15.1-acre office complex site (Figure 3).

The project site is approximately 115 feet above mean sea level and is relatively flat. The Santa Ana River is located approximately 430 feet east of the project site. Stormwater from the project site sheet flows over paved and unpaved surfaces to the storm drain within Garden Grove Boulevard.3
Access
The site is 0.75 mile southwest of Interstate 5 (I-5) and 0.25 mile south of State Route 22 (SR 22).

Regional access to the site is provided via I-5 and The City Drive South.

Public Transit
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) currently provides public transit to the project site. The project site is located 125 feet north of a bus stop for Bus Route 56, Garden Grove to Orange, located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive South. Additionally, a stop for Bus Route 57, Brea to Newport Beach, is located 110 feet east of the project site. Both bus stops are accessible from the site via crosswalks on Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive South. A bus stop for Bus Routes 47 and 47A, Fullerton to Balboa, are located at the intersection of South Lewis Street and Garden Grove Boulevard, 0.35 mile west of the project site.

Surrounding Land Uses
• To the north of the project site is the larger multi-building office complex, surface parking lot, and 3-story hotel designated Urban Mixed-Use 30-60 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) and zoned Urban Mixed-Use. Also, to the north, beyond the office complex and hotel are residential uses and West Park Central Avenue designated Low Medium Density Residential 6-15 du/acre (LMDR) and zoned R-2-6 (Residential Duplex 6,000 square feet).
• To the south, the site is bounded by Garden Grove Boulevard. Further south is the City of Santa Ana and residential uses designated by the City of Santa Ana as Low Density Residential (LR-7)4
and zoned R1 (Single-family Residence).5
• To the west is a multi-building office complex and surface parking lot designated Urban Mixed-Use 30-60 du/acre and zoned Urban Mixed-Use. Further west are residential uses and South Park Vine Street designated Medium Density Residential 15-24 du/acre (MDR) and zoned R-2-6 and R-4 (Residential Maximum Multi-Family).. 3 Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. 2012. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. November 5. 4 City of Santa Ana. 2022. Land Use Element - Land Use Plan. Website: https://www.santa-ana.org/documents/general-plan-land-useelement/. Accessed August 18, 2022. 5 City of Santa Ana. 2022. City of Santa Ana Zoning Map. Website: https://www.santa-ana.org/documents/zoning-map/. Accessed August 18, 2022. 656
5 • To the east, the site is bound by The City Drive South. Further east is a 4-story office building and surface parking lot designated Urban Mixed-Use (UMIX) and zoned Urban Mixed-Use (UMU) and R-O (Recreation Open Space) along the Santa Ana River.

According to aerial photographs, in 1947 the site was vacant but agricultural uses occurred to the west of the project site. In 1953, Garden Grove Boulevard was developed to the south, additional orchards and a few residences were located across Garden Grove Boulevard. 6 I-5 was built by
1965.7 In 1977, the site was developed with two small office buildings and a parking lot. Between 1989 and 2012, the present-day 15.10-acre multi-building office complex was constructed, including the existing commercial development. The project site and surrounding properties have been in their current configuration since 2016.8
General Plan
The project site is currently designated as Urban Mixed-Use 30-60 dwelling units per acre (UMIX) in the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 4). The UMIX designation allows a development density of 30-60 dwelling units per acre and floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.5- 3.0. The UMIX designation is intended for urban, high-intensity, regionally oriented activity centers that define the character of surrounding areas and serve as gateways to the City. Commercial retail uses are intended to be the primary use on the ground floor. The project site is within the West Chapman Avenue/Uptown Orange land use focus area, within the High-Intensity Retail, Office, and Housing Development designation. Land use focus areas represent locations in the City where future land use change may occur. The West Chapman Avenue/Uptown Orange focus area consists of mostly commercial and industrial properties located west of SR-57, as well as commercial areas located along Anita Drive, just east of the Santa Ana River.9
Zoning
The project site is zoned Urban Mixed Use (UMU) as shown in Figure 5. The intent of the UMU Zone is to allow a variety of land uses. This designation provides for integrated commercial, retail, high-rise office, housing, civic uses, convenient high-frequency transit access, innovative housing options, and pedestrian-oriented design. This zone implements the Urban Mixed-Use land designation in the General Plan. According to the General Plan Land Use Element, Urban MixedUse zoned areas are designated as 30-60 dwelling units per acre. 6 Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2019. Phase I ESA, 840 The City Drive South. 7 Bureau Veritas. 2020. Phase I Environmental Assessment. 8 Ibid. 9
City of Orange. 2015. General Plan Land Use Element, Table LU-1. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/208/637698172555630000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 657
6 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Objectives
To provide a well-designed development that is economically feasible and complementary to surrounding land uses.

Help give a destination for the nearby office workers with its shared amenities, but also acting as an important gateway to the southernmost entrance of The City Drive.

Create a nice walking experience at the street, encourage street life, and connect into the existing office park through enlarged storefronts with canopies, street trees, enhanced paving, and parallel parking.

Create an aesthetically pleasing project façade by creating a break on the east side of the building with the elevated pool courtyard and amenity space. The pool would have unobstructed views of the mountains to the east.

To create an urban building that engages the street by replacing surface parking and introducing a secondary parking structure serving the office buildings.

The proposed project is designed to encourage energetic urban street life, provide large windows for natural light, provide safe and well-designed units with views, exciting amenities, and a timeless building design.

Project Overview
The project proposes the development of a mixed-use residential and commercial project on a

5.86-acre site, located on the southeastern corner of a larger existing 15.10-acre multi-building office complex at the northwest corner of Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive South.

The proposed project includes the demolition of an existing 12,923-square-foot single-story retail building and associated 172 stall surface parking lot in order to construct a 6-story, 225-unit multifamily residential apartment complex with 9,000 square feet of ground level retail/restaurant space, 3,628-square-foot private fitness center, and 6,635-square-foot lobby, leasing, and lounge area.

The proposed project also includes construction of a 3-story basement level parking structure beneath the footprint of the mixed-use building to serve the residential and retail uses, and the replacement of 89 surface parking lot to construct a stand-alone, 2-story open parking structure with 143 parking spaces for use by the adjacent multi-building office complex, to be located west of the mixed-use building and parallel to the south property line along Garden Grove Boulevard.

The proposed project would be required to apply for a City of Orange Lot Line Adjustment approval pursuant to the Orange Municipal Code (Municipal Code) Chapter 16.32.10The Lot Line 10 City of Orange. 20202. Code of Ordinances, Chapter 16.32 - Lot Line Adjustments. Website:
https://library.qcode.us/lib/orange_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_16-chapter_16_32. Accessed August 18, 2022. 658
7 Adjustment would expand the property boundary along the northern boundary of the project site and would slightly adjust the project site along the southwestern boundary. The Lot Line Adjustment would modify the boundaries between parcels 231-261-13 and 231-261-17 to accommodate the construction of the new mixed-use building and for property ownership purposes.

Project density is factored utilizing the three parcels [231-261-13 (1.92 acres), 231-261-16 (0.95 acre), and 231-261-17 (2.99 acres)] totaling 5.86-acres. Thus, 225 dwelling units on 5.86 acres is approximately 38.4 dwelling units per acre. The proposed multi-family residential gross area is 249,664 square feet, ground level commercial is 9,000 square feet, amenity uses total 6,635 square feet, the fitness center is 3,628 square feet, and the existing office building at 790 The City Drive is 98,800 square feet resulting in a total of 367,727 square feet. Thus, the resulting FAR is 1.44.

As shown in Figure 7, the proposed project would include the demolition of the existing retail building located on the Parcel 6 at the southeast corner of the multi-building office complex and construction of a 7-story, 225-unit multi-family residential complex with up to 9,000 square feet of ground level retail space, a 3,628-square-foot private fitness center, and a 6,635-square-foot lobby, leasing, and lounge area. The residential complex would include a centrally located pool and courtyard. The residential units would be located both on the ground floor and on the upper floors of the development. Additionally, the proposed project would include a 3-story basement level parking structure beneath the footprint of the residential complex. There would be a single-story up to 9,000- square-foot retail and restaurant facility on the northern portion of the project site.

Table 1: Proposed Project Development Summary
Square Footage Quantity
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
Multi-Family Residential Use 259,927 –
Private Fitness Center 3,628 –
Lobby, Leasing, and Lounge Area 6,635 –
Retail/Restaurant Area 9,000 –
Total 279,190 –
Studio Units 558 to 680 36 DU
1-Bedroom Units 603 to 868 102 DU
2-Bedroom Units 1,039 to 1,533 87 DU
Total 558 to 1,533 225 DU
Surface Parking – 13 Spaces
Subterranean Parking 170,163 421 Spaces
Total 170,163 434 Spaces
Stand-Alone Parking Structure for Multi-Building Office Complex Office Parking Structure – 143 Spaces
Notes:

DU = dwelling units
659
8 Table 2: Proposed Mixed-Use Development by Building Level Level Proposed Development
Basement Level B2.5 and B3 159 residential parking spaces–Two Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) spaces, 145 standard spaces, 12 tandem spaces, and 67 storage units
Basement Level B1.5 and B2 154 residential parking spaces (includes four electric vehicle (EV) chargers)–five ADA spaces, 137 standard spaces, 12 tandem spaces, and 47 storage units
Basement Level B1 108 total parking spaces–one ADA space for residential, 34 standards spaces for residential, four tandem spaces for residential, 65 standard spaces for guests and retail, four ADA spaces for guests and retail, and nine storage units
Level 1G Up to 9,000-square-foot restaurant/retail area; 3,628-square-foot fitness center; 6,635-square-foot leasing office, lobby, and lounge area, and 13 surface parking spaces for guests and retail *There is one surface parking space for the United States Postal Service (USPS) and 10 bike parking spaces for residential.

Level 1P 25 residential units
Level 2 46 residential units
Level 3 47 residential units
Level 4 47 residential units
Level 5 46 residential units
Level 6 14 residential units
Discretionary Actions
Conditional Use Permit No. 3138-21, which requests increased building heights pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.19.120(i).

Major Site Plan Review No. 1040-21, which requires approval to allow the construction of more than six new residential units on a single parcel pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.10.060.E.

Administrative Adjustment No. 0051-21 for a 10 percent reduction in required parking and a 0.98 percent reduction in open space requirements for the proposed project.

Design Review No. 5030-21, which requires recommendation by the Design Review Committee for the architectural and landscape design of the new development pursuant to Municipal Code

17.10.070.B.

Approval of this Draft IS/MND document.
660
9 Architecture and Design Features
The applicant, Streetlights Residential, prides itself on providing the highest quality architectural materials and building design. The proposed building is designed to interact with its context. The warm masonry base, stucco midsection, and painted shiplap crown is meant to complement the existing office complex and surrounding neighborhood (Figure 8a and 8b).

The proposed project helps give a destination for the nearby office workers with its shared amenities, and it also acts as an important gateway to the southernmost entrance of The City Drive.

To celebrate this entry, the leasing and amenity portions of the building are oriented facing this important intersection. This allows the light and activity happening within the building to show through the double height space and enlarged storefront windows to help activate the street.

Double height retail space is included and a shared fitness component sitting at the main ceremonial entrance to the office park located just north Garden Grove Boulevard on The City Drive South. This taller space emulates what is happening to the southern amenity space. There would be enlarged storefronts with canopies, street trees, enhanced paving, and parallel parking all geared to create a nice walking experience at the street, encourage street life, and connect into the existing office park.

All the multi-family units would be elevated on top of a 5-foot parking podium. Raising the living units would allow the lowest units to have an unobstructed view over the heavily trafficked road, increasing the safety, desirability, and livability of these units. Where feasible, elevated gated patios are introduced with access to the sidewalk driving the desire for an energetic engaged street where possible.

The pool courtyard is elevated atop of the 5-foot parking podium. The pool is flanked by the amenity space and units but is open on the east side of the building. Creating this break in the façade allows the pool to have unobstructed views of the mountains to the east. Also, this allows a visual break in the perceived length of the building along The City Drive South, creating the appearance of a much smaller and more intimate building.

To accommodate the increase in density and desire to create an urban building that engages the street, a secondary parking structure is proposed to replace the surface parking removed serving the office building. The parking structure was designed to be of low visual impact and help screen the office building at 790 The City Drive South from the noise of Garden Grove Boulevard. It would be 2-stories tall and clad in brick to match the exiting parking structure and offices on-site.

The existing large trees would remain in place and tall shrubs would be planted to help screen the parking structure on the façade facing Garden Grove Boulevard.

Project Components
Residential Component
The proposed project includes the construction of 225 residential units spread across six levels.

There would be 25 residential units on Level 1. Levels 2 and 5 would have 46 residential units. 661
10 Levels 3 and 4 would have 47 residential units per floor. Level 6 would include 14 residential units.

Apartment sizes would vary from 558 to 1,533 square feet, with 36 studio apartments (558 to 680 square feet in size), 102 1-bedroom apartments (603 to 868 square feet in size), and 87 2-bedroom apartments (1,039 to 1,5333 square feet in size) (Figure 7).

The residential component of the proposed project would include two private outdoor courtyards for residents, with patio furniture including lounge chairs and sofas, tables, chairs and umbrellas. seating to accommodate up to 12 people in the smaller courtyard and up to 60 people in the pool courtyard, The outdoor courtyards will also include firepits, raised planters, a pool and spa, overhead shade structure, outdoor kitchen, television, and barbecue counters. A private fitness center for residents is also proposed.

The proposed project would include a vehicle speed ramp leading from the ground level to the subterranean parking. The leasing center, lobby, and lounge area would be set back from the intersection with a large public plaza with lush planting, building awnings, and building signage activating the intersection of Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive.

Retail Component
The ground floor of the building would include up to 9,000 square feet of retail/restaurant space on the north side of the building.

Site Access and Parking
Project Site Access
The primary access to the project site would be provided by an existing internal divided two-way roadway that connects to The City Drive South on the north side of the site. Secondary access to the site would be provided by an existing driveway along Garden Grove Boulevard, located approximately 189 feet west of the intersection of Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive from the south.

Parking
The proposed project would provide 13 surface parking spaces and construct a three-level subterranean parking garage that includes 434 parking spaces for residents, guests, and retail/restaurant customers.

The Municipal Code would require 390 parking spaces for the residential component of the proposed project.
11 Municipal Code Section 17.34.060 identifies the parking requirement for the project. Table 17.34.060A requires that multi-family residential for a development of 51 units or 11 City of Orange. 2022. Code of Ordinances, Chapter 17.34 – Off-street Parking and Loading. Website:
https://library.qcode.us/lib/orange_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_17-chapter_17_34. Accessed August 18, 2022. 662
11 more provide: 1.2 spaces/studio unit; 1.7 spaces/1-bedroom unit; 2.0 spaces/2-bedroom unit; 2.4 spaces/3-bedroom unit; and 0.2 spaces/unit for guest parking.

There are no 3-bedroom units proposed, so the proposed 225-unit project would require 435.6 parking spaces for the multi-family component. The proposed project would provide 434 total parking spaces for retail and residential uses and one space reserved for USPS parking for a total addition of 435 spaces. The applicant is unable to achieve the 481 vehicular spaces required by code and is formally requesting a 10 percent Parking Adjustment. A 10 percent code reduction would bring the required parking count to 433 stalls, or one stall fewer than currently provided.

Municipal Code Table 3 illustrates the parking requirement for the retail and office components of the site. For general retail with less than 25,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA), the code requires five spaces/1,000 square feet of GFA. If restaurant space occupies more than 10 percent of the total GFA or if an individual restaurant contains more than 1,000 square feet, additional parking shall be provided calculated at the restaurant rate. The restaurant rate is 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for the first 4,000 square feet, then 14.2 spaces each 1,000 square feet of GFA above 4,000 square feet. For the project’s proposed 9,000 square feet of general retail, the parking requirement is 45 (9,000 x 0.005). Adding these 45 retail spaces to the multi-family requirement, the proposed development would require the addition of 481 spaces as shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Required Mixed-Use Parking
Unit Type City Requested Parking Unit Count Required Spaces Studio 1.2 36 43.2
1-bedroom 1.7 102 173.4
2-bedroom 2.0 87 174.0
Guest 0.2 225 45
Retail 0.005 9,000 45
Total City Code Required Parking 480.6
10 percent Reduction Applied 434
Additional Project Features
In addition to the construction of the mixed-use residential and commercial building, the applicant proposes to construct a stand-alone, 2-story open parking structure near the southern area of the existing 15.10-acre office complex along Garden Grove Boulevard. The parking structure would replace the existing surface parking lot and spaces that would be removed to accommodate the proposed mixed-use building (Figure 7).

The proposed parking structure would remove 89 surface parking spaces from the existing 790 The City Drive office building. The 89 spaces that would be removed would be replaced with 143 663
12 parking spaces. The proposed office parking for the existing 790 The City Drive office building totals an average ratio of 3.40 parking spaces per 1,000 GFA. This parking structure would be for the existing office uses only and is not intended to accommodate the proposed mixed-use project.

Landscaping and Lighting
A comprehensive landscape plan that includes a variety of new trees, shrubs, and groundcover would be implemented for the proposed project. Landscaping would be provided in the two private open courtyards, along the building perimeter, and along street frontages. There would be 10-foot building setbacks along The City Drive South and Garden Grove Boulevard. To help screen the parking structure on the façade facing Garden Grove Boulevard, the existing large trees would remain in place and tall shrubs would be planted. The total landscape square footage would be 10,052 square feet. The total hardscape area would be 19,121 square feet. Additionally, there would be 10-foot building setbacks along The City Drive South and Garden Grove Boulevard.

The plant species proposed for the groundcover of the perimeter area would consist of coyote brush (Baccharis P.S ‘Pigeon Point’), green carpet natal plum (Carissa M. ‘Green Carpet), trailing myoporum (Myoporum parvifolium ‘Pink’), white flower carpet rose (Rosa ‘White Flower Carpet’), and blue chalk stick (Senecio M. ‘Blue Chalk Sticks’).

The plant species proposed for the groundcover of the courtyards would consist of green carpet natal plum, trailing myoporum, and white flower carpet rose, and star jasmine (Trachelospermum jasminoides).

Pedestrian walkways linking residential units to retail area would be paved with natural gray concrete sidewalks. The plaza entry as well as retail frontage would be enhanced with paving, such as colored concrete or pavers. Benches would be provided along Garden Grove Boulevard near the plaza entry, as well as Date Palm trees along the street frontage. Formal Golden Barrel Cactus planting would be located at the corner of Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive in front of oversized letters with the project name as monument sign/art.

The courtyard areas would be colored with concrete finishing and complemented with raised concrete masonry unit (CMU) planters with smooth stucco finish. CMU planters with smooth stucco finish are also proposed in the pool area. A 6-foot glass fence would surround the perimeter of the pool area. The pool deck would be enhanced with artificial turf and colored concrete or pavers. A portion of the pool area would provide shade with an overhead trellis. Another courtyard area would be located adjacent to the pool area with a wall-mounted television.

Lighting for the new residential development and associated parking areas would consist of building-mounted light fixtures, lighting for pedestrian walkways surrounding the structure, ground-mounted decorative lighting for landscape and architectural features, interior area lighting, and decorative lighting in the patio areas. Festoon lights would be provided above residential courtyard areas. Step lights would be provided along public outdoor stairways. 664
13 All lighting and permanent fixtures would be Underwriters Laboratories (UL) tested and approved.

The design of the lighting would be done so that main entrances, focal points, and gathering places are illuminated to enhance each space. Fixtures located on the buildings and within the landscape are intended to illuminate emergency egress pathways to meet all local codes and requirements.

Appropriate wattages and accessories, such as cut-off shields, would be utilized.

Grading and Construction
For the purposes of this analysis, project construction is assumed to begin December 31, 2022, and to be completed by June 30, 2024, for a total of approximately 599 working days. Construction would include the demolition of the existing retail building and existing parking areas, site preparation, mass grading, construction of the building and parking structure, asphalt paving of new parking areas, and architectural coating of the inside and outside of the buildings.

Utilities and Service Systems
The following utility providers serve the project area and would be available to serve the proposed project:
• Electricity–Southern California Edison (SCE)
• Natural gas–Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) • Telephone and fiber-optic lines–AT&T
• Cable service–Charter Communications
• Solid waste–CR&R Waste and Recycling Services.
12 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (Responsible or Trustee Agencies):
• Southern California Edison
• Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
• South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
12 The City of Orange owns and maintains the existing public water lines and the sewage system related to the project site. 665

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
666
91 83
91 55
57 241
261
241
405
60 710
5 605
10 5
405
5 22
133
1 1
71 Rancho
Cucamonga
Ontario
Chino
Yorba Linda
Brea
Placentia
Villa Park
Olive
Atwood
Lemon Heights
Tustin
Orange
Santa Ana
Modjeska
El Toro
Irvine Santa Ana
Heights
Newport Coast
San Joaquin
Hills Balboa Island
Emerald Bay
Aliso Viejo
Laguna Beach
Laguna Woods
Mission Viejo
Las Flores
Cleveland
National
Forest
Los Angeles County
Orange County San Bernardino County
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Prado Flood
Control Basin
Santiago Reservoir
Figure 1
Regional Location Map
5 2.5 0 5
Miles
Text
Project Site
Source: Census 2000 Data, The California Spatial Information Library (CaSIL).

CITY OF ORANGE
840 THE CITY DRIVE APARTMENTS

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECARATION
53150001 • 10/2020 | 1_regional.mxd
Project Site
667

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
668
53150001 •05/2022 | 2_local_vicinity.mxd
Figure 2
Local Vicinity Map
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery.

CITY OF ORANGE
840 THE CITY DRIVE APARTMENTS

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECARATION
22 Lewis St
Lampson Ave
The City Dr
Park Central Ave
The
City
Dr
Garden Grove Blvd
Park V ni e St
Bristol St
Santa Clara Ave
Fairview
St
Trask Ave
Marty Ln
5 Lewis
St
1,000 500 0 1,000
Feet
Santa Ana
River
Legend
Project Site
669

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
670
53150001 •05/2022 | 3_existing_site.mxd
Figure 3
Existing Site
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery.

CITY OF ORANGE
840 THE CITY DRIVE APARTMENTS

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECARATION
22 Park Central Ave
The
City
Dr
Garden Grove Blvd
Park V ni e St
Lewis
St
Metropolitan Dr
Park Balboa Ave
Fondren St
Siemon Ave
Patti Ln
Marcella Ln
Park Ln
Mcevoy Ln Mcevoy Ln
Townley St
Fondren St
Alona
St
Park Hyde St
410 205 0 410
Feet
Santa Ana
River
Legend
Project Site
671

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
672
53150001 • 10/2020 | 4_GPLU.cdr
Figure 4
General Plan Land Use

CITY OF ORANGE
840 THE CITY DRIVE APARTMENTS

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECARATION
Source: City of Orange General Plan.

Project Site
673

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
674
53150001 • 10/2020 | 5_zoning.cdr
Figure 5 Zoning

CITY OF ORANGE
840 THE CITY DRIVE APARTMENTS

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECARATION
Source: City of Orange General Plan.

Project Site
675

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
676
53150001 • 03/2022 | 6_architectural_site_plan.cdr
Figure 6
Architectural Site Plan

CITY OF ORANGE
840 THE CITY DRIVE APARTMENTS

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECARATION
Source: Streetlights Creative Studio, LLC, 03/2022.
677

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
678
53150001 • 03/2022 | 7_site_plan.cdr
Figure 7
Site Plan

CITY OF ORANGE
840 THE CITY DRIVE APARTMENTS

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECARATION
Source: Streetlights Creative Studio, LLC, 03/2022.
679

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
680
53150001 • 11/2021 | 8a_elev
ation_plan.cdr
Figure 8a
Elevation Plans

CITY OF ORANGE
840 THE CITY DRIVE APARTMENTS

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECARATION
Source: Streetlights Creative Studio, 02/19/2021.
681

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
682
53150001 • 11/2021 | 8b_elev
ation_plan.cdr
Figure 8b
Elevation Plans

CITY OF ORANGE
840 THE CITY DRIVE APARTMENTS

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECARATION
Source: Streetlights Creative Studio, 02/19/2021.
683

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
684
33 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AND

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources/Tribal
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water
Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Utilities/Services
Systems
Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation:

1. I find that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

2. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

3. I find the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

4. I find that the proposed project may have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated impact” on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
685
34 5. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Project Planner Date
Planning Manager Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.

A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant impact with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced, as discussed below).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identity the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 686
35 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 687

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
688
37 5.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST AND ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(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 buildings 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?
Impact Analysis
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? A significant impact would occur if a project were to substantially block public views of a scenic vista. The General Plan defines a scenic vista as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. Portions of the City of Orange are characterized by scenic vistas including undeveloped hillsides, ridgelines, and open space areas that provide a unifying visual backdrop to the urban environment. These viewsheds are identified in Figure 5.1-1 of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR).13 The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City. The uses surrounding the project site include a mix of commercial, residential, office, and medical uses that do not provide any significant visual resources or scenic vistas. General Plan Figure NR-1, Open Space Resources, does not identify any open spaces located on or in the surrounding or immediate vicinity of the project site.

According to General Plan Figure NR-4, viewscape corridors within the City of Orange are located primarily along Santiago Canyon Road, East Chapman Avenue, and Newport Boulevard.14 The nearest designated viewscape corridor is along Newport Boulevard, 5.97 miles northeast of the project site. Because of the distance and intervening development, this viewscape is not visible from the project site; therefore, the proposed project would not affect this scenic resource. 13 City of Orange. March 2010. City of Orange General Plan, Program Environmental Impact Report. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/240/637698173340500000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 14 City of Orange. 2010. General Plan, Figure NR-4 Viewscape Corridors.

Websitehttps://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/210/637698172559270000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 689
38 Additionally, the General Plan indicates that the City has 7,400 acres of open space, which includes parks, ridgelines, and areas designated as Open Space. The Open Space designation describes the various open space resources within the City. According to the General Plan, the nearest open space is located along the Santa Ana River corridor, approximately 330 feet east of the project site.15 Most of the Open Space areas in the City are located in the eastern portion of the City more than 5 miles east of the project site and are not visible from the project site. Additionally, the designated Open Space areas along the Santa Ana River corridor would not be adversely impacted by the proposed project because the proposed project would not substantially block scenic views of the Santa Ana River corridor. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? A significant impact would occur if scenic resources would be damaged or removed by a project within a designated scenic highway. According to California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Scenic Highway Mapping System, the nearest State-designated scenic highway is SR91 at its terminus with SR-55, located 6.1 miles northeast of the project site.16 The project site is not visible from this State Scenic Highway, which precludes the possibility of the project damaging scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. Additionally, the project site is currently developed with a four-story multi-tenant office building and parking lot that does not contain scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. (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). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
A significant impact may occur if a project were to introduce incompatible visual elements on the project site or visual elements that would be incompatible with the character of the area surrounding the project site, or which would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations 15 City of Orange. 2010. General Plan, Figure NR-1 Open Space Resources. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/210/637698172559270000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 16 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. List of eligible and officially designated State Scenic Highways. Website:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/desig-and-eligible-aug2019_a11y.xlsx. Accessed August 18, 2022. 690
39 governing scenic quality. The proposed project includes the demolition of an existing single-story retail building and associated surface parking lot in order to construct a 6-story, 225-unit multifamily residential apartment complex with ground level retail/restaurant space, private fitness center, and lobby, leasing, and lounge area. The proposed project also includes construction of a 3-story basement level parking structure beneath the footprint of the mixed-use building, and construction of a stand-alone, 2-story open parking structure for use by the adjacent multi-building office complex, to be located west of the mixed-use building and parallel to the south property line along Garden Grove Boulevard in an area designated UMIX and zoned UMU.

The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City. The project site is currently developed with an existing commercial 4-story office building and parking lot and is on the southeast corner of a multi-building office complex. The proposed project would be consistent with the existing urban character of the site, which is an office complex consisting of several multi-story office buildings and parking lots, surrounded by commercial, retail, residential, and open space uses. The building height and appearance would be consistent with the other buildings within the office complex. Additionally, as shown in Figure 9a through Figure 9c, the proposed project’s landscaping plan and improvements would increase on-site landscaping and pervious surfaces which would ensure that the visual quality of the project site is maintained. As shown in Figure 9a through Figure 9c, the proposed project would include trees and groundcover, a widened sidewalk and streetlights for pedestrians, and a retail storefront. The proposed building would have a modern, high-quality, and attractive building design, which would enhance the area, and would be consistent with the appearance of the surrounding buildings and with the intention of the UMIX designation and UMU zone.

The secondary stand-alone parking structure was designed to be of low visual impact, and would help screen office building 790 The City Drive South from the noise of Garden Grove Boulevard.

It would be 2-stories tall and would be clad in brick to match the exiting parking structure and offices. The existing large trees would remain in place and tall shrubs would be planted to help screen the parking structure on the façade facing Garden Grove Boulevard.

A shade and shadow study was completed for the proposed project (Figure 10) that analyzed the shade and shadow impacts of the proposed project during the summer and winter solstice in the morning and evening. The proposed mixed-use residential and commercial building would cast shadows to the east during the summer solstice and to the northeast during the winter solstice and would cast shadows to the west during the summer solstice and to the northwest during the winter solstice.

During the summer solstice, the shadows would be mostly confined to the project site and would not have an impact on nearby buildings. During the winter solstice, the building would cast longer shadows toward the northwest in the morning and toward the northeast in the evening. The buildings most impacted would be the office building to the northwest at 790 The City Drive South, the hotel to the north, and the office building to the northeast located at 785 The City Drive South. 691
40 However, the shadows cast by the proposed building would move away from these buildings in less than 2 hours and thus, would not significantly impact these land uses.

The proposed architectural design would be more compatible with the existing character of the office complex and would not be detrimental to the visual character and quality of the surrounding area. The visual changes introduced by the proposed project would not degrade the visual character of the project site or the surrounding area. Overall, the visual appearance would be improved and therefore would not result in substantial degradation of the character or quality of the site.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. 692
53150001 • 11/2021 | 9a_southeast_corner_rendering.cdr
Figure 9a
Southeast Corner Rendering

CITY OF ORANGE
840 THE CITY DRIVE APARTMENTS

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECARATION
Source: Streetlights Creative Studio, 02/19/2021.
693

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
694
53150001 • 11/2021 | 9b_south
west_corner_rendering.cdr
Figure 9b
Southwest Corner Rendering

CITY OF ORANGE
840 THE CITY DRIVE APARTMENTS

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECARATION
Source: Streetlights Creative Studio, 02/19/2021.
695

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
696
53150001 • 11/2021 | 9c_northeast_corner_rendering.cdr
Figure 9c
Northeast Corner Rendering

CITY OF ORANGE
840 THE CITY DRIVE APARTMENTS

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECARATION
Source: Streetlights Creative Studio, 02/19/2021.
697

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
698
53150001 • 11/2021 | 10_shade_shadow_study.cdr
Figure 10
Shade and Shadow Study

CITY OF ORANGE
840 THE CITY DRIVE APARTMENTS

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECARATION
Source: Streetlights Creative Studio, 02/19/2021.
699

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
700
49 (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
A significant impact may occur if a project were to introduce new sources of light or glare on or from the project site that adversely affect daytime or nighttime views, or which pose a safety hazard.

The project site and surrounding area currently contain numerous sources of light, including streetlights, security lighting, illuminated signage, indoor building illumination, and automobile headlights. Lighting for the proposed mixed-use residential and commercial building includes wall-mounted light fixtures, sidewalk lighting, interior lighting for the buildings and structures, and security lighting. Light and glare from the proposed project would be visible to the surrounding areas and from roadways. Although the proposed project would include lighting, these sources would be similar to the light sources of the existing office complex. The proposed project would comply with the Municipal Code Section 17.12.030, Lighting, which requires that lighting on any premises be directed, controlled, screened, or shaded in such a manner as not to shine directly on surrounding premises, and that lighting on any residential property be controlled to prevent glare or direct illumination of any public sidewalk or thoroughfare.17 As such, the proposed project would be required to direct, control, screen, or shade lighting such that it would not create a new source of substantial light or glare, adversely affect day or nighttime views, or create light spillover onto surrounding properties or public thoroughfares. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to substantially increase the amount of light and glare on the project site or surrounding areas.

Additionally, glare occurs when sunlight is reflected off the surfaces of buildings or objects. The project site and surrounding area currently contain sources of glare from the existing buildings onsite. Although the proposed project would include building materials and improvements that could cause daytime glare, the proposed project would be required to comply with Municipal Code Section 17.12.030 to prevent glare, as discussed in the previous paragraph above Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. 17 City of Orange. 2020. Orange Municipal Code, Chapter 17.12.030 – Lighting. August 20. Website:
https://library.qcode.us/lib/orange_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_17-chapter_17_12-17_12_030. Accessed August 18, 2022. 701
50 5.2 Agricultural Resources
(In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(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 nonagricultural 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?
Impact Analysis
(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 nonagricultural use? A significant impact may occur if a project were to result in the conversion of State-designated agricultural land from agricultural use to another nonagricultural use. The project site is in an urbanized area of the City. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project vicinity is designated Urban and Built-Up Land, and the City of Orange contains less than 1 square mile that is considered unique farmland.18 There are no Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands, or Farmlands of Statewide Importance on the project site or adjacent to the project site. The nearest designated farmland is 3.42 miles northwest of the project site along the Union Pacific railroad in Anaheim. The proposed project would not affect any farmlands as mapped pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

Additionally, the General Plan designates the site UMIX, and the site is zoned UMU. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
18 California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed August 18, 2022. 702
51 Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? A significant impact may occur if a project were to result in the conversion of land zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act Contract from agricultural use to nonagricultural use.

The project site and adjacent areas are urbanized and are not subject to a Williamson Act Contract.

The project site is zoned as UMU and designated UMIX in the General Plan. The City’s zoning map does not designate the project site for agricultural uses.19 There is no land on the project site or surrounding area that could support any type of agricultural use. The proposed project would not affect land zoned for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. (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))?
According to the City’s zoning map, the project site is zoned UMU and is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.20 The City of Orange does not contain any forestland or timberland. Additionally, the project site and adjacent areas are urbanized.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, any forestland or timberlands. No impacts would occur.

Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? As discussed previously, the project site and surrounding areas do not contain forestland. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of forestland to non-forest uses. The project site is located in an area that is urbanized and consists of developed land. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
19 City of Orange. 2020. Zoning Map. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/40/637707607413300000.

Accessed August 18, 2022. 20 Ibid.
703
52 Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No 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? The project site is in an urbanized area. As discussed previously, there are no agricultural or forest uses in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not involve changes in the existing environment or convert farmland to nonagricultural use or forest land to non-forest use. No impacts would occur.

Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. 704
53 5.3 Air Quality
(Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.)
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(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 nonattainment 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?
Environmental Setting
The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). While the final determination of whether a project is significant is within the purview of the Lead Agency pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, SCAQMD recommends that its quantitative air pollution thresholds be used to determine the significance of project emissions (Table 4). If the Lead Agency finds that the proposed project has the potential to exceed these air pollution thresholds, the proposed project should be considered to have significant air quality impacts. The SCAQMD has developed regional and Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) to evaluate construction and operational emissions within its jurisdiction. Note that the analysis evaluates a construction start date of December 2022. Extending the construction schedule by a year would ultimately reduce any potential impacts as CalEEMod presumes that future construction equipment would become more efficient. Furthermore, the analysis includes the build-out of a stand-alone parking structure previously contemplated in the northern portion of the 5.86-acre site, which is no longer part of the proposed project. Due to the reduction in building square footage on the proposed site, the project emissions related to both construction and operational activity would be lower than what is analyzed herein. Thus, this conservative analysis evaluates the worst-case scenario.

Regional Thresholds
Table 4: SCAQMD Regional Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant Construction Operations
Regional Thresholds
NOX 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
SOX 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
705
54 Pollutant Construction Operations
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
Notes:

NOX = nitrogen oxides VOC = volatile organic compounds SOX = sulfur oxides CO = carbon monoxide PM10 = particulate matter, including dust, 10 micrometers or less in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter lbs/day = pounds per day
Source of regional thresholds: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2019. South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. April. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-qualitysignificance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed August 18, 2022.

Localized Air Quality Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD recommends that all air quality analyses include a localized assessment of both construction and operational emissions on nearby sensitive receptors. The SCAQMD has developed Localize Significance Threshold (LST) to be implemented at the discretion of local public agencies acting as a Lead Agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. LSTs represent maximum mass emissions from a project site that would not result in pollutant concentrations that exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). LSTs are based on ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the Source Receptor Area (SRA)21 where a project is located, distance to the nearest sensitive receptor, and size of the project site, all of which are the primary factors that influence pollutant concentrations.

The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003, revised 2008) for guidance.22 The LST Methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized air quality impacts, particularly carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), particulate matter, including dust, 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5). The SCAQMD provides LST mass rate lookup tables for projects with active construction areas that are less than or equal to 5 acres, providing specific thresholds for 1-acre, 2-acre, and 5-acre project sites.

As the proposed project would disturb approximately 2.95 acres across the mixed-use residential and commercial complex and proposed parking structure, the LSTs for a 2-acre project site was used in this analysis for a conservative assessment. These LST lookup values are provided to be used as a screening tool for identifying whether a more detailed analysis is needed for localized impacts. The appropriate LSTs can be determined based on the project’s SRA, size, and distance to nearest sensitive receptor. The appropriate SRA for the LSTs is Central Orange County (SRA 17) since this area includes the project site. LSTs apply to CO, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), PM10, and PM2.5. LSTs were obtained for sensitive receptors located 25 meters from the source area based on the proposed project’s proximity to existing sensitive receptors. 21 A source area is that area in which contaminants are discharged, and a receptor area is that area in which the contaminants accumulate and are measured. Any of the areas can be a source area, a receptor area, or both a source and receptor area. 22 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2021. Localized Significance Thresholds. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds. Accessed August 18, 2022. 706
55 Table 5 shows the LSTs for NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 for both construction and operational activities for with sensitive receptors 25 meters away. If a project exceeds an applicable LST, then the SCAQMD recommends that project-specific air quality modeling be performed.

Table 5: SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds
Activity
Allowable Emissions (pounds/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Construction
Construction (2-acre site) 115 715 6 4
Operation
Operation (2-acre site) 115 715 2 1
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = oxides of nitrogen
PM10 = particulate matter, including dust, 10 micrometers or less in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
Source: SCAQMD Mass Rate Lookup Tables for sites in SRA 17 for sensitive receptors located 25 meters from the project site.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspot Thresholds
The largest contributor of CO emissions during long-term operations of a residential development project is typically from motor vehicles. A CO hotspot represents a condition wherein high concentrations of CO may be produced by motor vehicles accessing a congested traffic intersection under heavy traffic volume conditions.

Since the first regulation of CO emissions from vehicles (model year 1966) in California, vehicle emissions standards for CO applicable to light duty vehicles have decreased tailpipe CO emissions by 96 percent for automobiles, and new cold weather CO standards have been implemented, effective for the 1996 model year. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) have steadily declined.

The analysis prepared for CO attainment in the SoCAB by the SCAQMD can help evaluate the potential for CO exceedances in the SoCAB. CO attainment was thoroughly analyzed as part of the SCAQMD’s 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (2003 AQMP) and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan). As discussed in the 1992 CO Plan and subsequent plan updates, peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SoCAB are due to unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not the impact of particular intersections.23 Considering the region’s unique meteorological conditions and the increasingly stringent CO emissions standards, CO 23 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2021. 2005 South Coast Carbon Monoxide Plan. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/2005-south-coast-carbon-monoxide-plan. Accessed August 18, 2022. 707
56 modeling was performed as part of the 1992 CO Plan and subsequent plan updates and AQMPs. In the 1992 CO Plan, a CO hot spot analysis was conducted for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The intersections evaluated included Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway (Lynwood); Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue (Westwood); Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue (Hollywood); and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard (Inglewood). These analyses did not predict a violation of CO standards. The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. These modeling results and the determinations of this CO hot spot analysis is utilized in this analysis as the basis for determining whether the proposed project would result in a CO hot spot at impacted intersections and roadway segments.

Health Risk Significance Thresholds
For pollutants without defined significance standards or air contaminants not covered by the standard criteria cited above, the definition of substantial pollutant concentrations varies. For toxic air contaminants (TAC), “substantial” is taken to mean that the individual cancer risk exceeds a threshold considered a prudent risk management level.

The SCAQMD has defined several health risk significance thresholds that it recommends lead agencies use in assessing a project’s health risk impacts. The City of Orange has not adopted its own set of thresholds. Therefore, the following SCAQMD thresholds are used for this analysis.

Project-Specific Health Risk Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD has established the following project-specific health risk significance thresholds:
13 • Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk: >=10 in 1 million. • Hazard Index (project increment) >=1.0.

A significant impact would occur if a project’s impacts exceeded any of these thresholds.

Cumulative Health Risk Significance Thresholds
When the proposed project, in combination with one or more other projects exceeds the projectspecific significance thresholds, the project is considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.

Impact Analysis
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that there are two key indicators to evaluate whether or not a project conflicts with or obstructs the implementation of the applicable air quality plan (2016 AQMP for the SoCAB). These indicators are (1) whether the project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to 708
57 new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP; and, (2) 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 NAAQS and CAAQS.

Considering the recommended indicators in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, this analysis uses the following criteria to address this potential impact:
• Criterion 1: The project’s contribution to air quality violations (SCAQMD’s first indicator);
• Criterion 2: Assumptions in the AQMP (SCAQMD’s second indicator); and • Criterion 3: Compliance with applicable emission control measures in the AQMPs.

Criterion 1: The Project’s Contribution to Air Quality Violations According to the SCAQMD, a proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP if the proposed project can demonstrate it would 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 AQMP.

If a project’s emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for 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 standards.

As discussed in Impact 5.3(b) later in this section, the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds or LSTs during construction or operation. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP. The proposed project meets this criterion, and impacts would be less than significant.

Criterion 2: Assumptions in the AQMP
According to Chapter 12 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the General Plan consistency finding 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.

The General Plan was adopted prior to adoption the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), which was adopted in April 2016 and was used to inform the population and emissions 709
58 growth forecast for the SCAQMD’s most recent AQMP. The SCAQMD adopted the 2016 AQMP on March 3, 2017, which utilized the population growth forecasts contained in SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS. It should be noted that there is a more current version of the SCAG RTP/SCS which was adopted September 2022; however, the 2022 AQMP has not yet been adopted at the time of this writing.

The project site’s land use designation is Urban Mixed-Use.24 The Urban Mixed-Use designation allows development with a 1.5-3.0 FAR and 30 to 60 dwelling units per acre.25 The maximum development on the site under the Urban Mixed-Use designation is a 3.0 FAR. The proposed project includes the construction and operation of a 225-unit apartment building with retail space, resulting in 1.44 FAR. Implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the maximum development of the site allowed in the General Plan Land Use Element.

As the proposed project would not exceed the maximum extent of development anticipated at the project site under the land use scenario envisioned by SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS, emissions generated by operation of the proposed project would have been included in growth forecasts for the current AQMP. Furthermore, the jobs introduced by the proposed project would consist of those working in general retail or building maintenance, and would not be highly specialized occupations. Thus, it is not anticipated that the jobs generated by the proposed project would generate additional population growth from people moving to the City of Orange from out of the area. Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect growth assumptions within the AQMP. The impact for this criterion would be less than significant.

Criterion 3: Control Measures
The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the SCAQMD. Because the proposed project includes earthmoving activity, SCAQMD Rule 403 would apply. SCAQMD Rule 403 governs emissions of fugitive dust during construction and operation activities. The rule requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 403 requires the implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site.

Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs include application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils; covering haul vehicles; restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour; sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways; cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; and establishing a permanent ground cover on finished sites. The proposed project’s compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 would result in consistency with the applicable AQMP control measures.
24 City of Orange. 2010. General Plan Land Use Element. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/208/637698172555630000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 25 Ibid. 710
59 Conclusion
The proposed project would meet all three criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP.

The proposed project would not result in a regional or localized exceedance of criteria air pollutants and would not exceed the growth assumptions in the AQMP. The proposed project 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.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
This impact is related to the cumulative effect of a project’s regional criteria pollutant emissions.

The region is currently in nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. 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. To clarify, 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. All new developments that would increase air pollutant emissions above those assumed in regional air quality plans would contribute to cumulative air quality impacts.

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 emissions that exceed SCAQMD regional or localized 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 would not generate cumulatively considerable emissions.

Localized Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD Governing Board adopted a methodology for calculating localized air quality impacts through LSTs. The SCAQMD has subdivided the SoCAB into 36 separate SRAs where emissions can originate or where receptors could be impacted from emission sources located in other SRAs. To facilitate the localized assessment process, the SCAQMD provides a series of 711
60 lookup tables that contain LSTs for each SRA within the basin for quantifying both construction and operational impacts. The proposed project is located within SRA 17, Central Orange County.

In addition to the dependence on geographic location within the SCAQMD (e.g., the SRA), the localized thresholds also depend on the distance to the impacted receptor from the source of emissions. The nearest sensitive receptors are the residences immediately to the south of the project site, which are within 25 meters of the proposed project boundary.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2 was used to estimate construction emissions. Construction of the proposed project would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities. Table 6 displays the proposed construction schedule, as provided by the project applicant, and demonstrates that the proposed project would be constructed over approximately 1.5 years, beginning as early as December 2022.26 The CalEEMod construction phase lengths were based on information provided by the project applicant. To conserve the model’s default construction equipment list and activity intensity, the same default construction equipment horsepower-hour quantities were applied to the adjusted schedule provided by the project applicant. If the construction schedule moves to later years, construction fuel consumption may decrease because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements as older, less fuelefficient equipment is gradually replaced by newer and more fuel-efficient equipment. Please see Appendix A for more detailed modeling information.

Table 6: Proposed Construction Schedule
Activity Start Date End Date Days per Week Total Days
Demolition 12/31/2022 2/28/2023 5 42
Site Preparation 3/1/2023 4/15/2023 5 34
Grading 4/16/2023 6/30/2023 5 54
Building Construction 7/1/2023 6/30/2024 5 261
Paving 2/1/2024 6/30/2024 5 108
Architectural Coating 2/13/2024 6/30/2024 5 100
The localized assessment methodology limits the emissions in the analysis to those generated from on-site activities. The on-site emissions generated during construction are compared with the LSTs and summarized in Table 7. The emissions estimates shown therein incorporate required regulatory compliance, such as SCAQMD Rule 403. Note that because of the way CalEEMod is constructed, compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 is reflected as mitigation in the output, although compliance 26 Note that the analysis evaluates a construction start date of December 2022. Extending the construction schedule by a year would ultimately reduce any potential impacts as CalEEMod presumes that future construction equipment would become more efficient. Furthermore, the analysis includes the build-out of a stand-alone parking structure previously contemplated in the northern portion of the 5.86-acre site, which is no longer part of the proposed project. Due to the reduction in building square footage on the proposed site, the project emissions related to both construction and operational activity will be lower than what is analyzed herein. Thus, this conservative analysis evaluates the worstcase scenario. 712
61 with Rule 403 is mandatory and not considered mitigation under CEQA Guidelines. As shown therein, the construction of the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s construction LSTs.

Table 7: Unmitigated Construction Localized Significance Analysis Activity
On-site Emissions (pounds per day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition (2021) 20.37 15.53 2.65 1.25
2021 Maximum Daily 20.37 15.53 2.65 1.25
Demolition (2022) 17.26 15.01 2.44 1.05
Site Preparation (2022) 1.92 0.95 0.39 0.23
Grading (2022) 1.91 1.10 0.41 0.25
Building Construction (2022) 21.80 22.19 1.04 1.00
2022 Maximum Daily 21.80 22.19 2.44 1.05
Building Construction (2023) 20.36 22.00 0.91 0.87
Paving (2023) 1.37 1.90 0.07 0.06
Architectural Coating (2023) 0.33 0.45 0.02 0.02
Building Construction Plus Paving Plus
Architectural Coating (2023) 22.05 24.35 0.99 0.95
2023 Maximum Daily 22.05 24.35 0.99 0.95
Maximum Daily On-site Emissions 21.80 24.35 2.65 1.25
Localized Significance Threshold 115 715 6 4
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter, including dust, 10 micrometers or less in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
Emissions displayed above incorporate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust.

Source: Appendix A
The on-site emissions during operation are compared with the LSTs and summarized in Table 8 below. Emissions that would be generated during operation of the existing land uses on the project site are not presented here. Existing operational emissions would be generated by the use of consumer products, fertilizers, and degreasers; the combustion of natural gas for space heating and appliance operation; and the operation of vehicles by the existing facility’s employees and patrons.

Therefore, emissions presented in Table 8 represent a conservative assessment of emissions generated by the proposed project. As described above, the LST Methodology recommends that only on-site emissions are evaluated using LSTs. Most of the proposed project’s mobile source 713
62 emissions would occur on the local and regional roadway network away from the proposed project, and only on-site mobile source emissions need to be included in this analysis. A trip length of 0.1 mile was used in the modeling input assumptions to estimate on-site emissions from mobile sources. As shown in Table 8, emissions during operation do not exceed the LSTs.

Table 8: Operational Localized Significance Analysis
Emissions Source
Pounds per Day1
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area 3.40 20.04 0.36 0.36
Energy 0.69 0.31 0.06 0.06
On-Site Mobile 4.61 6.34 0.17 0.05
Stationary 0.13 0.15 0.01 0.01
Maximum Daily On-site Operational Emissions 8.83 26.84 0.60 0.48 Localized Significance Thresholds (5-acre) 115 715 2 1
Exceeds Any Threshold? No No No No
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter, including dust, 10 micrometers or less in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
Source of Emissions: Appendix A.

Source of thresholds: SCAQMD Mass Rate Lookup Tables for a 2-acre site in SRA 17 for sensitive receptors located 25 meters from the project site.

The localized analyses use thresholds that represent the maximum project emissions that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. If the proposed project results in emissions that do not exceed the LSTs, it follows that those emissions would not cause or contribute to a local exceedance of the appropriate ambient air quality standard. As shown in Table 8, the localized construction analysis demonstrates that the proposed project would not exceed the LSTs for NO2, CO, PM10, or PM2.5. Further, as shown in Table 8, on-site project operational emissions would not exceed the operational LSTs for NO2, CO, PM10, or PM2.5. Therefore, the proposed project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during construction or operations.

Regional Air Quality Thresholds
Table 9 summarizes construction-generated emissions with standard conditions incorporated. As previously mentioned, the proposed project would be required to comply with standard SCAQMD regulations, such as implementing SCAQMD Rule 403, which would reduce fugitive dust emissions. For more detailed information on modeling inputs, please refer to Appendix A. 714
63 The information shown in Table 9 demonstrates that the SCAQMD regional emission thresholds would not be exceeded during construction activities. Therefore, the short-term construction emissions are considered to have a less than significant regional impact.

Table 9: Regional Construction Air Pollutant Emissions by Activity Activity
Mass Daily Emissions (pounds per day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Demolition (2021) 2.34 24.59 17.75 0.04 12.06 3.59
2021 Maximum Daily 2.34 24.59 17.75 0.04 12.06 3.59
Demolition (2022) 2.02 21.14 17.15 0.04 3.14 1.25
Site Preparation (2022) 0.25 1.97 1.55 0.00 0.62 0.29
Grading (2022) 0.28 1.97 1.84 0.01 0.71 0.33
Building Construction (2022) 4.85 31.92 37.88 0.11 6.94 2.61 2022 Maximum Daily 4.85 31.92 37.88 0.11 6.94 2.61
Building Construction (2023) 4.48 28.13 36.62 0.11 6.79 2.48 Paving (2023) 0.33 1.46 3.07 0.01 0.56 0.20
Architectural Coating (2023) 35.21 0.51 2.94 0.01 1.08 0.30 Building Construction Plus Paving
Plus Architectural Coating (2023) 40.01 30.10 42.63 0.13 8.43 2.97 2023 Maximum Daily 40.01 30.10 42.63 0.13 8.43 2.97
Maximum Daily Emissions 40.01 31.92 42.63 0.13 12.06 3.59 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance
Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = oxides of nitrogen
PM10 = particulate matter, including dust, 10 micrometers or less in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOC = volatile organic compounds
Emissions displayed above incorporate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust.

Source of emissions: Appendix A. Emissions totals may vary slightly due to rounding.

Operational Regional Emissions
CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 was used to estimate operational emissions that would occur during operation of the proposed project. Operational emissions are generated based on area, energy, and mobile sources. Area sources would include activities such as landscape maintenance, consumer product usage, and occasional application of architectural coatings. Energy sources would include natural gas combustion for space and water heating. Mobile sources would include vehicle trips 715
64 associated with vehicles accessing the project site. Mobile trip characteristics are based on the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers, (LLG) dated December 11, 2020 (Revised September 21, 2022), for the proposed project, which is included in Appendix K-1. It should be noted that the TIA conservatively evaluates the development of 226 apartment units and 9,169 square feet of retail uses, even though the proposed project would develop 225 apartment units and 9,000 square feet of retail uses.

Daily operational emissions were estimated for the summer and winter seasons. The maximum daily operational emissions between the summer and winter seasons, as derived from CalEEMod, are shown in Table 10. Modeling results for both seasons are found in Appendix A.

Table 10 presents the operational emissions generated by the proposed project. Emissions that would be generated during operation of the existing land uses on the project site are not presented here.

Existing operational emissions would be generated by the use of consumer products, fertilizers, and degreasers; the combustion of natural gas for space and water heating and appliance operation; and the operation of vehicles by the existing facility’s employees and patrons. Therefore, emissions presented in Table 10 represent a conservative assessment of emissions generated by the proposed project. The information shown in Table 10 demonstrates that the SCAQMD regional emission thresholds would not be exceeded during operation of the proposed project. Therefore, the long-term operational emissions are considered to result in a less than significant regional impact.

Table 10: Regional Operational Air Pollutant Emissions by Activity Emissions Source
Pounds per Day1
VOC NOX CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area 6.70 3.40 20.04 0.02 0.36 0.36
Energy 0.08 0.69 0.31 0.00 0.06 0.06
Mobile 2.97 10.75 42.46 0.17 16.46 4.48
Stationary 0.04 0.13 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.01
Total 9.78 14.98 62.96 0.20 16.89 4.91
SCAQMD Air Quality
Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No No No
Note:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = oxides of nitrogen
PM10 = particulate matter, including dust, 10 micrometers or less in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOx= sulfur oxides
VOC = volatile organic compounds
1 For each source, the maximum emissions between summer and winter are shown.

Source: CalEEMod and FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS). See Appendix A. Emissions may vary slightly due to rounding. 716
65 Conclusion
As indicated in Table 7 and Table 8, the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD LSTs during construction or operation. Additionally, as indicated in Table 9 and Table 10, the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds during construction or operation. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations This impact evaluates the potential for the proposed 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. 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 nitrogen dioxide and CO), commercial and/or industrial facilities would be considered sensitive receptors.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project would be the single-family residences approximately 25 meters north of the northern boundary of the project site. The next closest sensitive receptors to the proposed project would be the single-family residences approximately 30 meters south of the project site, across from West Garden Grove Boulevard.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Asbestos is a fibrous mineral which is both naturally occurring in ultramafic rock (a rock type commonly found in California) and used as a processed component of building materials. Because asbestos has been proven to cause a number of disabling and fatal diseases, such as asbestosis and lung cancer, it is strictly regulated either based on its natural widespread occurrence, or in its use as a building material. In addition, the ARB approved an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for construction, grading, quarrying, and surface mining operations to minimize emissions of naturally occurring asbestos (NOA). The regulation requires application of BMPs to control fugitive dust in areas known to have NOA and requires notification to the local air district prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities.

The California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) has a published guide for generally identifying areas that are likely to contain NOA. The CDMG map indicates NOA are not known to occur within the project area.27 Therefore, disturbance of NOA 27 United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California. Website: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1188/. Accessed August 18, 2022. 717
66 during project construction is not a concern for the proposed project. The proposed project would result in no impact from exposure of sensitive receptors to NOA.

Construction: Diesel Particulate Matter
The proposed project would generate diesel exhaust, a source of diesel particulate matter, during project construction. On-site emissions of both diesel particulate matter occur during construction from the operation of heavy-duty construction equipment and from vendor trucks that operate on project sites.

Construction activities that would generate diesel particulate matter emissions are short-term in nature. Moreover, the current methodological protocols required by the SCAQMD and ARB when studying the health risk posed by diesel particulate matter assume the following: (1) 24-hour constant exposure; (2) 350 days a year; (3) for a continuous period lasting 30 years. In addition, as shown in Impact 5.3(b), the proposed project would not exceed the LST for construction-generated criteria pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose receptors to substantial criteria pollutant concentrations from construction activities. Considering the dispersion of the emissions, the short construction time frame, and the less than significant impact related to LSTs, indicating that no further analysis would be required, exposure to diesel particulate matter would be less than significant.

Operation: Toxic Air Pollutants
The proposed project would not include any substantial sources of TAC emissions. Nonetheless, the proposed project would place new sensitive receptors which may be exposed to existing sources of TACs. Major sources of TACs include autobody shops, distribution centers, industrial manufacturing sites, landfills, truck stops, farming operations, power plants, quarries, and similar land uses. No land uses which fit these descriptions are present in the immediate vicinity to the project site.

Furthermore, the ARB advises the siting of new sensitive land uses (e.g., residences) greater than 500 feet from freeways or roadways which receive 100,000 vehicles per day.28 As presented in the TIA prepared for the proposed project (Appendix K-1), nearby roadways experience as much as 6,069 vehicles per day during PM peak-hours. As an industry standard, the PM peak-hour vehicle trips were multiplied by 10 to identify a daily vehicle trip count of an estimated 60,690 vehicles per day. Moreover, the closest freeway to the proposed project, SR-22, is approximately 1,130 feet north of the project site. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact would be less than significant.

Operation: CO Hotspot
As previously discussed, a CO hot spot analysis was conducted for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods in the SCAQMD’s 1992 CO Plan. The intersections evaluated included Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway (Lynwood); 28 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April. Website:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2022. 718
67 Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue (Westwood); Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue (Hollywood); and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard (Inglewood).29 These analyses did not predict a violation of CO standards. The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. Therefore, if operation of the proposed project results in less than 100,000 daily vehicle trips at affected intersections or roadways segments under Existing Plus Project conditions, then a less than significant CO impact would occur.

The TIA prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix K-1) identified the Existing Plus Project traffic volumes for four key roadway segments affected by the proposed project. As identified in the TIA, the Existing Plus Project daily vehicle trips, after considering the vehicle trips generated by the existing operations on the project site, would total 21,946 daily vehicle trips along Garden Grove Boulevard (west of the project site), 25,737 daily vehicle trips along Memory Lane (east of the project site), 21,331 daily vehicle trips along The City Drive (north of the project site), and 22,252 daily vehicle trips along Metropolitan Drive (north of the project site). Considering that the greatest traffic volume under Existing Plus Project conditions would be up to 47,068 daily vehicles at the intersection of The City Drive and Memory Lane, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to air quality for local CO or expose receptors to substantial CO concentrations from operational activities.

Conclusion
As demonstrated above, nearby sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction or operation of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
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, 29 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2003. Final 2003 AQMP Appendix V, Modeling and attainment Demonstrations.

August. Website: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2003-air-quality-managementplan/2003-aqmp-appendix-v.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed August 18, 2022. 719
68 dizziness, nausea, loss of appetite, stomachache, sinus congestion, eye irritation, nose irritation, runny nose, sore throat, cough, and asthma exacerbation.30 The SCAQMD’s role is to protect the public’s health from air pollution by overseeing and enforcing regulations.31 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, nor does the City have a defined methodology for analyzing potential odor impacts from land-use development projects. In the absence of SCAQMD or City guidance on assessing odor impacts, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (Valley Air District) screening distances for odor sources were used in this analysis to determine the proposed project’s potential to adversely affect a substantial number of people. 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 11.

Table 11: 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
30 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2007. Final 2007 AQMP Appendix I, Health Effects. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2007-air-quality-management-plan/2007-aqmpappendix-i.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2022. 31 Ibid. 720
69 Odor Generator Screening Distance
Rendering Plant 1 mile
Source: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). N.d. Air Quality Thresholds of Significance – Odors. Website:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/GAMAQI-Criteria-PollutantThresholds-of-Odors.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2022.

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 diesel PM exhaust properties, 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 project site. The proposed project would utilize typical construction techniques, and the odors would be typical of most construction sites and temporary in nature. Impacts would be less than significant.

Operational-Related Odors
The proposed project would demolish a 12,923-square-foot, single-story commercial building and develop a mixed-use 6-story building with a 3-story subterranean basement parking structure, and 2-story stand-alone open parking structure. The apartment building would feature retail space, a fitness center, lobby and lounge area, and a swimming pool courtyard. Residential and retail developments 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 proposed project’s long-term operational activities would not have any substantial odor sources that would expose nearby receptors. Considering the low intensity of potential odor emissions, the proposed project’s operational activities would not expose receptors to objectionable odor emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.

The Project as a Sensitive Receptor
As a predominantly residential project, the proposed project has the potential to place sensitive receptors near existing odor sources. The project site is not located within 2 miles of a wastewater treatment facility or a petroleum refinery. There are no solid waste facilities or other major odor generating sources listed in Table 11 within their respective screening distance of the project site.

Therefore, the proposed project would not introduce sensitive receptors which may be exposed to substantial existing odor impacts. This impact would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. 721
70 5.4 Biological Resources
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(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 Wildlife or United States 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, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States 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 native 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?
Environmental Setting
The project site is located in Orange County, which is part of the greater Los Angeles metropolitan region. The northwestern portion of the County lies on the coastal plain of the Los Angeles Basin and the southeastern portion rises into the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains. Orange County is bordered on the southwest by the Pacific Ocean. The major watercourse in this area is the Santa Ana River, which is located approximately 500 feet east of the project site. The local area surrounding the project site is characterized by extensive urban development and contains limited areas of naturally occurring habitats. Note that the following analysis is based on a larger study area than what is currently proposed. The analysis includes the build-out of a stand-alone parking structure previously contemplated in the northern portion of the 5.86-acre site, which is no longer part of the proposed project. Thus, this conservative analysis evaluates the worst-case scenario.

Field Survey
On October 6, 2020, a FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) Biologist conducted a biological pedestrian survey of the project site between 10:00 a.m. and 10:45 a.m. Weather conditions were sunny with an average temperature of 82°F (degrees Fahrenheit).

The entire project site is currently developed with a hardscaped parking lot, ornamental vegetation and a small strip mall located in the southern portion of the site. Plant species observed consisted mainly of ornamental vegetation and trees, including Indian laurel (Ficus macrocarpa), coral gum 722
71 (Eucalyptus torquate), and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta). Other ornamental plants observed on-site included New Zealand flax (Phormium sp.) Mexican feathergrass (Nassella tenuissima), and bird of paradise flower (Strelitzia sp.).

Wildlife observed on-site included non-native house sparrows (Passer domesticus), while a California gull (Larus californicus) and a flock of mourning doves (Zenaida macroura) were observed flying over the site.

Impact Analysis
(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 Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
Prior to the field survey, FCS Biologists conducted a desktop search to determine whether any special-status species have potential to occur within the project site. The review was based on a search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), a special-status species and plant community account database, and the California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California database for the Anaheim, California USGS 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map as well as its eight neighboring quadrangle maps (Appendix B-1).32,33 Special-status plants recorded in the vicinity of the project site included chaparral sand-verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita), southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis), Gambel’s water cress (Nasturtium gambelii), salt spring checkerbloom (Sidalcea neomexicana), and San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum). Because of the completely developed state of the project site, none of these special-status plants are expected to occur due to the lack of suitable habitat such as coastal sage scrub, chaparral, or grassland vegetation communities. The lack of marshes and swamps on-site precludes the presence of the remaining plant species recorded in the CNDDB and CNPSEI searches.

According to the CNDDB, 59 special-status wildlife species were recorded in the vicinity of the project site. Because of the completely developed state of the project site, none of these specialstatus wildlife species are expected to occur on-site. The majority of records are associated with the Santa Ana River and are unlikely to occur on-site due to the lack of suitable riparian habitat.

These species include western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), and least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). Other terrestrial species recorded in the project vicinity are unlikely to occur on-site due to exposed soil as well as the lack natural 32 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) RareFind 5 California Natural Diversity Database Query for Special-Status Species. Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data . Accessed August 18, 2022. 33 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2020. California Native Plant Society Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory. Website:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed August 18, 2022. 723
72 vegetation communities. These species include Southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi) and coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii). Additionally, no special-status bat species are expected to occur due to the lack of suitable roosting habitat in the form of abandoned buildings with accessible crevices.

The project site contains numerous ornamental trees that may provide suitable habitat for native nesting birds. The removal of these trees during the nesting season could potentially impact nesting birds. As a precaution, pre-construction surveys for nesting birds as described in Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 shall be implemented prior to the start of any construction activities.

Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce potentially significant impacts on nesting birds to less than significant.

Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures:

MM BIO-1 Pre-Construction Surveys for Nesting Birds
Construction activities that occur during the avian nesting season (generally February 15 to August 31) would disturb nesting sites for bird native species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code. No action is necessary if no active nests of native species are found during a pre-construction nesting bird survey or if construction occurs during the nonbreeding season (generally September 1 through February 14).

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

1. To prevent impacts to MBTA-protected birds, nesting raptors, and their nests, removal of trees shall be limited to only those necessary to construct the proposed project.

2. If any tree removal is necessary, then it shall occur outside the nesting season between September 1 and February 14. If trees cannot be removed outside of the nesting season, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted 3 days prior to tree removal to verify the absence of active nests.

3. If an active nest of a native species is located during pre-construction surveys, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (as appropriate) shall be notified regarding the status of the nest. Construction activities shall be restricted, as necessary, to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged and/or it is abandoned, or the agencies deem disturbance potential to be minimal.

Restrictions may include establishment of exclusion zones (no ingress of personnel or equipment at a minimum radius of 100 feet around an active raptor nest and a 50-foot radius around an active migratory bird nest) or alteration of the construction schedule.
724
73 4. A qualified Biologist shall delineate the buffer using Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing, pin flags, and or yellow caution tape. The buffer zone shall be maintained around the active nest site(s) until the young have fledged and are foraging independently.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service? The project site is entirely developed and is absent of any native vegetation and does not contain any sensitive plant communities. The project site is not located adjacent to any riparian habitat.

Although, the project site is located approximately 500 feet west of Santa Ana River (Figure 2), the proposed project is not expected to cause impact to this nearby riparian habitat in any measurable way. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (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?
Prior to conducting the field survey of the project site, FCS Biologists reviewed existing topographic maps, aerial photography as well as the online resources including the Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results System (WATERS) to determine whether any potentially jurisdictional water bodies or wetlands exist within the vicinity of the project site. 34 The project site is entirely developed and does not contain any potential jurisdictional waters or wetlands. The nearest jurisdictional water body is the Santa Ana River, which is located approximately 500 feet east of the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. 34 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020. Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results System (WATERS). Website: https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-watershed-assessment-tracking-environmental-results-system. Accessed August 18, 2022.
725
74 (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The development of the proposed project is not expected to interfere with the movement of wildlife. The project site is currently developed and is surrounded in all directions by extensive urban development. Although, the Santa Ana River serves as an important movement corridor for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, the proposed project would not affect this area because the project site is located 500 feet west and would not alter the Santa Ana River. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
FCS evaluated the site in response to the City’s Master Street Tree Plan and Preservation Ordinance and conducted a field survey on October 6, 2020.
35 The project site contains numerous ornamental
trees that consist of largely of three species: Indian laurel, coral gum, and Mexican fan palm. Based on current project design plans it is assumed that all of the trees currently present on-site would need to be removed in order to accommodate the proposed project. However, none of these trees meet the City’s definition of a “protected tree” and therefore do not require the permission of the City to be removed. The proposed project would not conflict with City Ordinances and therefore would have no impact.

Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
The proposed project within the boundaries of the OCTA Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) which covers the entirety of Orange County. 36 However, the OCTA NCCP/HCP would not apply to the proposed project as the proposed development is not an OCTA or Caltrans project. Therefore, the proposed project would not be in 35 City of Orange. 2020. Orange, California Municipal Code - 12.32 Tree Preservation. Website:
https://library.qcode.us/lib/orange_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_12-chapter_12_32 . Accessed August 18, 2022. 36 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020c. NCCP Plan Summaries. Website:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans. Accessed August 18, 2022. 726
75 conflict with any adopted HCP, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State HCP and there would be no impact.

Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. 727
76 5.5 Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource 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 ceremonies?
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 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Setting
This section describes the existing cultural resources setting and potential effects from project implementation on the project site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information provided by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California Historic Landmarks list, California Points of Historic Interest list, and the California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD). Non-confidential records search results and other correspondence is included in Appendix C-1 and Appendix C-2. Note that the following analysis is based on a larger study area than what is currently proposed. The analysis includes the build-out of a stand-alone parking structure previously contemplated in the northern portion of the 5.86-acre site, which is no longer part of the proposed project. Thus, this conservative analysis evaluates the worst-case scenario.

South Central Coastal Information Center
A cultural records search and literature review were conducted on October 8, 2020, at the SCCIC located at California State University, Fullerton, for the project site and a 0.5-mile radius beyond the project boundaries. The purpose of this review was to access existing cultural resource survey reports, archaeological site records, historic aerial photographs, and historic maps to evaluate whether any previously documented prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, cultural landscapes, or other resources exist within or near the project site. 728
77 The results of the records search indicate that there are no cultural resources located within the

0.5-mile radius nor within the project site. Twenty-one area-specific reports are on file with the SCCIC for the project site and the 0.5-mile radius. Reports OR-02272 and OR-04085 address the project site, indicating that it has previously been surveyed for cultural resources. A records search map identifying the project boundaries and a 0.5-mile radius along with non-confidential records search results can be found in Appendix C-2.

Pedestrian Survey
On October 16, 2020, FCS Staff Archaeologist, Kweku A. Williams, MA, RPA, conducted a pedestrian survey for unrecorded cultural resources within the project site. The survey covered the subject property where possible, beginning in the southern portion of the project site and moving north, using north–south transects spaced at 15‐meter intervals. The project site is divided into three parcels separated by a series of office buildings and driving entry ways. The areas under survey were hardscaped black top, mostly parking lots. For each parcel there was total of four transects. Based on the site map, the parcels ran parallel to City Drive South and east to west on Garden Grove Boulevard. The transects on the eastern side of the map were surveyed west to east, parallel to Garden Grove Boulevard. Survey conditions were documented using digital photographs and field notes.

There was no native soil exposed. All three parcels were hardscaped. Observations attempting to note any cultural resources proved impossible due to the number of hardscaped surfaces through the areas of survey. Overall, only modern debris was on the surface of all three parcels. No historic or prehistoric cultural resources or raw materials commonly used in the manufacture of tools (e.g., obsidian, Franciscan chert) were observed. The survey photographs indicate that all three parcels are hardscaped blacktop surfaces. Photographs from the pedestrian survey can be found in Appendix C-3.

Native American Heritage Commission
On September 24, 2020, FCS sent a request to the NAHC in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on its Sacred Lands File for the project site. A response was received on September 29, 2020, indicating that the Sacred Lands File search failed to locate the presence of Native American cultural resources within the immediate project site. The NAHC provided a list of 17 tribal representatives available for consultation. To ensure that all Native American knowledge and concerns over potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) that may be affected by the project are addressed, a letter containing project information requesting any additional information was sent to each tribal representative on October 12, 2020. A response was received on November 5, 2020, from the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation-Belardes, requesting that the Tribe be notified and included in the initial ground disturbance for monitoring.

Correspondence related to the NAHC letters and tribal representatives can be found in Appendix C-1.
729
78 Impact Analysis
(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
The records search conducted at SCCIC and the pedestrian survey failed to identify any historical resources located within 0.5-mile search radius or within the project site. There is one building located within the project site, however, it was built in 1989, therefore it is not eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. As such, the proposed construction and ground disturbance would not result in adverse change or cause a loss in significance to the project site. Impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
The results from the SCCIC failed to identify any cultural resources located within the project site or 0.5-mile search radius. The proposed project is located in a developed area that is hardscaped with no exposed soil. Thus, the potential to impact an unidentified archaeological resource is considered low. However, it is possible that excavation and ground disturbance activities associated with project construction could encounter previously undiscovered archaeological resources. Archaeological resources can include but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths and structural elements. Damage or destruction of these resources would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of MM CUL-1 Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources would ensure that this potentially significant impact is reduced to less than significant.

Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures:

MM CUL-1 Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources
In the event that buried cultural resources are discovered during construction, operations shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified Archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified Archaeologist shall make recommendations to the Lead Agency on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction 730
79 within the project area shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria.

If the resources are determined to be unique historic resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the Archaeological Monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.

No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the Lead Agency where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
(c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal ceremonies? The project site is completely hardscaped; thus, the potential for human remains to be uncovered during ground disturbance is considered low. While it is highly unlikely that the presence of human remains exists within or near the project site, there is always the possibility that subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project, such as grading or trenching, could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 must be followed. MM CUL-2 further specifies the procedures to follow in the event human remains are uncovered. Along with compliance with these guidelines and statutes, implementation of this mitigation would reduce potential impacts related to human remains to less than significant.

Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures:

MM CUL-2 Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains
In the event of inadvertent discovery or recognition of any human remains, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 must be followed. In this instance, once projectrelated earthmoving begins and if there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County 731
80 Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American.

The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, or Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendant or on the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:

The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendant, or the most likely descendant failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission;
The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

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
A review of the CRHR, local registers of historic resources, a records search conducted at the SCCIC, and NAHC Sacred Lands File search failed to identify any listed TCRs that may be adversely affected by the proposed project. Additionally, the pedestrian survey, conducted on October 16, 2020, failed to identify any TCR’s. Nevertheless, should any undiscovered TCR’s be 732
81 encountered during the ground disturbance phase of the project, implementation of MM TCR-2 and MM TCR-3 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures:

MM TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects
A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(l) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods discovered or recognized on the project site, then all construction activities shall immediately cease. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground-disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.

C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

D. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Kizh determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the Kizh monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f).) E. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non-TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

F. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.
733
82 MM TCR-3 Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains:

A. As the Most Likely Descendant ("MLD"), the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term "human remains" encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.

B. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.

C. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.

D. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.

E. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the project applicant/developer and/or landowner, before ground-disturbing activities may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects.

F. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.

G. The Tribe will work closely with the project's qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC.

The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.
734
83 Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (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 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Tribal consultation efforts pursuant to AB 52 to identify additional significant TCRs meeting the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 was initiated by the City of Orange on June 29, 2022. City staff sent notification letters pursuant to AB 52 to four tribes, Gabrieliño/Tongva Nation, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, and San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians. Subsequently, a consultation between City staff and the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation occurred on September 6, 2022. As a result of the consultation, MM TCR-1, MM TCR-2, and MM TCR-3 are required to mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant. MM TCR-1 requires a Native American Monitor to be retained prior to the commencement of any grounddisturbing activities. MM TCR-2 outlines the procedure in the event that human remains or funerary objects are discovered. MM TCR-3 outlines the procedures for burials and funerary remains. With implementation of MM TCR-1, MM TCR-2, and MM TCR-3, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TCR-2, and MM TCR-3.

MM TCR-1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of GroundDisturbing Activities A. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any "ground-disturbing activity" for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). "Ground disturbing activity" shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.

C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any 735
84 other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or ''TCR"), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.

D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/ordevelopment/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.

E. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe's sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. 736
85 5.6 Energy
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(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 of local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Impact Analysis
(a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
A discussion of the proposed project’s energy use is presented below. Energy use consumed by the proposed project was estimated and includes natural gas, electricity, and fuel consumption for the proposed project construction and operation. Energy calculations are included as part of Appendix D.

Note that the analysis evaluates a construction start date of December 2022. Extending the construction schedule by a year would ultimately reduce any potential impacts as CalEEMod presumes that future construction equipment would become more efficient. Furthermore, the analysis includes the build-out of a stand-alone parking structure previously contemplated in the northern portion of the 5.86-acre site, which is no longer part of the proposed project. Due to the reduction in building square footage on the proposed site, the project emissions related to both construction and operational activity would be lower than what is analyzed herein. Thus, this conservative analysis evaluates the worst-case scenario.

Construction Impacts
The construction schedule is anticipated to begin in December 2022 and conclude in June 2024. If the construction schedule moves to later years, construction fuel consumption may decrease because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements as older, less fuel-efficient equipment is gradually replaced by newer and more fuel-efficient equipment. The proposed project would require demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving activities. Construction would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the site (e.g., demolition, site clearing, and grading), and the actual construction of the building. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and gasoline would be the primary sources of energy for these tasks.

The types of on-site equipment used during construction of the proposed project could include gasoline- and diesel-powered construction and transportation equipment, including trucks, bulldozers, frontend loaders, forklifts, and cranes. Construction equipment is estimated to consume a total of 23,954 gallons of diesel fuel over the entire construction duration (Appendix D). 737
86 Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the proposed project was also estimated; trips include construction worker trips, haul truck trips for material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to the project site was based on (1) the projected number of trips the proposed project would generate during construction, (2) average trip distances by trip type, and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the ARB Emissions Factors (EMFAC) mobile source emission model. The specific parameters used to estimate fuel usage are included in Appendix D. In total, the proposed project is estimated to generate 1,303,482 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and a combined 54,665 gallons of gasoline and diesel for vehicle travel during construction.

Other equipment could include office trailers. Singlewide 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 15,068 kilowatt-hours (kWh) during the 1.5-year construction schedule (Appendix D).

The overall construction schedule and process is already designed to be efficient in order to avoid excess monetary costs. For example, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully due to the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it. Therefore, the opportunities for future efficiency gains during construction are limited.

Operational Impacts
The proposed project would consume energy as part of building operations and transportation activities. Project energy consumption is summarized in Table 12. Energy consumed by the operation of the existing land uses on the project site are not presented here. Existing operational energy demand would be generated through the use of natural gas for space and water heating and appliance operation, the use of electricity for building and space lighting and operation of electrified building components such as elevators, and the use of vehicle fuel by the existing facility’s employees and patrons traveling to and from the project site. Therefore, energy consumption presented in Table 12 represents a conservative assessment of energy demand generated by the proposed project.

Table 12: Estimated Annual Project Energy Consumption
Energy Consumption Activity Annual Consumption
Electricity
Residential Electricity 898,418 kWh/year
Parking Basement and Structures Electricity 1,041,905 kWh/year Retail, Fitness, and Office Electricity 212,840 kWh/year Natural Gas
Residential Natural Gas 2,582,610 kBTU/year
Retail, Fitness, and Office Natural Gas 142,690 kBTU/year 738
87 Energy Consumption Activity Annual Consumption
Fuel
Operational Fuel Consumption1 197,865 gallons of gasoline and diesel
Total Electricity 2,153,163 kWh/year
Total Natural Gas 2,725,300 kBTU/year
Total Fuel Consumption 197,865 gallons
Notes:
kBTU/year = kilo-British Thermal Unit per year
kWh/year = kilowatt-hour per year
VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
1 Operational Fuel Consumption based on EMFAC2014 Emissions Inventory, Vehicle Classification (Fleet Mix) EMFAC2007 Categories. The calculations are for the year 2023 when the project will be operational and for Orange County, where the project is located (Appendix D).

Operation of the proposed project would consume an estimated 2,153,163 kWh of electricity and an estimated 2,725,300 kilo-British Thermal Unit (kBTU) of natural gas on an annual basis. The proposed project’s buildings would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the State’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These are widely regarded as the most advanced building energy efficiency standards and compliance would ensure that building energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Project-related vehicle trips would consume an estimated 197,865 gallons of gasoline and diesel annually. The proposed project is located in an urbanized area of the City of Orange and would introduce high-density residential units close to jobs, amenities, and services. The project site would be developed to facilitate pedestrian connectivity to adjacent land uses and would provide bicycle parking.

Regional access is provided via SR-22, which is approximately 0.2 mile from the project site. In addition, the project site is less than 0.1 mile from the Garden Grove-Memory, Garden Grove-The City, and The City-Park Central bus stops for various OCTA bus routes. Thus, transportation fuel consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
As discussed in this analysis, the proposed project’s combined construction and annual operational energy uses would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. Thus, the proposed project’s construction and operational energy use would result in a less than significant impact on the environment.
739
88 Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (b) Conflict with or obstruct a State of local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? The proposed project would be served with gas provided by Southern California Gas (SoCalGas).

SoCalGas has set a voluntary goal to reduce their own electricity usage. Their energy conservation program seeks to (1) reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, (2) advance new technologies in energy efficiency and emerging, renewable energy, and (3) lower estimated electricity consumption at company facilities through comprehensive energy efficiency retrofits and incorporation of energy-efficient measures into new construction.37 Therefore, the proposed project would be served by a gas company that strives for increased use of renewable energy sources and energy conservation.

The proposed project would be served with electricity provided by SCE, which was required to meet California’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS) of 33 percent by 2020. SCE’s 2019 power mix included 35.1 percent eligible renewable (biomass and waste, geothermal, eligible hydroelectric, solar, and wind), 7.9 percent large hydroelectric, 16.1 percent natural gas, 8.2 percent nuclear and 32.6 percent unspecified sources of power. 38 SCE also offers the SCE Green Rate 50 Percent option, which includes 67.5 percent eligible renewable (geothermal, solar, and wind), 4 percent large hydroelectric, 8.1 percent natural gas, 4.1 percent nuclear and 16.3 percent unspecified sources of power, and the SCE Green Rate 100 Percent option, which includes 100 percent eligible renewable (solar).39 SCE would be required to meet California’s RPS of 60 percent by 2030 and carbon-free electricity by 2045.

The proposed project would be designed in accordance with Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings as applicable. These standards include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] and water heating systems), and indoor and outdoor lighting. The incorporation of the Title 24 standards into the design of the proposed project would ensure that the proposed project would not result in the use of energy in a wasteful manner.

City of Orange General Plan Energy Policies
The General Plan contains several policies which intend to improve energy efficiency in the design and operation of new development that apply to the proposed project. For instance, Policy 3.4 of the Infrastructure Element encourages energy efficiency streetlights, Policy 2.6 of the Natural Resources Element encourages sustainable building and site design in new construction, and 37 Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). 2021. Sustainability at SoCalGas. Website:
https://www.socalgas.com/ko/taxonomy/term/731. Accessed August 18, 2022. 38 Southern California Edison (SCE). 2020. 2019 Power Content Label. Website: https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/inlinefiles/SCE_2019PowerContentLabel.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2022. 39 Ibid. 740
89 Policy 3.3 of the Circulation and Mobility Element encourages the incorporation of transit-oriented design in new development.

The proposed project includes several design features that would conserve energy and demonstrate consistency with the General Plan's energy efficiency objectives. As previously discussed, the proposed project would be designed and constructed to the latest energy efficiency building standards and Title 24 requirements. The proposed project would include a pedestrian-friendly design including a widened sidewalk and streetlights for pedestrians. The project site is connected via pedestrian facilities to the Santa Ana River Trail and Bikeway, approximately 350 feet west of the project site, which is a multiuse paved trail that runs parallel to the Santa Ana River and will run 110 miles when finished.40 The proposed project would further provide bicycle parking and connectivity to the public sidewalk system, transit stops, nearby employment and shopping centers, schools, parks, and other parcels for ease of pedestrian and cyclist access.

The proposed project would comply with existing State energy standards and with energy conservation policies contained in the General Plan. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with State or local renewable or energy efficiency objectives. Impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
As illustrated in this analysis, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the reduction measures proposed in California’s RPS, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards, or Title 24 building construction standards. In addition, the proposed project would not conflict with the energy efficiency objectives of the General Plan. In summary, the proposed project would not conflict with any State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The impact would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. 40 San Bernardino County. 2021. Santa Ana River Trail and Parkway. Website: https://parks.sbcounty.gov/park/santa-ana-river-trail-pkwy/.

Accessed August 18, 2022.
741
90 5.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(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 information in this section is based, in part, on the Due Diligence Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation prepared for the proposed project on July 18, 2019, and revised January 4, 2021, and August 17, 2021, by Leighton and Associates, Inc. Additionally, a Paleontological Records Search was conducted at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County on September 26, 2020.

These documents are included as Appendix E-1 and Appendix E-2 of this IS/MND. Note that the Paleontological Records Search is based on a larger study area than what is currently proposed.

The Paleontological Records Search includes the build-out of a stand-alone parking structure previously contemplated in the northern portion of the 5.86-acre site, which is no longer part of the proposed project. Thus, this conservative analysis evaluates the worst-case scenario. 742
91 Impact Analysis
(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 AlquistPriolo 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.

According to the General Plan Public Safety Element, there are no known Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones in the City of Orange.41 As such, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. There are the two faults in the City of Orange that are not part of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault. These include the Peralta Hills Fault and the El Modena Fault. Both the Peralta Hills Fault and the El Modena Fault are classified as possibly active by the Southern California Earthquake Data Center. However, according to the General Plan, displacements along these two faults are smaller than those along the more prominent regional faults, and the maximum probable earthquake magnitudes would be much less than those along the regional faults. Therefore, the project site is not at risk of fault rupture.42 According to the Due Diligence Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, no known active or potentially active faults have been mapped across the project site, and the site is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
43 The nearest active faults with surface
expression to the site are the Newport-Inglewood and Whittier fault zones located 9 miles and 10.2 miles from the site, respectively. The San Andreas fault, which is considered the largest active fault in California, is located approximately 42 miles northeast of the project site. Therefore, the risk of ground rupture is considered low, and no impact would occur. (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
The principal seismic hazard to the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along any of several major active and potentially active faults in Southern California. The intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon the earthquake magnitude, the distance from the source, and the site response characteristics.44 According to the General Plan Public Safety Element, there are no known Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones located in the City of Orange.45 However, as with any project that is located in Southern California, the project site is located in a seismically active region and may be exposed to strong 41 City of Orange. 2010. General Plan Public Safety Element. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/214/637698172567530000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 42 City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan Public Safety Element. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/214/637698172567530000 . Accessed August 18, 2022. 43 Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2019. Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report. July 18. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid. 743
92 ground shaking during a seismic event. The proposed project would comply with the latest edition of the California Building Standards Code (CBC), which includes seismic design parameters. The proposed project would be designed in accordance with all applicable current codes and standards utilizing the appropriate seismic design parameters to reduce seismic risk as defined by California Geological Survey (CGS) Chapter 2 of Special Publication 117a,46 as recommended in the Due Diligence Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation prepared for the project by Leighton and Associates, Inc.47 Compliance with seismic design standards would ensure that the risk of loss, injury, or death from strong ground shaking is not exacerbated by the proposed project.

Additionally, implementation of the preliminary geotechnical recommendations, as required by MM GEO-1, would reduce potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, potentially significant impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, fine-grained granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: (1) shallow groundwater; (2) low density, fine, clean sandy soils; and (3) high-intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that saturated, loose and medium dense, near-surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential.48 The General Plan Safety Element indicates that the project site is within an area of the City that is prone to liquefaction.49 Additionally, according to the Due Diligence Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, the project site is located within a liquefaction hazard area. Based on the results of a site-specific liquefaction analysis, the potential for liquefaction at the site is moderate.50 The proposed project would be required to comply with the latest adopted edition of the CBC, which includes engineering design standards to reduce potential seismic risks. Additionally, MM GEO-1 requires compliance with seismic design standards and all preliminary geotechnical recommendations from the Due Diligence Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation. Implementation of GEO-1 includes ground improvements measures within the structural influence the residential complex and application of remedial grading methodology below the parking structures. This mitigation would ensure that the proposed project would not create a risk of loss, injury, or death from seismic-related ground failure and liquefaction. Therefore, potentially significant impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 46 California Geological Survey (CGS, previously known as the California Division of Mines and Geology). 2008. Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/publications/sp117a. Accessed August 18, 2022. 47 Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2021. Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report. August 17. 48 Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2021. Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report. 49 City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan Figure PS-1 – Environmental and Natural Hazard Policy Map. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/214/637698172567530000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 50 Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2021. Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report. August 17. 744
93 (iv) Landslides?
The General Plan Safety Element indicates areas of the City that are prone to landslides.51 According to the Safety Element, the project site is not located within a landslide hazard area.

Additionally, the Due Diligence Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation determined that the project site is within a relatively flat alluvial plane; therefore, the potential for the landslides to occur at the project site would be considered low. Further, the Environmental Geology of Orange County Map52 depicts no landslides on the site or within the surrounding area. Therefore, there would be no impact related to landslides.

Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact for rupture of a known fault, strong seismic ground shaking, and seismic-related ground failure. No impact for landslides.

Mitigation Measures:

MM GEO-1 Implement the preliminary geotechnical recommendations pertaining to site grading, preliminary foundation design, slabs-on-grade, temporary excavation and shoring design, drainage and landscaping, ground improvement, and future geotechnical exploration, as outlined on page 17 through page 24 of the Due Diligence Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated for rupture of a known fault, strong seismic ground shaking, and seismicrelated ground failure. No impact for landslides. (b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The Due Diligence Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation determined that no topsoil occurs on the project site due to the history of earthwork grading since the early 1970s. The topsoil has been mixed with underlying alluvium soil and incorporated into an existing blanket of engineered fill that presently underlies existing improvements, which could result in runoff and erosion when disturbed.53 Construction of the proposed project would include activities such as grading and earthmoving activities that could potentially result in erosion during the construction phase.

Grading that would occur on-site would comply with the City’s grading ordinance, which regulates grading and earthwork to control erosion and runoff, which would limit potential impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil.54
As discussed in greater detail in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit). The proposed project would be required to submit a Storm Water 51 Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2021. Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report. August 17. 52 California of Conservation, California Geologic Survey. The Environmental Geology of Orange County Map. 53 Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2021. Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report. August 17. 54 City of Orange. 2020. Orange, California – Code of Ordinances, Chapter 16.40, Grading Requirements. Website:
https://library.qcode.us/lib/orange_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_16-chapter_16_40. Accessed August 18, 2022. 745
94 Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that could affect the quality of stormwater discharges and describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater as well as non-stormwater discharges resulting from construction activity. Compliance with the City’s grading ordinance and the SWPPP would ensure that the project does not result in substantial soil erosion and loss of topsoil. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant 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?
Seismically induced landslide
The project site is not at risk of seismically induced landslides because there are no slopes or hillsides on or adjacent to the project site. The project site is not located within an area that has been identified by the State of California as being potentially susceptible to seismically induced landslides.55 Additionally, the proposed project is not anticipated to include the construction of engineered slopes. Therefore, there would be no impacts associated with landslides.

Seismically induced lateral spreading
Although the subsurface soils at the site are susceptible to liquefaction, the potential for development of lateral spreading and flow failure is considered low since the site is relatively flat and is not abutting an open-face or outboard slope, and actual groundwater was measured below a depth of 32 feet below the surface. Therefore, impacts associated with seismically induced lateral spreading would be less than significant.

Seismically induced settlement
The project site may be subject to seismically induced settlement.56 Seismically induced settlement consists of dry dynamic settlement (above groundwater) and liquefaction-induced settlement (below groundwater). These settlements occur primarily within loose to moderately dense sandy soil due to reduction in volume during and shortly after an earthquake event.57 Pursuant to the Due Diligence Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, compliance with the recommended remedial earthwork at the site and with standard structural design requirements from the current building code would reduce potential impacts relating to seismically induced settlement.58 MM GEO-1 would require implementation of the remedial earthwork recommendations as outlined in the Due 55 Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2021. Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report, Figure 5, Seismic Hazard Map. August 17. 56 Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2021. Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report. August 17. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid. 746
95 Diligence Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation. Therefore, potentially significant impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Liquefaction or collapse
As discussed in Impact 5.7a(iii) above, the project site is located within a liquefaction hazard area.

The proposed project would be required to comply with the latest adopted edition of the CBC, which includes engineering design standards to reduce potential seismic risks. Additionally, compliance with seismic design standards would ensure that the proposed project would not create a risk of loss, injury, or death from seismic-related ground failure and liquefaction. Implementation of MM GEO-1 would reduce impacts associated with liquefaction to less than significant.

Therefore, potentially significant impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact for seismically induced settlement, and liquefaction or collapse. Less than significant impact for lateral spreading.

No impact for seismically induced landslide.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of MM GEO-1.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated for seismically induced settlement, and liquefaction or collapse. Less than significant impact for lateral spreading. No impact for seismically induced landslide. (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? The Due Diligence Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation found that the upper 15 feet of the site consist of a non-cohesive silty sand that is assumed to be non-expansive. The expansive potential of clayey earth materials anticipated at basement subgrade in the residential complex area would be tested to verify conformance with the project design plans. 59 Additionally, the California
Department of Mines and Geology has documented the area as having generally low soil expansiveness.60 Therefore, the project site is not located on expansive soil and would not cause direct or indirect risks to life or property. Impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (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?
The proposed project would connect to the City’s existing wastewater service. The proposed project would not utilize septic tanks or any other alternative method of wastewater disposal or 59 Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2021. Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report. August 17. 60 California Department of Mines and Geology. 1976. Open-File Report 79-8 LA, Environmental Geology of Orange County, California. 747
96 conveyance. This condition precludes the possibility that the proposed project would have impacts related to septic tanks or an alternative wastewater disposal system. Therefore, there would be no impacts.

Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. (f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
A significant adverse effect could occur if grading or excavation activities associated with a project would disturb paleontological resources or geologic features, if any exist within the project site.

Paleontological resources include fossil remains, fossil localities, and formations that have produced fossil material in other nearby areas. Paleontological resources are limited, nonrenewable, sensitive scientific and educational resources, including fossils preserved either as impressions of soft (fleshy) or hard (skeletal) parts, mineralized remains of skeletons, tracks, or burrows; other trace fossils; coprolites (fossilized excrement); seeds or pollen; and other microfossils from terrestrial, aquatic, or aerial organisms.

As discussed in the City of Orange General Plan EIR, the County of Orange General Plan has designated most of the planning area generally east of SR-55 as an area of paleontological resource sensitivity. Sensitivity levels are predicated primarily on the underlying geological formations.61 According to the Paleontological Records Search conducted for the proposed project, there are no recorded fossils that lie directly within the project site. However, there are known fossil sites near the project site from the same sedimentary deposits that occur on the project site. Therefore, there is potential for the presence of subsurface paleontological resources on the project site and could be encountered during ground-disturbing activities the site.

MM GEO-2 would require paleontological monitoring on the project site and proper documentation and recordation in the event that paleontological resources are found as part of project construction activities. Implementation of MM CUL-2 would reduce impacts to any paleontological resources that are inadvertently discovered. The proposed project’s potentially significant impact to paleontological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures:

MM GEO-2 A Paleontological Resources Monitor shall be present during all project excavations that occur 10 feet or more below ground surface. In the event that fossils or fossilbearing deposits are discovered during construction activities, excavations within a 61 City of Orange. 2010. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. March. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/240/637698173340500000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 748
97 100-foot radius of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted, and the applicant shall retain a qualified Paleontologist to examine the discovery. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The Paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The Paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction activities are allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible, the Paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of construction activities on the discovery.

The plan shall be submitted to the City of Orange for review and approval prior to implementation, and the applicant shall adhere to the recommendations in the plan.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
749
98 5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Environmental Setting
The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. Note that the analysis evaluates a construction start date of December 2022. Extending the construction schedule by a year would ultimately reduce any potential impacts as CalEEMod presumes that future construction equipment would become more efficient. Furthermore, the analysis includes the build-out of a stand-alone parking structure previously contemplated in the northern portion of the 5.86-acre site, which is no longer part of the proposed project. Due to the reduction in building square footage on the proposed site, the project emissions related to both construction and operational activity would be lower than what is analyzed herein. Thus, this conservative analysis evaluates the worst-case scenario.

Thresholds of Significance
In October 2008, the SCAQMD released a Draft Guidance Document—Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold (Draft Guidance Document) that recommended a tiered approach to analyzing GHG emissions in a project-level analysis.62 In the Draft Guidance Document, the SCAQMD provided numerical thresholds that can be applied to smaller projects (such as the proposed project). The applicable interim GHG thresholds presented in the Draft Guidance Document are:
• Industrial Projects—10,000 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per year.
• Residential, Commercial, and Mixed-Use Projects (including industrial parks, warehouses, etc.)—3,000 MT CO2e per year.

The City of Orange has not adopted its own GHG thresholds, nor has the City prepared a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that can be used as a basis for determining project significance. Therefore, the applicable numerical threshold presented above is utilized in this analysis to determine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact related to GHG emissions. Because the proposed project is a mixed-use project, the applicable GHG significance threshold is 3,000 MT CO2e. If the proposed project would generate GHG emissions below the threshold, it is acceptable 62 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2022. 750
99 to conclude that the proposed project’s GHG contribution would not be “cumulatively considerable” and would therefore be “less than significant” under CEQA.

Impact Analysis
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Construction Emissions
The proposed project would generate GHG emissions during construction activities resulting from emission sources such as construction equipment, haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles.

Although these emissions would be temporary and short-term in nature, they could represent a substantial contribution of GHG emissions. Construction emissions were modeled using CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. See Appendix A for detailed modeling parameters and assumptions.

Table 13 presents the proposed project’s total construction emissions, which are amortized over the assumed lifetime of 30-years following the guidance from the SCAQMD. The amortized construction emissions are then added with annual operational emissions to provide a total estimate of the project’s GHG emissions.

Table 13: Estimated Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Construction Activity
Total GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e per year)
2021
Demolition 2
2022
Demolition 67
Site Preparation 7
Grading 12
Building Construction 452
2023
Building Construction 440
Paving 34
Architectural Coating 25
Total Construction Duration (2021–2023)
Total Construction Emissions 1,040
Amortized over 30 years1 35
751
100
Construction Activity
Total GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e per year)
Notes:

MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Unrounded emissions were used in calculations, including the reported total; therefore, totals may not appear to sum exactly due to rounding.
1 Construction GHG emissions are amortized over the 30-year lifetime of the proposed project.

Source: Appendix A
Operational Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the proposed project. Sources for operational 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. • 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, dryers, stoves, or other uses.
• Indirect Electricity: These emissions refer to those generated by off-site power plants to supply electricity required for the project.
• Area Sources: These emissions refer to those produced during activities such as landscape maintenance.
• 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.

Table 14 presents the estimated annual GHG emissions from the proposed project’s operational activities as well as the GHG emissions generated by the existing land uses on the project site. As shown in Table 14, the proposed project would generate approximately 2,318 net MT CO2e per year after the inclusion of 35 MT CO2e per year from project construction and accounting for the reductions in operational GHG emissions from existing land uses.

Table 14: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG Emissions Source GHG Emissions (MT CO2e per year)
Area 50
Energy 668
Mobile 2,801
Waste 18
752
101
GHG Emissions Source GHG Emissions (MT CO2e per year)
Water 103
Amortized Construction Emissions 35
Total Project Emissions 3,675
Existing Emissions 1,357
Net Project Emissions 2,318
City of Orange Threshold 3,000
Significant? No
Notes:

MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Source: Appendix A
Conclusion
As shown in Table 14, the proposed project’s combined amortized construction and annual operational GHG emissions would not exceed the applicable threshold of significance of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. Thus, the proposed project’s construction and operational GHG emissions would result in less than significant impacts.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The City of Orange has not adopted a GHG reduction plan. In addition, the City has not completed the GHG inventory, benchmarking, and goal-setting process required to identify a reduction target and to take advantage of the streamlining provisions contained in the CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted for Senate Bill (SB) 97. Since no other local or regional CAP is in place, the proposed project is assessed for its consistency with the ARB’s adopted 2017 Scoping Plan Update.

This would be achieved with an assessment of the proposed project’s compliance with Scoping Plan measures. Although the General Plan does not specifically meet the requirements for a local plan to reduce GHG emissions, it contains policies intended to reduce vehicle travel and energy use that would provide GHG reductions. Therefore, the proposed project’s consistency with the General Plan policies is also assessed.

SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update
The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update addressing the SB 32 targets were adopted on December 14, 2017. Originally, AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was passed to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. SB 32 extends and expands upon AB 32 by mandating that GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Table 15 753
102
provides an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures. As shown in Table 15, many of the measures are not applicable to the proposed project, however, the proposed project is consistent with strategies that are applicable.

Table 15: 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 proposed
project would purchase electricity from a utility subject to the SB 350 Renewable Mandate.

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 proposed 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 and retail buildings at the project site would be 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 ZeroEmission Vehicles (ZEVs) on the road by 2030 and increasing numbers of ZEV trucks and buses.

Not applicable. This measure is not applicable to the
proposed project; however, vehicles accessing the proposed residential and retail buildings at the project site would be benefit from the increased availability of cleaner technology and fuels. Future residents and visitors 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 and thus increase the numbers of ZEV delivery trucks and buses.

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 proposed project is mixed-use in nature and 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 future residents and to the future retail establishments at 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.

Consistent. Consistent with SCAQMD Rule 445—Wood
Burning Devices, no woodburning devices are proposed as part of the proposed project. Natural gas hearths produce very little black carbon compared to woodburning
fireplaces; therefore, the proposed project would not include major sources of black carbon.
754
103
2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measure Project Consistency 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 proposed project does not include the development of a Regional Transportation Plan.

Furthermore, the proposed project is not within an SCS
priority area.

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 proposed project is not one targeted by the cap-and-trade system regulations, and, therefore, this measure does not apply to the proposed 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 proposed project is mixed-use
development in a built-up urban area and would not be
considered natural or working lands.

Source: Appendix A
City of Orange General Plan
As described in the Natural Resources Element of City’s General Plan, there is a broad spectrum of climate change policies within several General Plan elements. The various policies related to climate change are outlined in Table NR-1 of the Natural Resources Element. Many of the policies contained in Table NR-1 call for local government coordination and are not applicable to individual development projects. The applicable climate change related policies and the proposed project’s consistency with those policies are assessed below in Table 16.

Table 16: Consistency with City of Orange General Plan Climate Change Related Policies Topic General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Compact
development
Urban Design Element 1.4: Pedestrian-oriented
places and connections.

Consistent. The proposed project has a
pedestrian-oriented design and would improve
the pedestrian circulation system relative to
existing conditions.

Access to
employment
centers
Circulation and Mobility Element

3.3: Transit-oriented design within commercial,
employment, medium density residential, and
mixed-use areas.

Consistent. Future project residents would be
within walking distance to public transit offered
by the OCTA. The OCTA currently offers bus
services and stops along Garden Grove
Boulevard and The City Drive South.
755
104
Topic General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Growth Management Element

1.8: Housing within close proximity to jobs and
services.

Consistent. The proposed project would
construct a 225-unit apartment building with
retail space on the ground floor. Additionally, the
proposed project would generate employment
opportunities for residents. The project site is
located within the Orange City Square office
complex, thus providing close proximity to
commercial and offices uses.

Economic Development Element

3.4: Higher density residential and mixed-use
projects to provide community-based
workforce and market.

Consistent. The residential density
contemplated by the proposed project would be
consistent with that outlined in Table LU-1
(Land Use Designations) of the General Plan
Land Use Element (City of Orange 2010).

Open space
management
Public Safety Element

2.4: Reduce impervious surface area within new
development.

Consistent. The proposed project would include
landscaping design that would minimize directly
connected impervious area, reduce runoff
volume, and minimize the impervious area of the
project site to the extent practicable.

Tree protection
and planting
Land Use Element

6.9: Maximize landscaping along streetscapes
and within development projects.

Consistent. The proposed project would
incorporate landscaping throughout the project
site including a variety of new trees, shrubs, and
groundcover. Landscaping would be provided in
the two proposed private outdoor courtyards for
residents of the proposed project. The northern
patio area would have nine trees and the southern
patio area would have 11 trees. The total
landscape square footage would be 10,216
square feet.

Energy efficient
technology and
efficient
infrastructure
systems
Infrastructure Element

4.4: Integrated and cost-effective design and
technology features within new development.

Consistent. The proposed project would comply
with the current California Energy Code, and
thus incorporate applicable energy efficiency
features designed to reduce project energy
consumption. Natural Resources Element

2.6: Sustainable building and site designs for
new construction and renovation projects.

Reduced fossil
fuel reliance
Natural Resources Element

2.2: Alternative transportation modes,
alternative technologies, and bicycle- and
pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.

Consistent. The proposed project has a
pedestrian-oriented design. Residents would
have access to retail and recreation within the
building. Additionally, there would be
pedestrian access to the multi-building office
complex. Additionally, the project site is in close
proximity to multiple bus lines and a Class I
Bikeway along the Santa Ana River.

Non-motorized
transportation
Circulation and Mobility Element

4.7: Accessible sidewalks and pedestrian
amenities.

Consistent. The proposed project would provide
pedestrian walkways surrounding new
structures. Additionally, the proposed project
would widen existing sidewalks. Pedestrian
access would be provided via sidewalks to
Garden Grove Boulevard and City Drive South.
756
105
Topic General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Transitsupporting
facilities
Growth Management Element

1.9: New development incorporates nonmotorized and alternative transit amenities.

Consistent. There is a planned reduction of
lanes on Memory Lane (which becomes Garden
Grove Boulevard at City Drive South) to
accommodate plans for a bike lane in each
direction. Furthermore, the proposed project
would provide pedestrian walkways surrounding
new structures and would widen existing
sidewalks. Finally, the proposed project would
be in close proximity to multiple bus lines and a
Class I Bikeway along the Santa Ana River.

Reduce vehicle
emissions
Natural Resources Element

2.2: Support alternative transportation modes,
alternative technologies, and bicycle- and
pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.

GHG emission
reduction
strategies
Natural Resources Element

3.1: Evaluate the potential effects of climate
change on the City’s human and natural systems
and prepare strategies that allow the City to
appropriately respond and adapt

3.2: Develop and adopt a comprehensive
strategy to reduce greenhouse gases within
Orange to at least 1990 levels by 2020.

Consistent. The proposed project would be
consistent with the General Plan designation for
the project site for Urban Mixed-Use and would
not require a general plan amendment. The
proposed project would be consistent with the
goals and policies of the City’s General Plan,
including Policies 2.1 through 2.9 of the General
Plan Land Use Element, which encourage
mixed-use development for purposes of
promoting convenient and efficient relationships
between housing, employment, services, and
transit. Given that the proposed project would
comply with the land use designations of the
project site and would increase residential
density in a developed area, the proposed project
would be consistent with the goals and policies
adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of GHGs contained within the City’s
General Plan.

Water use
efficiency and
reduced
consumption
Natural Resources Element

2.14: Reduce pollutant runoff from new
development through use of BMPs.

Consistent. The proposed project would reduce
pollutant runoff through the use of BMPs.

Source of policies: City of Orange. 2010. General Plan. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/210/637698172559270000. Accessed August 18, 2022.

As demonstrated in Table 16 above, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable climate change related policies contained within the General Plan.

Conclusion
As shown in Table 15, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the reduction measures proposed in SB 32. In addition, the proposed project would not conflict with the General Plan as shown in Table 16. In summary, the proposed plan would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce the emissions of GHGs. Nor would the proposed project’s combined amortized construction and annual operational GHG emissions exceed the applicable threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. Considering this information, the 757
106
proposed plan would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce the emissions of GHGs; impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. 758
107

5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(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 complied 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?
The information in this section is based, in part, on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) prepared for the residential site at 840 The City Drive South dated July 18, 2019 and a Phase I ESA for the parking garage site located at 790 The City Drive South dated January 27, 2021 both prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., and an Indoor Air Quality Assessment prepared by SCS Engineers dated January 16, 2019. These reports are included as Appendix F-1, , Appendix F-2, and Appendix F-4 of this IS/MND. The findings of the Phase I ESAs are based on the results of a site visit, records review, and interviews. The purpose of the Phase I ESAs were to identify evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs),63 Historical RECs (HRECs),64 or Controlled RECs (CRECs)65 in connection with the project site. Note that the Phase I ESA for the parking garage site dated January 27, 2021, prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., is based on a larger study area than what is currently proposed. The analysis includes the 63 RECs are defined, according to ASTM E1527-13 as, “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not RECs.” 64 HRECs are defined, according to ASTM E1527-13, as, “a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls.” 65 CRECs are defined, according to ASTM E1527-13, as, “a REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls.” 759
108
build-out of a stand-alone parking structure previously contemplated in the northern portion of the

5.86-acre site, which is no longer part of the proposed project. Thus, this conservative analysis evaluates the worst-case scenario.

Impact Analysis
(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
A significant impact may occur if a project would involve the use or disposal of hazardous materials as part of its routine operations or would generate toxic or otherwise hazardous emissions that could adversely affect sensitive receptors.

According to the General Plan Safety Element, the City follows the County’s Hazardous Materials Inspection and Enforcement Plan. To prevent accidents and ensure proper handling, routine inspections are conducted at businesses within the City that store, use, or handle hazardous materials. The City concentrates production of hazardous materials within its industrial area, separated from residential areas, educational uses, and institutional facilities. The City also identifies businesses transporting, manufacturing, using, and storing hazardous chemicals, and requires such businesses to exercise caution and to mitigate potential negative effects on surrounding land uses prior to obtaining businesses licenses. Periodic assessment and analysis of potential threats related to hazardous materials will result in proper response to hazardous substance emergencies. In addition, plans for residential or for mixed-use projects on industrial or commercial lands will be required to undergo proper site assessment and remediation prior to development.66
The project site is currently developed with a commercial building. The proposed project would include demolition and construction activities that would include the presence of small quantities of hazardous materials, such as paint, diesel fuel, lubricants, gasoline, and other petroleum-based products used to operate and maintain construction equipment and vehicles. However, the use of these materials would be temporary and would coincide with the short-term construction phase of the project. Additionally, the amounts of hazardous materials would be typical of construction projects and would be limited to the amounts needed for construction of the proposed project.

Any handling, transporting, use, or disposal would comply with applicable laws, policies, and programs set forth by various federal, State, and local agencies and regulations. These include California Code of Regulations Title 22 Division 4.5 for appropriate management of hazardous materials, as well as the requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), and Caltrans. Compliance with the applicable hazardous material laws and regulations would ensure that the proposed project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment through 66 City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan – Public Safety Element. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/214/637698172567530000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 760
109
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant.

During the operational phase of the proposed project, hazardous materials may be handled on the project site. Hazardous materials that would likely be used during operation would likely be limited to fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, solvents, household cleaning agents, and similar materials used for maintenance and operation of the apartments, apartment building facilities, amenities, and landscaping. These types of materials are common and represent a low risk to people and the environment when used as intended. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (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?
Transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction and operation of the proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local policies, regulations, and ordinances set forth by the EPA, DTSC, Cal/OSHA, Caltrans, RCRA, Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), and the OCFA. These include the following:
• Health and Safety Codes Sections 25270.7, 25270.8, and 25507; • Vehicle Code Section 23112.5;
• Public Utilities Code Section 7673 (PUC General Orders No. 22-B, 161); • California Government Code Sections 51018, 8670.25.5(a); • Water Codes Sections 13271, 13272; and
• California Labor Code Section 6409.1(b)10.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? A project-related significant adverse effect may occur if the project site is located within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school site, and would potentially release toxic emissions which would 761
110
pose a health hazard beyond regulatory thresholds. There are no schools within 0.25-mile of the project site. The nearest school to the project site is Riverdale Elementary School, located 0.33- mile southwest of the project site at 13222 Lewis Street in Garden Grove. The nearest school within the Orange Unified School District is Lampson Elementary School, located at 13321 Lampson Avenue in Garden Grove, 0.75-mile northwest of the project site. This condition precludes the possibility of emitting hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25-mile of a school. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Significance Determination: No impact
Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Residential Site
Based on a review of regulatory databases performed as part of the Phase I ESA, a dry cleaning service called Cecilia’s Cleaners was located at the residential portion of the project site from at least 1989 until 2012. Historical information indicates that the dry cleaners used tetrachloroethene (PCE) from at least 1989 through 1999. A release of PCE occurred at the project site and has affected soil and soil gas at the site. A 1999 soils investigation detected PCE in a soil sample collected on the site. Additional soil samples collected in 2014 and 2015 detected the presence of PCE in soils at the site. Vapor encroachment and intrusion associated with the release of PCE is considered a REC at the site.67
In 2017, the current property owner entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with the DTSC in November 2017 for assessing and remediating the PCE at the project site.

According to the Phase I ESA database search results, a Risk Assessment Report and Remedial Investigation Report were to be completed for the project site. The Health Risk Assessment that evaluated PCE was completed and included in the Indoor Air Quality Assessment on January 16, 2019. And consistent with the recommendation of the DTSC, as part of the Voluntary Cleanup Agreement, an Indoor Air Quality Assessment was prepared by SCS Engineers on January 16, 2019 (noted in the previous sentence), to assess the potential for vapor intrusion of PCE or its degradation products into the building from soil vapor associated with the former Cecilia’s Cleaners.

According to the Indoor Air Quality Assessment, the PCE levels that were detected during the assessment indicate that the chemical exposure does not exceed the level considered safe for longterm exposure. Additionally, the assessment indicated that subsurface soil and soil vapor sampling did not identify PCE at levels that would pose a significant risk to groundwater or result in a 67 Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2019. Phase I ESA, 840 The City Drive South. 762
111
significant risk of vapor intrusion. The Indoor Air Quality Assessment concluded that there is no significant risk to groundwater, that the former dry cleaning operation poses no significant risk of vapor intrusion, and that further investigation of soil, soil vapor, or groundwater at the project site is not recommended.

According to the Phase I ESA for the residential portion of the project site, there are no other concerns on this portion of the site, and there is no evidence of CRECs or HRECs.

According to the Indoor Air Quality Investigation Report (Appendix F-3 and Appendix F-4), a DTSC-approved workplan was prepared for the project site dated March 12, 2018, which concluded that PCE was not present in indoor air at concentrations above its residential or commercial/industrial DTSC-Recommended screening level (SL).

Twenty-nine VOCs were detected in indoor air samples, six of which (benzene, chloroform, 1,2- dichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride, naphthalene, and hexachlorobutadiene) were detected at concentrations exceeding either their respective residential or commercial/industrial DTSCRecommended SLs. Each of these six VOCs was also detected in ambient air (AA) samples also at concentrations exceeding the DTSC-Recommended SLs, indicating that the project site is not a source of these VOCs in indoor air.

Subsurface soil and soil vapor sampling did not identify PCE at levels that would pose a significant risk to groundwater, and there are no residuals of VOCs under the building that could pose a significant risk of vapor intrusion. Subsurface concentrations of PCE are low, limited in extent, and well defined. Soil vapor VOC concentrations over time show PCE concentrations are decreasing, suggesting that its presence is being removed by natural attenuation or diffusion.

In summary, the multiple lines of evidence discussed above have demonstrated that there is no significant risk to groundwater and the former dry cleaning operation poses no significant risk of vapor intrusion. Further investigation of soil, soil vapor, or groundwater at the project site was not recommended in the Indoor Air Quality Investigation Report.

Additionally, the Phase I ESA prepared for the residential site recommended observations to be made during future property development for areas of possible contamination, such as, but not limited to, the presence of underground facilities, buried debris, waste drums, and tanks, stained soil, or odorous soil pursuant to MM HAZ-1. Should such materials be encountered, further investigation and analysis would be necessary at that time.

Parking Garages
The Phase I ESA completed for the proposed stand-alone parking garage confirmed the findings that a release of PCE associated with Cecilia’s Cleaners occurred at the residential portion of the project site and has affected soil and soil gas in that area. No on-site RECs, CRECs, or HRECs or off-site RECs were identified pursuant to the Phase I ESA prepared for the stand-alone parking 763
112
garage site.
68 Pursuant to the Phase I ESA prepared for the stand-alone parking garage site, the City will review observations made during property development for areas of possible contamination, such as, but not limited to, the presence of underground facilities, buried debris, waste drums, and tanks, stained soil, or odorous soil as outlined in MM HAZ-1. Should such materials be encountered, further investigation and analysis would be necessary at that time.

Potentially significant impacts associated with hazardous materials would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated for both the residential and parking garage site.

Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures:

MM HAZ-1 During property development, the Owner/Developer shall retain a hazards specialist to conduct biweekly site visits to observe for areas of possible contamination, such as, but not limited to, the presence of underground facilities, buried debris, waste drums, and tanks, stained soil, or odorous soil. Should hazardous materials be encountered, further investigation and analysis shall be necessary as deemed appropriate by City staff and/or Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA). Documentation and site visit notes shall be provided to City staff for review.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
(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?
The project site is not located within 2 miles of a public airport or a public use airport. Additionally, the project site is not located within an airport land use plan. The nearest airports are the Fullerton Municipal Airport, located 8.3 miles northwest of the project site, and the John Wayne Airport, located 6.5 miles south of the project site. Thus, the project site is not located within an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) or within 2 miles of a public or public use airport.

Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. There would be no impacts.

According to the General Plan Safety Element, the City complies with the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County’s Heliports and Airport Environs Land Use Plan to ensure that future land uses located near helipads remain compatible. This plan requires that construction or alteration of structure in excess of 200 feet tall complies with federal and State law 68 Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2021. Phase I ESA, Proposed Parking Garages. January. 764
113
(FAR Part 77 and PUC 21676(b), respectively) and with the requirements of the ALUC for Orange County, as well as all applicable requirements of the City of Orange.

While there are no airports in proximity of the project site, several helipads exist in the area. The University of California, Irvine (UCI) Medical Center has an at-grade helipad at the southeast corner of Chapman Avenue and The City Drive, approximately 0.91 mile north of the project site.

Additionally, the Orange County Fire Training Facility has an at-grade helipad and is located approximately 1.47 miles to the northeast, at the Orangewood Avenue and Rampart Street intersection. A rooftop helipad is located 1.52 miles northeast of the site at the Children’s Hospital of Orange County, near the intersection of West La Veta Avenue and Main Street.

Because of the project site’s distance from these helipads, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a change in air traffic patterns, and the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working on-site or in the area. There are also buildings of similar height to the proposed project that are located adjacent to and in the proximity of the helipads, as well as within the office complex surrounding the project site. Therefore, the height of the proposed building and structures would not interfere with helicopter operations at these helipads.

Additionally, while over congested areas, helicopters are required to maintain an altitude of at least 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within 2,000 feet of the aircraft, except as needed for takeoff and landing (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Title 14, § 91.119). Furthermore, helicopter takeoffs and landings are at a sufficient enough distance from the project site so as to not pose a safety hazard to residents, workers, or guests within the project site or its surroundings. Therefore, there would be no impacts.

Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. (f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The City has an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) that establishes emergency preparedness and emergency response procedures for both peacetime and wartime disasters. The City’s EOP was prepared in accordance with the State Office of Emergency Services guidelines for multi-hazard functional planning. The plan consists of three parts: (1) a basic plan; (2) annexes the address specific functions and duties of response agencies; and (3) a directory of emergency response resources. Rather than focusing on specific responses for specific hazards, the City’s plan concentrates on specific agency response for any type of disaster. For example, in the event of an 765
114
earthquake, flood, or industrial accident, the Orange City Fire Department (OCFD) is responsible for fire suppression, emergency medical care, and rescue operations.69 According to the General Plan Public Safety Element, all City arterials are recognized as primary emergency response routes. In addition, non-arterials can be secondary emergency response routes.

The City’s Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, which identifies traffic management and traffic calming tools, specifies that emergency vehicle access should be accommodated consistent with response standards with implementation of appropriate traffic management measures. Additionally, if current emergency vehicle access does not meet existing response standards, traffic calming efforts should not further degrade response times.

The General Plan Public Safety Element states that City’s EOP does not indicate evacuation routes for emergency situations. The routes of escape from disaster-stricken areas will depend on the scale and scope of the disaster. However, emergency egress will most often take place on Chapman Avenue, Katella Avenue, Glassell Street, Lincoln Avenue, Orangewood Avenue, and Hewes Street.70
The City Drive is the nearest designated evacuation corridor to the project site.71 The proposed project would not affect access to The City Drive during project construction or operation. The proposed project does not include street closures and therefore would not affect emergency access to The City Drive evacuation corridor. Construction and internal circulation would comply with the applicable fire codes as required by the OCFD. Implementation of the proposed project during construction and operational would not impair or physically interfere with the City’s EOP, the General Plan Safety Element, or any other emergency response plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
According to the General Plan Public Safety Element, fire and its destructive potential are safety concerns within both the urban areas of the City and the undeveloped hillsides. Wildland fires are most problematic along the developed residential fringes of the hillsides, known as the wildlandurban interface. On a seasonal basis, dry vegetation, little seasonal rain, and Santa Ana wind conditions combine to increase wildfire potential. New development, particularly in the eastern 69 City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan – Public Safety Element. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/214/637698172567530000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 70 City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan – Public Safety Element. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/214/637698172567530000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 71 City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan – Public Safety Element, Figure PS-4, Generalized Evacuation Corridors. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/214/637698172567530000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 766
115
portion of Orange, would result in increased fire hazards due to higher levels of interface between residential development and open grassland and vegetation along hillsides.72 The project site is in an urbanized area of the City and is surrounded by commercial and residential uses. The project site is currently developed with a commercial building and parking lot. The project site is not located near the wildland-urban interface or near the eastern portion of the City.

The project site is not located in or adjacent to a Fire Hazard Severity Zone as mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE).73 The nearest Fire Hazard Severity Zone is in the City of Villa Park, California, 5.31 miles northeast of the project site.

Additionally, as shown in the Environmental and Natural Hazard Policy Map of the General Plan Public Safety Element, the project site is not within a designated wildland fire hazard area.74 Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial hazards from wildland fires. There would be no impacts.

Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. 72 City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan – Public Safety Element, Figure PS-4, Generalized Evacuation Corridors. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/214/637698172567530000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 73 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2020. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Website:
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed August 18, 2022. 74 City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan – Public Safety Element, Figure PS-1, Environmental and Natural Hazard Policy Map. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/214/637698172567530000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 767
116

5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water 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:
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; 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
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? The information in this section is based, in part, on a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the project by Kimley-Horn on August 30, 2022, and the Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report prepared for the project by Leighton and Associates, Inc. on July 18, 2019. These documents are available as Appendix E-1 and G-1 of this IS/MND, respectively.

Impact Analysis
(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
A significant impact may occur if a project discharges water which does not meet the quality standards of agencies that regulate surface water quality and water discharges into stormwater drainage systems. Water quality within the City of Orange is regulated by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana RWQCB). Water quality impacts are often separated into two primary categories: construction-related impacts and operational impacts. The proposed project has the potential to release water pollutants during both construction and operations that may violate water quality standards.

Construction
The proposed project would involve ground-disturbing activities such as grading that have the potential to cause erosion. Grading activities, in particular, lead to temporarily exposed areas of loose soil, as well as sediment stockpiles, that are susceptible to uncontrolled sheet flow. Although 768
117
erosion occurs naturally in the environment, primarily from weathering by water and wind action, improperly managed construction activities can lead to substantially accelerated rates of erosion that are considered detrimental to the environment.

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program was established through the federal Clean Water Act to control and reduce pollutant discharges to surface water bodies.

Construction activities, including grading, that would result in the disturbance of 1 acre or more would require compliance with the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activity (Construction General Permit). The proposed project site encompasses 5.86 acres and would therefore be required to comply with the Construction General Permit. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted a requirement for obtaining NPDES Construction General Permit. To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, a project applicant must submit a Notice of Intent and a Stomrwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Activities subject to the Construction General Permit include clearing, grading, and ground disturbance. The purpose of the SWPPP is to identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that could affect the quality of stormwater discharges and to describe and implement BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater and nonstormwater discharges resulting from construction activities.

The proposed project would prepare and implement a SWPPP. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with MM GEO-1, which would require implementation of the recommendations pertaining to site grading from the Due Diligence Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation prepared for the proposed project on July 18, 2019, and revised January 4, 2021, by Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Appendix E-1), and would comply with the City’s grading ordinance. Compliance with the City’s grading ordinance, the SWPPP, and MM GEO-1 would ensure that the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion that would violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during the construction phase.

The proposed project would comply with the City of Orange Stormwater Local Implementation Plan (LIP), which, in conjunction with the County of Orange Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and its updates, is the principal policy and guidance document for the City’s NPDES Storm Water Program.75 The LIP requires all private and public works construction projects to implement and be protected by an effective combination of erosion and sediment controls and waste and materials management BMPs (best management practices) to prevent discharges into the storm drain system or watercourses. The required erosion and sediment controls and waste and materials management BMPs would be implemented during the proposed project’s construction phase, as well as the City’s designated construction-specific BMPs as set forth in DAMP Section

8.2.4.3 to reduce or eliminate discharges of pollutants from construction sites.76 75 City of Orange. July 2011. Stormwater Local Implementation Plan (LIP). Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/500/637702460732200000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 76 Ibid. 769
118
Project design features aimed at reducing impacts to water quality, along with the implementation of MM GEO-1 and the project-specific construction BMPs shown in the SWPPP erosion and sediment control plans and grading plans would reduce potentially significant construction impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Operations
The proposed project would comply with the requirements of the current NPDES MS4 Permit.

Responsibilities include, but are not limited to, designing BMPs into project features and operations to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality and to manage changes in the timing and quantity of runoff (i.e., hydromodification) associated with operation of the project. The final design would include measures and practices designed to mitigate potential water quality degradation and hydromodification of runoff from all portions of completed developments. The proposed project would include site design BMPs, source control BMPs, low impact development (LID) BMPs and hydromodification BMPs (as applicable). Since infiltration is infeasible, biolfiltration BMPs are proposed to treat the 85th percentile storm event prior to being conveyed into the public storm drains system. Examples of BMPs to be implemented at the project site may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Subsurface infiltration galleries will be incorporated at or below the sub-surface slab grade, which is at the depth of the clay layer of the existing soil that has a very low infiltration rate.
• Minimize impervious areas and directly connected impervious areas by incorporating landscaped areas throughout the site surrounding the proposed building, within the common areas, and around the perimeter and interior walkways of the proposed building and parking structure.
• Educational materials will be provided to tenants, including brochures and restrictions to reduce pollutants from reaching the storm drain system. Employees and contractors would be trained to ensure awareness of activities that may result in pollutants reaching the storm drain, spill cleanup procedures, and proper waste disposal. • The owner will be responsible for performing trash pickup and sweeping of littered common areas on a weekly basis or more often when necessary. Responsibilities will also include noting improper disposal materials by tenants. • Source control BMPs such as storm drain signage, efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, and water conservation.

Additionally, the proposed project would implement site design BMPs, source control BMPs, and LID BMPs as specified in the WQMP. Site design BMPs would include, but are not limited to, landscape design that would minimize directly connected impervious areas, reduce runoff volume, and minimize the impervious area of the site. Nonstructural source control BMPs would include education for property owners, tenants, and occupants, restrictions on activities that could affect water quality, reducing pollutants through landscape management practices, maintenance of 770
119
BMPs, and common area litter control. Structural source control BMPs would include storm drain signage, efficient irrigation systems, landscape design, and water conservation measures.

Implementation of BMPs and compliance with the LIP and DAMP, as well as MM GEO-1, would ensure that the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards. Potentially significant impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: Implement MM GEO-1.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
(b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The Orange County Water District (OCWD) manages the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin), which covers approximately 350 square miles beneath the Tustin and Downey Plains. The City obtains approximately 55 percent of its water from City-owned groundwater wells.

As shown in the General Plan Natural Resources Element, groundwater recharge facilities within or adjacent to the City include the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. The project site is not located within or near the groundwater recharge facilities as mapped in the General Plan.77 The Due Diligence Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation (Appendix E-1) determined that a groundwater depth of 30 feet below ground surface (BGS) should be assumed for the purposes of project design. Additionally, no shallow groundwater was encountered during percolation test borings, although stratigraphy at the site may cause accumulation of perched groundwater at around 15 feet BGS. According to the report, fluctuations in groundwater level, and the occurrence of localized zones of temporary perched water and increases in soil moisture should be anticipated during/following winter seasons or periods of locally intense rainfall or stormwater runoff. 78 A Preliminary WQMP and Preliminary Hydrology Analysis were prepared for the proposed project by Kimley Horn and Fuscoe Engineering, dated August 30, 2022 and January 8, 2021, respectively, and are included in Appendix G-1 and Appendix G-2 of this IS/MND. Percolation tests conducted for the WQMP encountered a groundwater depth at 16 feet BGS.

Because both buildings have sub-surface parking, the BMP would need to be located at or below the sub-surface pad elevation. This would put it in the clay layer of the existing soil which, per the percolation test results, has a very low infiltration rate. Implementation of MM GEO-1 would ensure the project design includes consideration of the historic groundwater depth of 77 City of Orange. Orange General Plan Natural Resources Element, Figure NR-2, Drainage Areas and Water Recharge Facilities. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/210/637698172559270000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 78 Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2019. Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report. July 18. 771
120
approximately 30 BGS. With implementation of MM GEO-1, the proposed project would not substantially interfere with groundwater supplies or recharge. Potentially significant impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: Implement MM GEO-1.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
(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? A significant impact may occur if a project results in a substantial alteration of drainage patterns that would result in a substantial increase in erosion or siltation during construction or operation of the project. As discussed in Impact 5.10(a), the proposed project must comply with NPDES requirements, which include obtaining coverage under the General Construction Permit by filing the Permit Registration Documents (a Notice of Intent and SWPPP, among others). The SWPPP identifies erosion control and sediment control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the General Construction Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants.

According to the WQMP, under the existing conditions, the site sheet flows to the south and east before connecting to a 54-inch City storm drain line. The City storm drain flows southeasterly before draining to the Santa Ana River. All runoff into the Santa Ana River that is not infiltrated discharges the Pacific Ocean at Huntington Beach.79 The project site is served by an existing 24- inch drain that flows westerly, a 30-inch storm drain that flows westerly to a 54-inch storm drain along Garden Grove Boulevard, an 18-inch storm drain that flows southerly, and a 21-inch storm drain that flows southerly to the 54-inch storm drain along Garden Grove Boulevard. The flows from the 54-inch storm drain are conveyed easterly and discharged into Santa Ana River.

Under the proposed conditions, runoff would be conveyed via proposed curb, gutter, and storm drain systems. Each of the proposed lots and structures would be graded to drain toward the proposed private streets. Under final buildout conditions, low-flows and first-flush runoff from the stand-alone parking structure will be intercepted by curb and gutter prior to draining to a proposed Modular Wetland System BMPs. The mixed-use areas will have low-flows and first- flush runoff go to one of three proposed Modular Wetland System BMPs. The proposed parking structures and the mixed-use area are all within three distinct areas of the property and all within different parcels.

Flows would be treated by flow based Modular Wetland Systems prior to discharging into the public storm drain system. All BMPs would be privately maintained. Flows beyond the capture 79 Kimley-Horn. 2022. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). August 30. 772
121
efficiency volume would bypass the system and discharge directly to the Santa Ana River via the proposed private and existing public storm drain system.81 The proposed curb, gutter, and storm drain systems would include BMPs to minimize erosion.

BMPs would include programs and policies, including structural controls, to control the discharge of pollutants from the project site.

With implementation of the BMPs, the proposed project would not alter drainage patterns such that substantial erosion or siltation would occur. Impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site
The proposed project would install an on-site storm drainage system and incorporate a vegetated swale on the east side of the proposed multi-use building that will collect flow and allow it to infiltrate into the shallow sand layer of soil below. According to the WQMP, the proposed project would decrease impervious surfaces as compared to existing conditions.82 Implementation of BMPs, such as landscape design that would minimize directly connected impervious areas, efficient irrigation systems, and minimization of impervious areas, would ensure that the proposed project does not contribute to surface runoff that would result in flooding. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase surface runoff on the project site. Impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (iii) create of contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or
According to the WQMP, the proposed project would decrease impervious surfaces as compared to existing conditions.83 Consistent with the requirements of the Construction General Permit, the proposed project would implement a SWPPP during construction that would include structural and nonstructural BMPs to prevent significant volumes of polluted runoff during construction. The proposed project would install an on-site storm drainage system and incorporate a vegetated swale on the east side of the proposed multi-use building that will collect flow and allow it to infiltrate 81 Kimley-Horn. 2022. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). August 30. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid. 773
122
into the shallow sand layer of soil below to reduce during operational activities. Collectively, these features would be included in the project design to help ensure that the proposed project would not contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of downstream stormwater drainage systems or contribute substantial volumes of polluted runoff to the storm drainage system during construction and operations.

The total runoff flows from the proposed project would be slightly decreased from the existing conditions. Additionally, the flow to the existing 54-inch storm drain along Garden Grove Boulevard would not exceed the existing condition for the 2-year, 25-year, and 100-year storm events, as shown in Table 17 below.

Table 17: Impacts to Existing 54-Inch Drain Along Garden Grove Event
Existing
(cfs)
Proposed
(cfs)
Change
(cfs) Percentage change
2-Year 18.31 18.23 0.08 0.4%
25-Year 39.62 39.52 0.10 0.3%
100-Year 50.83 50.71 0.12 0.2%
Notes:
cfs = cubic feet per second
Source: Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 2021. Preliminary Hydrology Analysis. January.

Therefore, the proposed drainage would not exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
The project site is located in an area designated as an Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee (Zone X) and is therefore not susceptible to inundation from flood hazards. 84 As discussed above, the proposed project would include a curb, gutter, and storm drain system, as well as BMPs such as minimization of impervious areas and infiltration systems. The proposed project design criteria would meet the stormwater and flood protection goals as outlined in the Orange County Design Manual.85 Additionally, the proposed project would result in total runoff flows that are slightly decreased from the existing conditions.
86 Therefore, the proposed project would not impede or
redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant. 84 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2009. Flood Map No. 06059C0144J. Website: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Accessed August 18, 2022. 85 Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 2021. Preliminary Hydrology Analysis. January. 86 Ibid. 774
123
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The project site is located in an area designated as an Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee (Zone X).87 This zone is not within a special flood hazard area and is therefore not part of the 100- year flood hazard zone. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood map, there is a levee system along the Santa Ana River corridor to the east of the project site. The nearest special flood hazard area is located inside of the levee system along the Santa Ana River corridor, 430 feet east of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. According to the Due Diligence Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation (Appendix E-1), based on the inland location of the site, impacts to the site due to seiches or tsunamis is not considered to be a hazard.88 Because the project site is not in a flood hazard area or at risk of seiches or tsunamis, no impacts would occur.

Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. (e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Because the project construction would disturb more than 1 acre of land, the proposed project would be required to comply with the terms of the Construction General Permit, which require the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs to minimize the risk of pollutants from construction activities entering surface waters or groundwater basins.

During post-construction activities and operations of the proposed project, educational materials will be provided to tenants, including brochures and restrictions to reduce pollutants from reaching the storm drain system. Examples include tips for pet care, household tips, and proper household hazardous waste disposal. Tenants will be provided with these materials by the property management prior to occupancy, and periodically thereafter. Furthermore, the Owner would restrict ongoing activities that have the potential to create adverse impacts on water quality.

Activities include, but are not limited to: handling and disposal of contaminants, fertilizer and pesticide application restrictions, litter control and pick-up, and vehicle or equipment repair and maintenance, washing down of impervious surfaces, as well as any other activities that may potentially contribute to water pollution. The Owner will be responsible for the implementation and maintenance of each applicable nonstructural BMP, as well as scheduling inspections and 87 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2009. Flood Map No. 06059C0144J. Website: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Accessed August 18, 2022. 88 Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2019. Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report. July 18. 775
124
maintenance of all applicable structural BMP facilities through its staff, landscape contractor, and/or any other necessary maintenance contractors.

Therefore, with implementation of BMPs during construction and operational activities, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a water quality control plan or groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. 776
125

5.11 Land Use/Planning
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Physically divide an established community?
(b) Cause a significant environment impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact Analysis
(a) Physically divide an established community?
A significant impact may occur if a project were sufficiently large enough or otherwise configured in such a way as to create a physical barrier within an established community. A typical example would be a project that involves a continuous right-of-way such as a roadway, which would divide a community and impede access between parts of the community. The proposed project is not of the scale or nature that could physically divide an established community, as the project site is currently developed and is surrounded by a mix of residential, commercial, and retail uses.

The proposed project would include the development of a 225-unit multi-family residential building with up to 9,000 square feet of ground level retail space, a 3,628 square foot private fitness center, and a 6,635 square foot lobby, leasing, and lounge area, as well as one stand-alone open parking structure, on a site that is currently developed with a commercial building, 4-story office building, and surface parking lots.

The project site is in an urbanized area of the City and is part of a larger multi-building office complex. The proposed project would be consistent with the existing character of the area. There are currently established residential communities surrounding the multi-building office complex to the north, south, and west. The proposed project would not physically divide or have any impact on these residential communities. Residents of these communities would not be impacted, as the proposed project would not encroach on these communities and would not remove or create a barrier to any roads or sidewalks used by the members of the surrounding residential communities.

The proposed project would not introduce infrastructure improvements that would bisect or transect the existing residential communities and would not interrupt access to the existing residential communities. The proposed project would increase pedestrian access and connectivity through the improvement of existing sidewalks.

Furthermore, the proposed project would integrate the proposed residential uses with existing transit corridors, commercial/retail, office, and open space uses in the surrounding area, which would result in a more integrated and connected urban environment. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any physical barriers or otherwise divide or disrupt the physical arrangement of the existing residential communities. No impacts would occur. 777
126
Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. (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?
A significant impact may occur if a project is inconsistent with applicable land use plans or zoning designations and would cause adverse environmental effects, which these regulations are designed to avoid or mitigate. The adopted land use regulations applicable to the project site include the General Plan and Zoning Code. The following is an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with the City’s land use regulations.

General Plan Consistency
The General Plan land use designation for the project site is UMIX and is within the West Chapman Avenue/Uptown Orange focus area. The UMIX designation provides for integrated commercial retail, professional office, housing, and civic uses within West Chapman Avenue/Uptown Orange and allows development densities of 1.5-3.0 FAR and 30-60 dwelling units per acre. These areas are intended to provide urban, high-intensity, regionally oriented activity centers that define the character of surrounding areas. Convenient transit access, innovative housing options, and pedestrian-oriented design are key considerations.

Project density is calculated utilizing the three parcels [231-261-13 (1.92 acres), 231-261-16 (0.95 acres), and 231-261-17 (2.99 acres)] totaling 5.86-acres. Thus, 225 dwelling units on 5.86 acres is approximately 38.4 dwelling units/acre. The proposed multi-family residential gross area is 249,664 square feet, ground level commercial is 9,000 square feet, amenity uses total 6,635 square feet, the fitness center is 3,628 square feet, and the existing office building at 790 The City Drive is 98,800 square feet resulting in a total of 367,727 square feet. Thus, the resulting FAR is 1.44.

Consistent with the UMIX designation of the project site, the proposed project would conform with and provide for the urban, high-intensity uses outlined in the General Plan for the project site, as well as the urban, high-intensity uses envisioned for the West Chapman Avenue/Uptown Orange focus area.

The proposed project includes the demolition of an existing single-story retail building and associated surface parking lot in order to construct a 6-story, 225-unit multi-family residential apartment complex with ground level retail/restaurant space, private fitness center, and lobby, leasing, and lounge area. The proposed project also includes construction of a 3-story basement level parking structure beneath the footprint of the mixed-use building, and construction of a standalone, two-story open parking structure for use by the adjacent multi-building office complex, to be located west of the mixed-use building and parallel to the south property line along Garden Grove Boulevard. The proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, including Policies 2.1 through 2.9 of the General Plan Land Use Element, which 778
127
encourage mixed-use development for purposes of promoting convenient and efficient relationships between housing, employment, services, and transit.89 Furthermore, the project site is within the West Chapman Avenue/Uptown Orange focus area, which consists of mostly commercial properties west of SR-57. This focus area contains a mix of major destination uses, including shopping, entertainment, offices, hotels, and a hospital. The West Chapman Avenue/Uptown Orange focus area can accommodate additional development intensity, including high-density multi-family residential development. The proposed project includes the development of 225 additional residential dwelling units; therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the development envisioned for this area.

Zoning Consistency
The Zoning Code (Title 17 of the Municipal Code) establishes the basic zoning regulations under which land is developed and utilized and by which the City’s General Plan is systematically implemented. It is the method the City uses to implement control of land uses, in accordance with the General Plan goals and policies.

Per the zoning map, the zoning district of the project site is UMU. Zoning and development standards for the UMU zone are incorporated into Chapter 17.19 (Mixed-Use Districts) of the Zoning Code. The UMU zoning district is intended to provide urban, high-intensity, regionally oriented activity centers. This zoning district provides for integrated commercial retail, professional office, residential, and civic uses. Residential development is allowed, either as part of a mixed-use project or as a freestanding use. Convenient transit access, innovative housing options, and pedestrian-oriented design are key considerations.

Similar to the General Plan land use designation, the UMU zoning district permits a residential density range of 30 to 60 du/acre and a nonresidential intensity range of 1.5 to 3.0 FAR. The proposed multi-family residential gross area is 249,664 square feet, ground level commercial is 9,000 square feet, amenity uses total 6,635 square feet, the fitness center is 3,628 square feet, and the existing office building at 790 The City Drive is 98,800 square feet resulting in a total of 367,727 square feet. Thus, the resulting FAR is 1.44. The proposed project is consistent with the UMU zoning district’s permitted intensity range.

Furthermore, consistent with Chapter 17.19 (Mixed-Use Districts) of the Zoning Code, the proposed project provides direct pedestrian linkages to adjacent public sidewalks, as well as enhanced pedestrian amenities throughout the project development, including seating, pedestrian area lighting, common open space, and similar items to create a pleasant pedestrian experience.

The proposed project would also locate uses in proximity to one another without intervening parking lots, so it is convenient for patrons to walk between the various uses and only park their vehicles once. The proposed project would create a pedestrian scale and character of development along the street by providing varying roof heights and incorporating pedestrian scale elements near public sidewalks to contribute to active street environment. Lighting would also be provided along 89 City of Orange. 2010. General Plan Land Use Element, Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/208/637698172555630000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 779
128
sidewalks, courtyards, and other common areas to enhance the pedestrian environment and increase public safety.

Conclusion
Based on the preceding information, implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. 780
129

5.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(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?
Impact Analysis
(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?
A significant impact would occur if a project was located in an area used or available for extraction of a locally or regionally important mineral resource, if the project converted an existing or potential future locally or regionally important mineral extraction use to another use, or if the project affected access to a site in use or potentially available for locally or regionally important mineral resource extraction. According to the General Plan Natural Resource Element93 and the Land Use Policy Map,94 mineral resource deposits are primarily limited to sand and gravel resources in and along the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. These mineral resources have mostly been exhausted from previous mining activity and urbanization. The Santa Ana River is located 430 feet east of the project site; however, the project site and the segment of the Santa Ana River near the project site are not designated for mineral resources or mining activities.

Additionally, mineral mining uses are not permitted on the site under the UMU zone. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of mineral resources that are of value to the region and to residents of the State. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. (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? The project site is in an urbanized area of the City, and the site is not permitted for mining use under the UMU zone. Because the project site lacks locally important mineral resource recovery sites and is not permitted for mining use, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
93 City of Orange. 2010. General Plan Natural Resources Element. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/210/637698172559270000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 94 City of Orange. 2010. General Plan Land Use Element, Figure LU-5, Land Use Policy Map. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/208/637698172555630000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 781
130
Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. 782
131

5.13 Noise
Would the project result in: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(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 levers?
(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?
Impact Analysis
(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
A significant impact would occur if construction activities result in the generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in Chapter 8.24, the noise ordinance of the Municipal Code. According to Section 8.24.050 of the Municipal Code, noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property are exempt from the City’s exterior noise performance standards, provided said activities take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day except for Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a Federal holiday. Noise generated outside of the hours specified are subject to the noise standards identified in the City’s noise performance standards for fixed noise sources, summarized in Table 8.24.040 of the Municipal Code.

Two types of short-term noise impacts would occur during site preparation and project construction. The first type 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 workers and construction equipment would use existing routes, noise from passing trucks would be similar to existing vehicle-generated noise on these local roadways. An increase of 3 dBA in traffic noise levels could insult in potentially significant impact. Typically, a doubling of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) hourly volumes on a roadway segment is required in order to result in an increase of 3 dBA in traffic noise levels; which is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. Project-related construction trips would not double the hourly or daily traffic volumes along any roadway segment in the project vicinity. For these reasons, short-term 783
132
intermittent noise from trucks would be minor when averaged over a longer time-period.

Therefore, short-term construction-related noise impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport to the project site would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels in excess of applicable significance thresholds and would be less than significant.

The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during construction on the project site. 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 could be times where large equipment is not operating and 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 excavation and grading activities, tends to 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 frontend loaders, 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 maximum noise level (Lmax) at 50 feet from this equipment.95 Each frontend loader 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.

A reasonable assumption is that the construction equipment, as described above, would operate simultaneously and continuously over at least a 1-hour period in the vicinity of the closest existing residential receptors, but would move linearly over the project site as the contractor performs earthmoving operations, spending a relatively short amount of time adjacent to any one receptor.

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. 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. These operations would be expected to result in a reasonable worst-case hourly average of 86 dBA equivalent sound 95 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Highway Construction Noise Handbook. August. 784
133
level (Leq) at a distance of 50 feet from the acoustic center of a construction area. The effect on sensitive receptors is evaluated below.

The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the proposed construction footprint are the single-family residences located south of the southern boundary of the project site, approximately 145 feet from the acoustic center of construction activity where multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment would potentially operate at the project site. There is an existing 6-foot high sound wall along the northern property line of these residences bordering Garden Grove Boulevard. At this distance and assuming minimum shielding reduction for the existing sound wall, worst-case construction noise levels could range up to approximately 76 dBA Lmax, intermittently, and could have an hourly average of up to 72 dBA Leq, at the façades of the nearest single-family residential homes.

These construction activities would be required to comply with the City’s exterior noise performance thresholds unless restricted to daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day except for Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a Federal holiday. Therefore, compliance with the City’s permissible hours of construction, as well as implementing the best management noise reduction techniques and practices outlined in MM NOI-1, would ensure that construction noise would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in excess of applicable standards. Therefore, with implementation of MM NOI-1, potentially significant temporary construction noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Operational/Stationary Source Noise Impacts
A significant impact would occur if operational noise levels generated by stationary noise sources at the project site would exceed the following levels at the outdoor activity area of any residential land use in the project vicinity:
• 55 dBA Leq or 70 dBA Lmax between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.; or • 50 dBA Leq or 65 dBA Lmax between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

According to the City’s noise ordinance, for multi-family residential or mixed-use developments located within the General Plan’s urban mixed-use, neighborhood mixed-use, old town mixed-use or medium density residential land use districts, the City’s exterior noise standards apply to common recreation areas only.

The proposed project would generate noise from parking lot activities, which includes people conversing, doors shutting, engine startup, and slow-moving vehicles, at the proposed parking garage; and from new exterior mechanical equipment sources, such as mechanical ventilation systems on the proposed multi-family residential uses.

Parking Lot Activities at Proposed Stand-Alone Parking Structure The nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the southern project boundary are the single-family residences located across Garden Grove Boulevard. The outdoor use areas of these residences 785
134
would be located approximately 150 feet from the nearest acoustic center of parking lot activity within the proposed south parking structure.

Assuming a minimum of one parking movement per stall per hour in the ground level of the proposed south parking structure and taking into account shielding from the existing sound wall that traverses the backyards of these nearest residences, the resulting hourly average project operational noise levels would be approximately 44 dBA Leq at the nearest residential receptor, with a maximum noise level of 50 dBA Lmax. Detailed assumptions and calculations are provided in Appendix H.

These noise levels would not exceed the City’s daytime exterior noise limits of 55 dBA Leq and 70 dBA Lmax for residential receptors. Because parking lot activity would be reduced at this parking structure at nighttime, reasonable worst-case combined hourly average noise levels at nighttime, including shielding from the existing sound wall, would range up to 38 dBA Leq, with a maximum noise level of 50 dBA Lmax. This assumes approximately 25 percent of the parking stalls experiencing a parking movement per hour. These operational noise levels would also not exceed the City’s nighttime exterior noise limit of 45 dBA Leq and 65 dBA Lmax for residential receptors.

Therefore, the impact of noise generated by parking lot activities at the proposed parking structure to off-site sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Operations
At the time of preparation of this analysis, details were not available pertaining to proposed rooftop mechanical ventilation systems for the proposed project; therefore, a reference noise level for typical rooftop mechanical ventilation systems was used. Noise levels from typical residential rooftop mechanical ventilation equipment are anticipated to range up to approximately 60 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet. Proposed rooftop mechanical ventilation systems could be located as close as 130 feet from the nearest off-site noise-sensitive receptor, which is the single-family residence located south of the project site. At this distance, and taking into account shielding from the rooftop parapet, noise generated by rooftop mechanical ventilation equipment on the project site would be reduced to below 41 dBA Leq at the nearest noise-sensitive receptor. These noise levels would not exceed the City’s most restrictive performance standard, the nighttime exterior noise limit of 45 dBA Leq for residential receptors. Therefore, the impact of noise produced by proposed mechanical ventilation equipment operations to off-site sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

Operational/Mobile Source Noise Impacts
According to the General Plan, the City considers permanent increases in ambient noise levels to be significant if a new development would result in an increase by any of the following levels as measured at the outdoor activity area of any noise-sensitive land use:
• +5 dBA CNEL where the existing ambient noise level is less than 65 dBA. • +3 dBA CNEL where the existing ambient noise level is greater than 65 dBA. 786
135
The FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used to evaluate existing and cumulative (Year 2024) traffic noise conditions in the vicinity of the project site. The daily traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for the project by LLG. 96 The resultant noise levels were weighed and summed over a 24-hour period in order to determine the CNEL values. The traffic noise modeling input and output files are included in Appendix H of this IS/MND. Table 19 shows a summary of the traffic noise levels for Existing, Existing Plus Project, Year 2024 Cumulative, and Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project conditions as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane.

Table 18: Traffic Noise Model Results Summary
Roadway Segment
Existing
(dBA) CNEL
Existing
Plus Project
(dBA)
CNEL
Increase
over
Existing
(dBA)
Year 2024
Cumulative
(dBA)
CNEL
Year 2024
Cumulative
Plus Project
(dBA)
CNEL
Increase
over Year
2024
Cumulative
(dBA)
Garden Grove Boulevard—
west of The City Drive South 67.5 67.5 0.0 68.3 68.3 0.0 The City Drive South—north of
Garden Grove Boulevard 65.5 65.6 0.1 66.5 66.6 0.1
Note:
dBA = A-weighted decibel
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
Traffic noise levels as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane.

Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS). 2021.

The highest traffic noise level increase with implementation of the proposed project would occur along Garden Grove Boulevard west of The City Drive South under Existing Plus Project conditions. Along this roadway segment, the proposed project would result in an increase of 0.1 dBA, which is well below a 3 dBA increase that would be considered a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels compared with traffic noise levels that would exist without the project. Therefore, project-related traffic noise impacts on existing traffic noise levels in the project vicinity would be less than significant.

Noise Land Use Compatibility
The City of Orange establishes land use compatibility standards in the General Plan.97 These standards reflect the levels of noise exposure from transportation related sources that are considered to be normally acceptable for various types of land uses.

The proposed project is designated as a new multi-family, mixed-use development located within an Urban Mixed-Use zoning district. Under this designation, exterior noise environments (specifically common outdoor recreational areas) up to 65 A-weighted decibel (dBA) Community 96 Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers (LLG). 2020. 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project. October. 97 City of Orange. March 2010. Orange General Plan. Website https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/208/637698172555630000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 787
136
Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), and interior noise environment up to 45 dBA CNEL, are considered to be normally acceptable for this type of land use.

The dominant noise sources in the project vicinity were from vehicular traffic on Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive South. To document noise levels from these sources, traffic noise modeling was performed. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used to evaluate existing and cumulative (year 2024) traffic noise conditions in the vicinity of the project site. The projected traffic noise levels along roadways adjacent to the project site were analyzed to determine compliance with the City’s land use compatibility standards. The daily traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for the project by LLG.98 The resultant noise levels were weighed and summed over a 24-hour period in order to determine the CNEL values. The traffic noise modeling input and output files are included in Appendix H of this IS/MND.

Table 18 shows a summary of the traffic noise levels for Existing, Existing Plus Project, Year 2024 Cumulative, and Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project conditions as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane of each modeled roadway segment.

Table 19: Traffic Noise Model Results Summary
Roadway Segment
CNEL (dBA) 50 feet from Centerline of Outermost Lane
Existing
(dBA) CNEL
Existing
Plus
Project
(dBA)
CNEL
Year 2024
Cumulative
(dBA) CNEL
Year 2024
Cumulative
Plus Project
(dBA) CNEL
Garden Grove Boulevard—west of The City Drive South 67.5 67.6 68.2 68.2 The City Drive South—north of Garden Grove Boulevard 65.1 65.1 66.0 66.0 Note:
dBA = A-weighted decibel
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
Traffic noise levels as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane.

Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS). 2021.

Traffic noise levels along Garden Grove Boulevard, adjacent to the project site and west of The City Drive South would range up to 68.2 dBA CNEL as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. The proposed common outdoor recreational areas, the pool area located in the southern half of the project site east and south of the proposed residential buildings, is setback approximately 115 feet from the centerline of the nearest travel lane and would be shielded from Garden Grove Boulevard by the intervening proposed buildings. Therefore, distance attenuation and shielding would reduce maximum traffic noise levels from traffic on Garden Grove Boulevard to below 58 dBA CNEL as measured at the nearest proposed outdoor active use areas. 98 Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers (LLG). 2020. 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project. October. 788
137
This ambient noise level is within the City’s maximum allowable exterior noise exposure limit of 65 dBA CNEL for multi-family, mixed-use residential land uses.

The façade of the nearest proposed residential building at the project site would be setback approximately 80 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane of Garden Grove Boulevard.

At this distance, traffic noise levels would range up to approximately 65.6 dBA CNEL at the nearest façade of the proposed residential building. Based on the EPA’s Protective Noise Levels, with a combination of walls, doors, and windows, standard construction in accordance with building code requirements for multi-family residential developments would provide 25 dBA in exterior-to-interior noise reduction with windows closed and 15 dBA or more with windows open.99
With windows open, the interior noise levels of the proposed units nearest to and facing Garden Grove Boulevard would not meet the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL (i.e., 65.6 dBA-15 dBA = 50.6 dBA). However, the proposed residential buildings would include mechanical ventilation, which would allow windows to remain closed for prolonged periods of time, sufficiently reducing traffic noise levels to meet the interior noise level standard of 45 dBA CNEL (i.e., 65.6 dBA–25 dBA = 40.6 dBA). Air conditioning units would give an occupant the option of controlling noise by keeping the windows shut. Therefore, based on the project design of included mechanical ventilation systems, noise levels from traffic on Garden Grove Boulevard would also not result in an exceedance of the City’s interior noise level standard for 45 dBA CNEL as measured inside the nearest façade of the proposed residential units.

Traffic noise levels along The City Drive South, adjacent to the project site and north of Garden Grove Boulevard would range up to 66.0 dBA CNEL as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. The proposed common outdoor recreational area, the pool area located in the southern half of the project site east and south of the proposed residential buildings, would be approximately 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane of The City Drive South.

This patio and pool deck area would be elevated approximately 8 feet above the roadway elevation, and would be shielded by the proposed raised planter beds and glass patio fence, which would be expected to provide a minimum noise reduction of 5 dBA as measured at this outdoor area compared to unshielded conditions. Therefore, traffic noise levels would range up to approximately 61 dBA CNEL in the nearest proposed common outdoor recreational area. This ambient noise level is within the City’s maximum allowable exterior noise exposure limit of 65 dBA CNEL for multi-family, mixed-use residential land uses.

The façade of the nearest proposed residential building at the project site would be setback approximately 40 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane of The City Drive South. At this distance, traffic noise levels would range up to approximately 67 dBA CNEL at the nearest façade of the proposed residential building.

With windows open, the interior noise levels of the proposed units nearest to and facing The City Drive South would not meet the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL (i.e., 67 dBA-15 99 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1978. Protective Noise Levels. November. Website:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=20012HG5.TXT. Accessed August 18, 2022. 789
138
dBA = 52 dBA). However, the proposed residential buildings would include mechanical ventilation, which would allow windows to remain closed for prolonged periods of time, sufficiently reducing traffic noise levels to meet the interior noise level standard of 45 dBA CNEL (i.e., 67 dBA – 25 dBA = 42 dBA). Air conditioning units would give an occupant the option of controlling noise by keeping the windows shut. Therefore, based on the project design of included mechanical ventilation systems, noise levels from traffic on The City Drive South would also not result in an exceedance of the City’s interior noise level standard for 45 dBA CNEL as measured inside the nearest façade of the proposed residential units, and traffic noise impacts to the proposed project to be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact for short-term temporary construction. Less than significant impact for Parking Lot Activities at Proposed Stand-Alone Parking Structure, Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Operations, and Operational/Mobile Source Noise.

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 such market available 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 ensure that all on-site demolition and construction activities, including deliveries and engine warm-up, shall be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day except for Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a Federal holiday.
790
139
Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated for short-term temporary construction. Less than significant impact for Parking Lot Activities at Proposed Stand-Alone Parking Structure, Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Operations, and Operational/Mobile Source Noise.
(b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would generate groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels in excess of established standards. The City of Orange has not established its own vibration impact criteria. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) vibration impact criteria are utilized. 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 Manual.100 Groundborne noise is an effect of groundborne vibration and only exists indoors, since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room, and may also consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves. In general, if groundborne vibration levels are do not exceed levels considered to be perceptible, then groundborne noise levels would not be perceptible in most interior environments. Therefore, this analysis focuses on determining exceedances of groundborne vibration levels.

Although groundborne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects such as the shaking of a building can be notable. When assessing annoyance from groundborne vibration, vibration is typically expressed as root mean square (rms) velocity in units of decibels of 1 microinch 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.

Short-Term Construction Vibration Impacts
Of the variety of equipment that would be used during construction, small vibratory rollers would produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels. Impact equipment such as pile drivers is not expected to be used during construction of the proposed project. 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.

The heaviest construction equipment would potentially operate as close as 50 feet from the nearest off-site structure, the office building located west of the project construction footprint. At this 100 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September. 791
140
distance, groundborne vibration levels would range up to 0.04 in/sec PPV from operation of the types of equipment that would produce the highest vibration levels. This is well below the FTA’s Construction Vibration Impact Criteria of 0.2 in/sec PPV for buildings of non-engineered timber and masonry. Therefore, the impact of groundborne vibration levels on off-site receptors would be less than significant.

Operational Vibration Impacts
The proposed project does not include any permanent noise sources that would expose persons in the project vicinity to groundborne vibration levels that could be perceptible without instruments at any existing sensitive land use in the project vicinity. Therefore, operational vibration impacts on proposed on-site receptors would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact for short-term construction vibration and operation vibration.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact for short-term construction vibration and operation vibration.
(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?
The nearest public use airports to the project site are John Wayne Airport and Fullerton Municipal Airport, approximately 6.4 miles south and 8.1 miles northwest of the project site, respectively.

Because of its distance from the airport runways, and the orientation of the runways relative to the project site, the project site is located outside of the airport’s 55 dBA CNEL noise contours. While airport noise would be audible when planes fly over, it would be less than significant. No private airstrips are located within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels associated with private airstrip or public airport noise. No impact would occur.

Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. 792
141

5.14 Population and Housing
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(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?
The information in this section is based, in part, on a Workforce Housing Analysis prepared by the Natelson Dale Group, Inc., for the proposed project on October 1, 2020, and included as Appendix I of this IS/MND. The purpose of the Workforce Housing Analysis is to help demonstrate the relationship of the proposed project to the workforce of the City of Orange.

Impact Analysis
(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)?
The proposed project would include the development of 225 apartment units, up to 9,000 square feet of retail space; a 3,628-square-foot fitness center; a 6,635-square-foot lobby, leasing, and lounge area; and a swimming pool courtyard on a 5.86-acre site. The proposed project would require a temporary construction workforce and a permanent operational workforce, and would provide residential housing on-site, all of which could induce population growth in the project area.

A Workforce Housing Analysis was prepared for the proposed project on October 1, 2020, (Appendix I) and included an analysis of housing affordability and rental rates in Orange County, median income in Orange County, and potentially appropriate tenants based on occupational categories. The Workforce Housing Analysis concluded that there is an available pool of workers in the City of Orange that would be potentially appropriate tenants for the proposed project.101 The number of construction workers needed during construction would largely depend on the specific stage of construction. The proposed project would not include the construction of roads or new infrastructure that would result in indirect population growth. However, once operational, the proposed project would require employees to manage and operate the apartment complex, retail space, and amenities. The most recent data from September 2020 provided by the California Employment Development Department (EDD) found that the unemployment rate for the City of 101 Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG). 2020. Workforce Housing for the City of Orange, in Relation to a Proposed Street Lights Residential Apartment Project. October 1.
793
142
Orange is 8.4 percent, or 5,900 people.102 As such, the proposed project’s temporary and permanent employment requirements could be met by the City of Orange’s existing labor force without new residents needing to relocate into the project region. Because of the nature of the proposed project, workers who are already present in the local labor force typically fill the kinds of labor skills required for the proposed project.

The proposed apartment building would include 225 apartment units in an area designated UMIX and zoned UMU. The proposed project would create housing for an estimated 697 residents based on the City of Orange average household size of 3.08 persons. 103 An additional 697 residents would
represent less than 1 percent of the City’s population of 138,669. 104
According to the General Plan Housing Element, the City of Orange has a jobs/housing balance ratio of 2.11. The recommended target standards for jobs-housing ratio is approximately 1.5. 105,106
The City of Orange’s jobs/housing balance indicates that there are more jobs available than housing to accommodate workers within the City, creating demand for new housing to accommodate those employed in the City of Orange. Additionally, the General Plan Housing Element has identified that Orange’s fair share of the regional housing growth need according to SCAG is 363 housing units.107 As such, the proposed project would support the housing needs of the City of Orange and the region.
108
Because the proposed project would help the City of Orange meet its housing needs, and because the proposed project is consistent with the planned for population growth of both the General Plan and the most current Housing Element , impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed project would include the development of up to 225 apartment units; up to 9,000 square feet of retail space; a 3,628-square-foot fitness center; a 6,635-square-foot lobby, leasing, 102 California Employment Development Department. 2020. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places, September 2020 – Preliminary. October 16. Website: https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/oransub.xls. Accessed August 18, 2022. 103 United States Census. 2020. QuickFacts, Orange City, California; Orange County, California. Website:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/orangecitycalifornia,orangecountycalifornia/PST045219. Accessed August 18, 2022. 104 Ibid. 105 A ratio of jobs to housing is most commonly used to express the concept of jobs-housing balance. Generally, the jobs-housing ratio is a ratio between a measure of employment and a measure of housing in a given area of analysis. The most basic measure is the ratio of the number of jobs to the number of housing units in an area. To calculate this measure, divide the number of jobs by the number of housing units. For example, if 15,000 persons are employed in a city and 20,000 housing units exist, the city’s jobs-housing unit ratio is 15,000/20,000 = 0.75.

Source: American Planning Association. 2003. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 516. Website: http://planning-org-uploadedmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/publication/download_pdf/PAS-Report-516.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2022. 106 City of Orange. January 2022. General Plan Housing Element 2021-2029. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/2542/637770030609200000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 107 Ibid. 108 Ibid. 794
143
and lounge area; and a swimming pool courtyard on a 5.86-acre site. The project site is currently developed with a commercial building, 4-story office building, and parking lot. The site does not support residential housing in its existing condition as the site is currently developed with commercial retail and office uses; therefore, the proposed project would not displace existing housing. The proposed new residential units would support the City’s housing needs by providing new housing for an estimated 697 people. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace a substantial number of existing housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur.

Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. 795
144

5.15 Public Services
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or 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:
(i) Fire Protection?
(ii) Police Protection?
(iii) Schools?
(iv) Parks?
(v) Other public facilities?
The information in this section is based, in part, on correspondence with the Orange City Fire Department (OCFD), Orange Unified School District (OUSD), and the City of Orange Community Services Department, which occurred between October 16 and November 24, 2020, included as Appendix J-2 and Appendix J-2 of this IS/MND. A letter sent by FCS to the Orange Police Department on October 16, 2020 did not receive a response.

Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
(i) Fire protection?
A significant impact may occur if the fire department could not provide adequate services to a project, or if a new or physically altered fire station would be necessary to serve the project. The project site is served by the OCFD, which provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the City of Orange. FCS received information pertaining to the proposed project from OCFD on November 7, 2020 (Appendix J-2).

The services provided by the OCFD include fire prevention and suppression, paramedic, emergency medical, emergency preparedness, and hazardous materials management/environmental safety. The OCFD consists of three divisions: Fire Administration, Fire Prevention, and Training and Safety. The Operations Division staffs one fire truck (ladder truck), one quintuple combination pumper (quint), seven fire engines (pumpers) staffed with one paramedic and two Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) at eight fire stations, and four rescue ambulances staffed with two paramedics at four fire stations. The OCFD has an average response 796
145
time of 3.23 minutes across all responding units. The average response time for Station 6 units into the fire district near the proposed project is 3.34 minutes.109 The project site would be served by Fire Station 6, located at 345 City Drive South, 0.8 mile north of the project site. However, because the project site is located near the western border of the City, the primary emergency response may come from outside the City of Orange in the event that Fire Station 6 resources are committed to another emergency.110 Emergency access to the site is included in the proposed site plan. Emergency vehicle access to the site would be provided via The City Drive South. The proposed project design would not interfere with emergency vehicle access to the site or to other areas surrounding the site. Additionally, the proposed project would implement alarm and notification systems and security in compliance with OCFD requirements to minimize the occurrence of fires and reduce the reporting time in the event of a fire.

Access to the project site is currently provided and would continue to be provided via one fullaccess driveway located along The City Drive and one right-turn-in-, right-turn-out-only driveway located along Garden Grove Boulevard, which are both shared with the adjacent office complex.

According to the Fire Master Plan prepared for the proposed project (Appendix J-1), fire lanes ranging from 20 feet wide to 29.8 feet wide would be provided throughout the project site, including the driveways to the north and west of the proposed mixed-use building and driveways surrounding the parking structure. Fire lanes would be clearly identified by red fire lane curbs and fire lane signs. The truck turning radius on the driveways along The City Drive and Garden Grove Boulevard would be 50 feet wide to accommodate fire trucks. All proposed structures would be installed with automatic fire sprinklers that comply with the Chapter 9 of the 2019 California Fire Code.
111 Fire hydrants currently exist throughout the project site and would accommodate the proposed project. Additionally, emergency access walkways, ladder access, emergency escapes, rescue doors, and windows would be provided in accordance with the Fire Master Plan. The Fire Master Plan would be approved by OCFD.

The proposed project is within OCFD’s current projections and is therefore not expected to impede OCFD’s fire response times.112 The proposed project is not expected to result in the need for new fire department facilities or the expansion of existing facilities in order to serve the proposed project and the surrounding community. Furthermore, as discussed in more detail in Section 5.17, Transportation, according to the TIA prepared for the proposed project by LLG on December 11, 2020, the proposed project would not have substantial impacts on nearby intersections or roadways and therefore would not impede emergency access to the project site. Furthermore, as previously discussed in Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed project does not include street closures and therefore would not affect emergency access to The City Drive evacuation corridor. Construction and internal circulation would comply with the applicable fire codes as 109 Southerland, Kevin. Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal, Orange Fire Department. Personal communication: email. November 7, 2020. 110 Ibid. 111 2019 California Fire Code, Section 914.3.1 Automatic Sprinkler System. Website: https://up.codes/viewer/california/ca-fire-code2019/chapter/9/fire-protection-and-life-safety-systems#914.3.1. Accessed August 18, 2022. 112 Ibid. 797
146
required by the OCFD. The site plans would be reviewed and approved by the Orange Building and Fire Departments to ensure adequate emergency access.

The proposed project would be subject to compliance with the fire provisions specified in the latest CBC and all incorporated amendments, and the 2019 California Fire Code with amendments. The site plans and Fire Master Plan would be reviewed and approved by the Orange Building and Fire Departments to ensure adequate emergency access, fire hydrant availability, and compliance with all applicable codes and standards. Additionally, Municipal Code Section 15.38 provides for a Fire Protection Facilities Fee Program. The program requires new residential developments to pay a fire protection facilities fee to aid in offsetting the increased demand for fire services created by residential projects. The fee for the proposed project would be $1,328 per dwelling unit. The fee is due on the date of final inspection or certificate of occupancy for each unit, whichever occurs first.113 Payment of the fire protection facilities fee would help to reduce impacts resulting in a need for new or expanded fire protection facilities.

The incorporation of the proposed project’s design features for fire safety, the payment of the fire protection facilities fee, and compliance with the CBC and International Fire Code would ensure that there is no need for new or expanded fire protection facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (ii) Police Protection?
A significant impact may occur if a project creates the need for new or physically altered police facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.

Police protection services are provided by the Orange Police Department services to the City, including the project site. According to the General Plan Public Safety Element, to maintain the City’s ability to serve current residents and businesses, applicants would be required to provide for adequate services and equipment to serve residents and businesses of new developments, and land uses will be evaluated and modified, if necessary, to facilitate access to emergency services, meet service standards, and ensure land use compatibility. 114 Because the proposed project is consistent with planned for growth in the General Plan and would comply with the General Plan Safety 113 Southerland, Kevin. Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal, Orange Fire Department. Personal communication: email. November 7, 2020. 114 City of Orange. 2010. General Plan Public Safety Element. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/214/637698172567530000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 798
147
Element, it would be expected that emergency response would occur with acceptable response times.

The project applicant would pay its fair share of the Police Facility Development Fees to help finance police facilities required by new development in order to avoid adversely impacting existing police protection facilities, as required by Municipal Code Section 3.13.115 The Police Facility Development Fees ensure that development bears a proportionate share of the cost of public facilities and services necessary to accommodate such development.116 Additionally, the project plans would be reviewed and approved by the Orange Building and Police Departments, which would ensure that adequate safety and crime prevention measures are provided within the project’s design. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in a need for new or expanded police protection facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (iii) Schools?
The proposed project is in the OUSD area. The schools that would be affected by the proposed project include Lampson Elementary School, located at 13321 Lampson Avenue in Garden Grove,

0.75 mile northwest of the project site, and Fairhaven Elementary School, located at 1415 Fairhaven Avenue in Santa Ana, 2.35 miles east of the project site (Appendix J-2). 117 Additionally,
the proposed project is located near Portola Middle School, located at 270 North Palm Drive in Orange, 1.5 miles northeast of the project site; and Orange High School, located at 525 North Shaffer Street in Orange, 2.87 miles northeast of the project site.

The current OUSD enrollment is 26,719, with a current capacity of 33,760. Lampson Elementary School’s current enrollment is 707 with a capacity of 842. Fairhaven Elementary School’s current capacity is 465 with a capacity of 682.118 Portola Middle School’s enrollment is 664 students,119 and Orange High School’s enrollment is 1,727 students.120 Based on the current standard student generation factors used by OUSD,121 the proposed project would be expected to generate a total of 38 students, including 27 elementary school students, three middle school students, and eight 115 City of Orange. 2020. Code of Ordinances, Chapter 3.13 – Police Facility Development Fee. Website:
https://library.qcode.us/lib/orange_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_3-chapter_3_13-3_13_020. Accessed August 18, 2022. 116 Ibid. 117 Guerra, Ymisserah. Planning Analyst, Facilities and Administrative Services, Orange Unified School District. Personal communication:
email. November 24, 2020. 118 Ibid. 119 Great Schools. 2021. Portola Middle School. Website: https://www.greatschools.org/california/orange/3940-Portola-Middle-School/.

Accessed August 18, 2022. 120 Great Schools. 2021. Orange High School. Website: https://www.greatschools.org/california/orange/3937-Orange-High-School/. Accessed August 18, 2022. 121 Guerra, Ymisserah. Planning Analyst, Facilities and Administrative Services, Orange Unified School District. Personal communication:
email. November 24, 2020.
799
148
high school students.122 The increase of students as a result of the proposed project would be approximately 0.1 percent of the district’s capacity. Therefore, OUSD has the ability to accommodate the school sites demand of the proposed project as the schools that would be affected by the proposed project are below enrollment capacity.

The proposed project would pay Developer Impact Fees of $3.79 per square foot of habitable space over 499 square feet for residential development, and $0.61 per square foot for commercial development.123 Payment of the fees would satisfy the requirements of AB 2926 and SB 50 to offset impacts to school services. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (iv) Parks?
A significant impact to parks would occur if implementation of a project includes a new or physically altered park or creates the need for a new or physically altered park, the construction of which could cause substantial adverse physical impacts.

The City of Orange Community Services Department oversees 24 parks (251 acres) and over 15 miles of equestrian, biking, and recreation trails that connect a large number of neighborhood and community parks. Parks and open space make up 31.8 percent of the land use in the City.

According to the General Plan Update Program EIR, the City currently provides approximately

1.81 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. The City anticipates developing approximately 43.5 acres of planned future parks.124
The City of Orange has a goal of providing 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents by 2030. 125
According to the City of Orange, the City parks most likely to be used by residents of the proposed project as open recreational space would be El Camino Real Park, located 2.7 miles northeast of the project site; Hart Park, located 3.6 miles east of the project site; and the Santiago Creek Bike Trail, located 2.7 miles east of the project site. However, with nearby freeway access, residents would have the opportunity to utilize the City’s entire park system. The City has one centrally located sports center and gymnasium at Grijalva Park and one dog park at Yorba Park. There are 122 Standard student generation factors provided by OUSD per each dwelling unit are 0.116 elementary school students, 0.013 middle school students, and 0.032 high school students (refer to Appendix J). 123 Guerra, Ymisserah. Planning Analyst, Facilities and Administrative Services, Orange Unified School District. Personal communication:
email. November 24, 2020. 124 City of Orange. 2010. General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.13 Recreation. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/240/637698173340500000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 125 Ibid. 800
149
also reservable community centers at Handy, Olive, Shaffer, and Steve Ambriz Memorial Parks.

These parks and centers are all in good condition, according to the City of Orange. 126
According to the City of Orange, the proposed project would not present any potential challenges to the park system, and the City can accommodate the proposed project’s added demand on parks.

Additionally, Municipal Code Section 16.60.050, Standards and Formula for Land Dedication, state that the City requires the payment of in lieu fees for the dedication of park land, or the dedication of parkland based upon the cost of three acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. The proposed project would be required to pay the City’s Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Impact Fee of $11,542 per dwelling unit.127 Payment of the fees and provision of onsite recreational amenities would offset the proposed project’s demand to public park facilities.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (v) Other public facilities?
A significant impact may occur if a project includes substantial employment or population growth that could generate a demand for other public facilities, such as libraries, which would exceed the capacity to service the project site. The City’s public libraries operate according to the Public Library Facilities Master Plan (2002–2020). This master plan outlines current and projected future demand based on General Plan buildout. The master plan ensuresthat the California State Library’s recommended standard of four volumes and 0.7 square foot per capita is maintained, and that the City’s library service needs are met as future development occurs.

The nearest library within the City’s library system is the Orange City Public Library main library, located at 407 East Chapman Avenue, 4.1 miles east of the project site. During the development phase of the proposed project, the developer would be required to comply with the requirements of the Municipal Code, including payment of the required library facilities fee, as outlined in Chapter 3.50 (Library Facilities Fees) of the Municipal Code.128 With payment of the required library fees, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to libraries. In addition, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to other public facilities in the area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. 126 Hagan, Bonnie. Assistant City Manager/Community Services Director, City of Orange. Personal communication: email. October 22, 2020. 127 Ibid. 128 City of Orange. 2020. Code of Ordinances, Chapter 3.50 Library Facilities Fees. Website:
https://library.qcode.us/lib/orange_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_3-chapter_3_50-3_50_030. Accessed August 18, 2022. 801
150

5.16 Recreation
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(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? Impact Analysis
(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?
A significant impact may occur if a project would include substantial employment or population growth, which could generate an increased demand for public park facilities that exceeds the capacity of existing parks and causes premature deterioration of the park facilities. New residents may result in increased use of existing City and regional parks, other recreational facilities, and trails, which may cause or accelerate substantial physical deterioration of these facilities and/or require construction of new facilities.

The proposed project would include the demolition of an existing commercial building and construction of an up to 6-story, 225-unit apartment building. The existing commercial building does not currently provide any housing units and therefore does not currently support a residential population. Therefore, the proposed project would have the potential to increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks due to population growth. The nearest parks include El Camino Real Park, Hart Park, and the Santiago Creek Bike Trail.

The City of Orange Community Services Department oversees 24 parks consisting of about 251 acres of parkland, and the current park acreage equates to 1.81 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons.

Parks and open space comprise 31.8 percent of the land use in the City.129 The City also oversees over 15 miles of recreational trails and over 30 miles of bikeways. 130,131 The City’s goal is to provide 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.132
The City requires the payment of in lieu fees for the dedication of parkland, or the dedication of parkland based upon the cost of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. The proposed project would 129 City of Orange. 2010. General Plan EIR. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/240/637698173340500000.

Accessed August 18, 2022. 130 City of Orange. 1993. City of Orange Recreational Trails Master Plan. April 27. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/390/637699068179919461. Accessed August 18, 2022. 131 City of Orange. January 2001. City of Orange Bikeways Master Plan Update. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/166/637698158306900000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 132 Hagan, Bonnie. Assistant City Manager/Community Services Director, City of Orange. October 22, 2020. Personal correspondence: email. 802
151
pay the Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Impact Fee of $11,542 per dwelling unit.

Additionally, the proposed project would offset some demand for public recreational facilities by providing recreational amenities for residents on-site, such as outdoor courtyards with seating areas, lounge seating, firepits, swimming pool, spa, and a barbecue counter. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause the deterioration of neighborhood or regional parks or other public facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (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 significant impact may occur if a project includes the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, and if such construction of these facilities would have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The proposed project would provide residents with on-site indoor and outdoor private recreational facilities, including two outdoor courtyards with seating areas, lounge seating, firepits, raised planters, a pool and spa, overhead shade, and a barbecue counter, as well as a 3,628- square-foot fitness center.

Construction of the proposed project would not result in a construction-related or operational impact related to the provision of recreational facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. 803
152

5.17 Transportation
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(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?
Environmental Setting
A TIA and a VMT Assessment were prepared for this project by LLG on December 11, 2020 (Revised September 21, 2022), and included in this IS/MND as Appendix K-1. It should be noted that the TIA conservatively evaluates the development of 226 apartment units and 9,169 square feet of retail uses, even though the project as currently proposed would develop 225 apartment units and 9,000 square feet of retail uses. Thus, this conservative analysis evaluates the worst-case scenario.

Impact Analysis
Would the project:
(a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The TIA satisfies the traffic impact requirements of the City of Orange and Caltrans and is consistent with the most current Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP).

Changes to the CEQA Guidelines were adopted in December 2018 to implement SB 743.

Guideline 15064.3, which describes criteria for evaluating a project's transportation impacts, provides that VMT is generally "the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts," and that except for roadway capacity projects, a project's effect on traffic delays "shall not constitute a significant environmental impact." These provisions went into effect July 1, 2020. While Guideline 15064.3 governs a lead agency's assessment of traffic impacts under CEQA, it does not preclude a discussion of Level of Service (LOS)-based analysis for informational purposes or other traffic analysis based on general plan, zoning standards, or the policies of other agencies.

The TIA addressed the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs and is included for informational purposes. The TIA evaluated the existing operating conditions at six key study intersections, two existing project driveways, and four key roadway segments within the project vicinity, estimated the trip generation potential of the proposed project, forecasted future operating conditions without and with the proposed project, and identified appropriate intersection improvements and mitigation measures.
804
153
The TIA analyzed existing and future weekday daily, AM peak-hour, and PM peak-hour traffic conditions for a near-term (Year 2024) traffic setting upon completion of the proposed project.

Daily and peak-hour traffic forecasts for the Year 2024 horizon year have been projected by increasing existing traffic volumes by an annual growth rate of 1 percent per year and adding traffic volumes generated by 64 cumulative projects.

Study Area
Table 20 below lists the six key study intersections, two existing project driveways, and four key roadway segments that were evaluated in the TIA. Additionally, Table 20. below lists the key roadway segments evaluated in the TIA. The key study intersections and roadway segments selected for evaluation were determined based on application of the “51 or more peak-hour trip threshold” criteria outlined in the City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines.133 The study area intersections and roadway segments listed below provide local access to the study area and define the extent of the boundaries for the TIA. The jurisdiction where each key study intersection/roadway segment is located is also identified.

Table 20: Study Area Intersections
No. Study Intersection Jurisdiction
1 SR-22 WB Ramps at Metropolitan Drive City of Orange and Caltrans 2 The City Drive at Metropolitan Drive City of Orange
3 The City Drive at SR-22 EB Ramps City of Orange and Caltrans 4 Lewis Street at Garden Grove Boulevard City of Orange and City of Garden Grove
5 The City Drive at Garden Grove Boulevard/Memory Lane City of Orange 6 Bristol Street at Memory Lane City of Santa Ana
7 The City Drive at Existing Driveway No. 1 City of Orange 8 Existing Driveway No. 2 at Garden Grove Boulevard City of Orange Table 21: Study Area Roadway Segments
No. Key Roadway Segment Jurisdiction
1 Metropolitan Drive between SR-22 WB Ramps and The City Drive City of Orange 2 The City Drive between SR-22 EB Ramps and Garden Grove Boulevard/Memory Lane
City of Orange
3 Garden Grove Boulevard between Lewis Street and The City Drive City of Orange, City of Santa Ana, and City of Garden Grove
4 Memory Lane between The City Drive and Bristol Street City of Orange and City of Santa Ana
133 City of Orange. 2007. Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. August 15. 805
154
Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios
The following scenarios are those for which volume/capacity calculations have been performed at the six key study intersections, two existing project driveways, and four key roadway segments for Existing Plus Project and Near-Term (Year 2024) traffic conditions:
• Existing Traffic Conditions;
• Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions;
• Scenario (b) with Improvements, if necessary;
• Near-Term (Year 2024) Cumulative Traffic Conditions,
• Near-Term (Year 2024) Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions; and • Scenario (e) with Improvements, if necessary.

LEVEL OF SERVICE
City of Orange
The Level of Service (LOS) estimate is a measure of the intersection performance. According to the General Plan Circulation Element, LOS characterizes traffic congestion on a scale of A to F with LOS A representing a free-flow condition and LOS F representing extreme congestion. LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours on all intersections, and LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained on a daily basis on all roadway segments.134 City of Garden Grove
According to the City of Garden Grove, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours on all intersections, and LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained on a daily basis on all roadway segments.

City of Santa Ana
According to the City of Santa Ana, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained for all intersections and roadway segments. However, the City of Santa Ana has defined exceptions to this criterion at specific locations within the City. The City of Santa Ana has defined Major Development Areas where LOS E is considered acceptable. It should be noted that all City of Santa Ana intersections and roadway segments evaluated in this traffic study (i.e., key study intersection No. 6 and key roadway segments C and D) are not designated as Major Development Areas and therefore LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained. 134 City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan: Circulation and Mobility Element. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/192/637698172525970000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 806
155
Impact Criteria and Thresholds
City of Orange
Impacts to local and regional transportation systems located in the City of Orange are considered significant if:

Intersections
• An unacceptable peak-hour LOS at any of the key intersections is projected. According to the City’s Circulation Element and City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines and Level of Service Assessment, dated July 2020, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours at all intersections;135,136 and
• The project increases traffic demand at the study intersection by 1 percent of capacity (Intersection Capacity Utilization [ICU] increase 0.010) or greater, causing or worsening LOS E or LOS F (ICU > 0.900).

Roadway Segments
• An unacceptable daily LOS at any of the key roadway segments is projected. According to the General Plan Circulation Element and stated in City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, dated July 2020, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained on a daily basis on all roadway segments;137,138 and
• The project increases traffic demand at the roadway segment by 1 percent of capacity (V/C increase 0.010), causing or worsening LOS E or LOS F (V/C > 0.900).

City of Garden Grove
Impacts to local and regional transportation systems located in the City of Garden Grove are considered significant if:

Intersections
• An unacceptable peak-hour LOS at any of the key intersections is projected. According to the City of Garden Grove, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours on all intersections; and
• The project increases traffic demand at the study intersection by 1 percent of capacity (ICU increase ≥0.010), causing or worsening LOS E or LOS F (ICU > 0.900). 135 City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan: Circulation and Mobility Element. https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/192/637698172525970000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 136 City of Orange. 2007. Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. August 15. 137 City of Orange. 2007. Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. August 15. 138 Ibid. 807
156
Roadway Segments:
• An unacceptable daily LOS at any of the key roadway segments is projected. According to the City of Garden Grove, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained on a daily basis on all roadway segments; and • The project increases traffic demand at the roadway segment by 1 percent of capacity (V/C increase ≥ 0.010), causing or worsening LOS E or LOS F (V/C > 0.900).

City of Santa Ana
Impacts to local and regional transportation systems located in the City of Santa Ana are considered significant if:

Intersections:
• An unacceptable peak-hour LOS at any of the key intersections is projected. The City of Santa Ana considers LOS D (ICU = 0.801-0.900) to be the minimum acceptable LOS for all intersections, except for those locations located within the City’s defined Major Development Areas, where LOS E is considered acceptable. It should be noted that all City of Santa Ana intersections evaluated in this traffic study (i.e., key study intersection No. 6) are not designated as Major Development Areas and therefore LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained. • The project increases traffic demand at the study intersection by 1 percent of capacity (ICU increase ≥ 0.010), causing or worsening LOS E or LOS F (V/C > 0.900).

Roadway Segments:
• According to the City of Santa Ana, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained for all roadway segments, except for those locations located within the City’s defined Major Development Areas, where LOS E is considered acceptable. It should be noted that all City of Santa Ana roadway segments evaluated in this traffic study (i.e., key roadway segments C and D) are not designated as Major Development Areas and therefore LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained.
• The project increases traffic demand at the roadway segment by 1 percent of capacity (V/C increase ≥ 0.010), causing or worsening LOS E or LOS F (V/C > 0.900).

LOS Methodology for Future Impacts
The ICU methodology is used to assess the operation of the signalized study area intersections within the jurisdiction of the City of Orange. Study area intersections that are stop sign controlled have been analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. Additionally, signalized study area intersections that are in shared jurisdiction of the City of Orange, City of Garden Grove, City of Santa Ana, and Caltrans have been analyzed using the HCM methodology as well as the ICU methodology.
808
157
Project Traffic Trip Generation
Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation equations and/or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the 10th Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The trip generation potential of the proposed project was estimated using ITE Land Use 221: Multi-family Housing Mid-Rise trip rates and ITE Land Use 820: Shopping Center equations.

The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 2,091 daily trips, with 219 trips (107 inbound, 112 outbound) produced in the AM peak-hour and 147 trips (82 inbound, 65 outbound) produced in the PM peak-hour on a typical weekday. The existing land use generates approximately 1,052 daily trips, with 140 trips (87 inbound, 53 outbound) produced in the AM peak-hour and 60 trips (29 inbound, 31 outbound) produced in the PM peak-hour on a typical weekday. With application of existing trip credits, the proposed project is forecast to generate a net of 1,039 daily trips, a net of 79 AM peak-hour trips, and a net of 87 PM peak-hour trips.

The Existing Plus Project traffic conditions have been generated based upon existing conditions and the estimated project traffic. Table 22 below presents the projected AM and PM peak-hour traffic generation at the six key study intersections and the two existing project driveways with the addition of the trips generated by the proposed project to existing traffic volumes. It should be noted that the TIA conservatively evaluates the development of 226 apartment units and 9,169 square feet of retail uses, even though the project as currently proposed would develop 225 apartment units and 9,000 square feet of retail uses. Thus, this conservative analysis evaluates the worst-case scenario.

Table 22: Project Traffic Generation Forecast
ITE Land Use Code/
Project Description
Daily
2-way
AM Peak-hour PM Peak-hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Generation Factors
221: Multi-family Housing Mid-Rise (TE/DU) 5.44 26% 74% 0.36 61% 39% 0.44 820: Shopping Center (TE/TSF)1 Eq. 62% 38% Eq. 48% 52% Eq.

Generation Forecast
Apartments (226 DU) 1,229 21 60 81 60 39 99
Internal Capture2 -107 0 -1 -1 -6 -2 -8
Proposed Apartments Subtotal 1,122 21 59 80 54 37 91
Retail (9,169 square feet) 1,184 97 59 156 45 48 93
Internal Capture3 -107 -1 0 -1 -2 -6 -8
Subtotal 1,077 96 59 155 43 42 85
Pass-By (Daily: 10%, AM: 10%, PM: 34%)4 -108 -10 -6 -16 -15 -14 -29 809
158
ITE Land Use Code/
Project Description
Daily
2-way
AM Peak-hour PM Peak-hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Proposed Retail Subtotal 969 86 53 139 28 28 56
Total Proposed Project Trip Generation 2,091 107 112 219 82 65 147 Existing Retail Center
Retail (9,000 square feet) 1,169 97 59 156 44 47 91
Pass-By (Daily: 10%, AM: 10%, PM: 34%)4 -117 -10 -6 -16 -15 -16 -31 Subtotal 1,052 87 53 140 29 31 60
Net Difference Trip Generation Forecast
Proposed Project vs. Existing Land Use 1,039 20 59 79 53 34 87 Notes:

Eq. = Equation
TE/DU = trip end per dwelling unit
TE/TSF = trip end per 1,000 square feet of development
DU = Dwelling Units
1 Trip Generation rates based on the following equations:

Weekday Daily: Ln(T) = 0.68Ln(X) + 5.57
Weekday AM Peak-hour: T = 0.50(X) + 151.78
Weekday PM Peak-hour: Ln(T) = 0.74Ln(X) + 2.89 2 Consistent with the Trip Generation Handbook, published by ITE (2017), the project trip generation was adjusted to account for the internal capture between the retail and residential components of the proposed project. It should be noted that internal capture reductions were only applied to half of the retail trips to provide a conservative trip generation forecast. 3 Consistent with the Trip Generation Handbook, Third Edition, published by ITE (2014), pass-by reductions for ITE Land Use 820: Shopping Center consist of the following: 10 percent daily (estimated), 10 percent AM peak-hour (estimated), and 34 percent PM peak-hour. 4 Consistent with the Trip Generation Handbook, Third Edition, published by ITE (2014), pass-by reductions for ITE Land Use 820: Shopping Center consist of the following: 10 percent daily (estimated), 10 percent AM peak-hour (estimated), and 34 percent PM peak-hour.

Existing Conditions
Based on results of the analysis in the TIA, all of the existing roadway segments currently operate at an LOS A, which is an acceptable LOS. Additionally, all of the State-controlled study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS C, which is an acceptable LOS, during the AM and PM peak-hours.

One of the study area intersections, Lewis Street at Garden Grove Boulevard, currently operates at an LOS F during the PM peak-hour, which is an unacceptable LOS.

Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions
The TIA indicates that traffic associated with the proposed project would not significantly impact any of the six key study intersections or either of the two State-controlled study intersections when compared to the LOS standards and impact criteria. Although the intersection of Lewis Street at Garden Grove Boulevard is forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak-hour 810
159
with the addition of project traffic, the proposed project is expected to add less than the allowable threshold to the ICU value.

The remaining five key study intersections currently operate and are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak-hours with the addition of projectgenerated traffic to existing traffic under this scenario. The two State-controlled study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS C with the addition of project-generated traffic to existing traffic.

Additionally, the TIA indicates that traffic associated with the proposed project would not significantly impact any of the four key roadway segments when compared to the LOS standards and impact criteria. The four key roadway segments currently operate and are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable service level on a daily basis with the addition of project-generated traffic to existing traffic under this scenario.

Near-Term (Year 2024) Cumulative Traffic Conditions
The TIA indicated that the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative project traffic would adversely impact two of the six key study intersections. The remaining four key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak-hours with the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative project traffic. Additionally, the two Statecontrolled study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable LOS C during the AM and PM peak-hours with the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative projects traffic.

The key study intersections forecast to operate at an adverse LOS are as follows:

1. Lewis Street at Garden Grove Boulevard

2. Bristol Street at Memory Lane
The TIA indicated that future (Year 2024) cumulative traffic conditions at the four key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable LOS on a daily basis with the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative projects traffic. The analysis for Memory Lane between The City Drive and Bristol Street included the planned reduction of lanes from six lanes to four lanes, in order to accommodate plans for a bike lane in each direction.

Near-Term (Year 2024) Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions The TIA indicated that traffic associated with the proposed project would not significantly impact any of the six key study intersections or either of the two State-controlled study intersections when compared to the LOS standards and impact criteria. Although the intersections of Lewis Street at Garden Grove Boulevard and Bristol Street at Memory Lane are forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F during the AM and/or PM peak-hours with the addition of project traffic, the proposed project is expected to add less than the allowable threshold to the ICU value.

The remaining four key study intersections currently operate and are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak-hours with the addition of project811 160
generated traffic under this scenario. The two State-controlled study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable LOS C with the addition of project-generated traffic in the Year 2024.

The TIA indicated that the proposed project would not significantly impact any of the four key roadway segments. The four key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable service levels on a daily basis with the addition of project-generated traffic under this scenario.

As stated in the TIA, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant impact on the study area intersections or roadway segments under existing and future traffic conditions based on the City of Orange, City of Garden Grove, and City of Santa Ana standards and significance criteria. Although some study area intersections currently operate at unacceptable LOS as described above, the proposed project is expected to add less than the allowable threshold to the ICU value, and therefore, the proposed project’s contribution would be less than significant.

Transit, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The project site is located 125 feet north of a bus stop for Bus Route 56, Garden Grove to Orange,139 located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive South. Additionally, a stop for Bus Route 57, Brea to Newport Beach, is located 110 feet east of the project site.140 Both bus stops are accessible from the site via crosswalks on Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive South. Additionally, a bus stop for Bus Routes 47 and 47A, Fullerton to Balboa, are located at the intersection of South Lewis Street and Garden Grove Boulevard, 0.35 mile west of the project site.141
The proposed project would include a pedestrian-friendly design including a widened sidewalk and streetlights for pedestrians. The project site is located 350 feet west of the Santa Ana River Trail and Bikeway, which is a multiuse paved trail that runs parallel to the Santa Ana River and will run 110 miles when finished.142 Additionally, according to the TIA, future bike lanes are planned along Memory Lane, which is east of The City Drive South and Garden Grove Boulevard, 135 feet southeast of the project site. The proposed project would not result in any adverse impacts to public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.

Impact Conclusion
The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, such as the City of Orange Circulation and Mobility Element or the Orange County Congestion Management Plan. Thus, the 139 Orange County Transportation Authority. 2021. Route 56 Garden Grove to Orange. Website:
https://www.octa.net/ebusbook/RoutePDF/route054.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2021. 140 Orange County Transportation Authority. 2021. Route 57 Brea to Newport Beach. Website: https://www.octa.net/ebusbook/RoutePDF/route057.pdf.

Accessed March 5, 2021. 141 Orange County Transportation Authority. 2021. Route 47/A Fullerton to Balboa. Website: https://www.octa.net/ebusbook/RoutePDF/route047.pdf.

Accessed March 5, 2021. 142 San Bernardino County. 2021. Santa Ana River Trail and Parkway. Website: https://parks.sbcounty.gov/park/santa-ana-river-trail-pkwy/. Accessed March 5, 2021.
812
161
proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on traffic/circulation and the surrounding roadway network, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b)?
Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Per Section 15064.3, analysis of VMT attributable to a project is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non‐motorized travel. Except as provided in Section 15064.3(b)(2) regarding roadway capacity, a project’s effect on automobile delay does not constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA.

The City of Orange adopted transportation impact criteria in July 2020 to be consistent with the CEQA revisions. As part of the updated guidelines, the City of Orange has developed a VMT Traffic Study Screening Tool to be utilized by proposed development projects. The details of the proposed project (i.e., location, project land use information, etc.) are provided to City of Orange Traffic Engineering staff and entered into the screening tool to determine whether or not a project will require a VMT analysis.

There are three types of screening that may be applied to effectively screen projects from projectlevel assessment. These screening steps are summarized below.

Step 1: Transit Priority Area Screening
Projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA), defined as an 0.5-mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor, may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This presumption may NOT be appropriate if the project:

1. Has a FAR of less than 0.75;

2. Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the City;

3. Is inconsistent with the applicable SCS (as determined by the lead agency, with input from SCAG); or

4. Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units.
813
162
Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening
Residential and office projects located within a low VMT generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other employment-related and mixed-use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service population that is similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area.

Step 3: Project Type Screening
Some project types have been identified as having the presumption of a less than significant impact. The following uses can be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary as their uses are local serving in nature. The project types that qualify for this screening threshold are provided in the City of Orange TIA Guidelines.143 According to the VMT Assessment (Appendix K-2), the proposed project is in a low VMT generating zone, which meets the criteria for Project Screening – Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening. Because the Project Screening – Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening was applied, the proposed project can be screened from further VMT analysis. Additionally, the proposed project falls well below the existing VMT per service population. The proposed project would have 21.6 VMT per service population, which is below the existing VMT of 31.5 per service population.

Based on the screening criteria, the proposed project can be screened from further VMT analysis, and the proposed project can be presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT, per the City’s guidelines. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b). There would be no impacts.

Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. (c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e. g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? A significant impact may occur if a project were to include a new roadway design, introduce new land use or project features into an area with specific transportation requirements and characteristics that have not been previously experienced in that area, or if project access or other features were designed in such a way as to create hazardous conditions.

According to the site access evaluation provided in the TIA, access to the project site would continue to be provided via one full-access driveway located along The City Drive, and one right143 City of Orange. 2020. City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Agreement. July.

Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/2088/637708760828944476. Accessed August 18, 2022. 814
163
in-/right-out driveway located along Garden Grove Boulevard, both of which are shared with the adjacent office complex.

The intersection of The City Drive and Existing Driveway No. 1 currently operates at an unacceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak-hours. Additionally, the intersection of Existing Driveway No. 2 and Garden Grove Boulevard currently operates at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak-hours. The proposed project would cumulatively impact the intersection of The City Drive and Existing Driveway No. 1. The intersection of City Drive and Existing Driveway No. 1 is forecast to operate in the Year 2024 at unacceptable LOS F during the AM and PM peak-hours. The intersection of Existing Driveway No. 2 and Garden Grove Boulevard is forecast to operate in the Year 2024 at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak-hours. An intersection operating at an unacceptable LOS could result in unsafe transportation conditions to vehicles and pedestrians.

MM TRANS-1 would require the installation of a five-phase traffic signal to minimize the impacts of the proposed project. It should be noted that the peak-hour traffic signal warrant is satisfied under existing PM peak-hour traffic conditions. With implementation of MM TRANS-1, the intersection of The City Drive and Existing Driveway No. 1 is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS A during the AM and PM peak-hours. As such, project access would be adequate. With implementation of MM TRANS-1, motorists entering and exiting the project site would be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion. Therefore, potentially significant impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures:

MM TRANS-1 The City Drive at Existing Driveway No. 1: The Applicant shall install a five-phase traffic signal with protected left-turn phasing in the northbound and southbound directions and permissive phasing in the eastbound and westbound directions. The installation of this improvement shall be subject to approval by the City of Orange. Although this location is cumulatively impacted by the proposed project, based on coordination with City of Orange Traffic Engineering staff, the proposed project shall be 100 percent responsible for the design, engineering and construction of the recommended traffic signal at this location. It shall be noted that the peak hour traffic signal warrant is satisfied under existing PM peak hour traffic conditions.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
815
164
(d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The TIA included a site access evaluation. According to the TIA, implementation of MM TRANS1 would ensure that motorists entering and exiting the project site would be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion.

Furthermore, as discussed in Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed project does not include street closures and therefore would not affect emergency access to The City Drive evacuation corridor. Construction and internal circulation would comply with the applicable fire codes as required by the OCFD. The site plans would be reviewed and approved by the Orange Building and Fire Departments to ensure adequate emergency access. Implementation of the proposed project during construction and operational would not impair or physically interfere with the City’s Emergency Operation Plan, the General Plan Safety Element, or any other emergency response plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect emergency access. Potentially significant impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS-1.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
816
165

5.18 Utilities/Service Systems
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater 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 wastes?
Impact Analysis
(a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
A significant impact may occur if a project would increase water consumption or wastewater generation to such a degree that the capacity of facilities currently serving the project site would be exceeded. The proposed project would be served by the Orange County Sanitation District (OC San) and the City of Orange Public Works Water Division. The Public Works Water Division provides potable water from two main sources, including about 75 percent from groundwater sources managed by the OCWD. The City also imports water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California through the Municipal Water District of Orange County.144 Based on the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the baseline water use is 224 gallons per capita per day (GPCD).145 The proposed project would introduce an estimated an estimated 697 residents based on the City of Orange average household size of 3.08 persons.146 Based on the estimated number of residents, water demand for the proposed project would be 156,352 gallons per day, or approximately 175.14 acre-feet per year. Under normal conditions, the 2015 UWMP 144 City of Orange, California. 2020. Water Services. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/residents/water-division. Accessed August 18, 2022. 145 City of Orange. November 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Final. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/1540/637873464981145739. Accessed August 18, 2022. 146 United States Census. 2020. QuickFacts, Orange City, California; Orange County, California. Website:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/orangecitycalifornia,orangecountycalifornia/PST045219. Accessed February 26, 2021. 817
166
predicts a total Citywide water demand of 29,500 acre-feet per year by 2025. 147 The proposed
project’s anticipated water usage would represent a nominal 0.006 percent increase in water demand in the City.

Water Treatment System
The City of Orange Public Works Water Division provides potable water service (which includes imported water, groundwater, and surface water) to land uses within the City and would provide potable water for the uses under the proposed project. Water imported by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is treated at the Robert Diemer Filtration Plant in the City of Yorba Linda, which has capacity of 520 million gallons per day.148 Water treatment facilities filter and/or disinfect water before it is delivered to customers. Based on the capacity of the Robert Diemer Filtration Plant, which is 520 million gallons per day, the proposed project’s water demand of 156,352 gallons per day would be only 0.03 percent of the daily capacity. Therefore, there is adequate water treatment capacity in the region for the proposed project’s projected water demand.

Therefore, the proposed project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water treatment facilities. Impacts related to water would be less than significant.

Wastewater Treatment System
A sewer capacity analysis was prepared for the project on February 12, 2021, by Fuscoe Engineering, and is included as Appendix L of this IS/MND. Note that the sewer capacity analysis is based on a larger study area than what is currently proposed. The analysis includes the build-out of a stand-alone parking structure previously contemplated in the northern portion of the 5.86-acre site, which is no longer part of the proposed project. Thus, this conservative analysis evaluates the worst-case scenario.

There is an existing 8-inch on-site sewer to which the proposed project would connect. This onsite sewer connects to an existing 8-inch public sewer along Garden Grove Boulevard to the south that flows westerly. According to the sewer capacity analysis, the existing wastewater generation is 0.0751 million gallons per day (mgd). With the proposed land uses, the sewage generation would increase to 0.0973 mgd. The analysis indicates that increased wastewater generated by the proposed project would be less than the intended design flows can accommodate; therefore, the existing sewer infrastructure would be able to accommodate the wastewater generated by the proposed project.

OC San is responsible for the collection, treatment, and disposal of domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater generated by people living and working in central and northwestern Orange County. OC San has two operating facilities that treats municipal, commercial, and industrial sewage, removing contaminants before sending the water to OCWD for the Groundwater 147 City of Orange. November 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Final. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/1540/637873464981145739. Accessed August 18, 2022. 148 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 2020. Diemer Treatment Plant. Website:
http://www.mwdh2o.com/AboutYourWater/Water-Quality/robert-b-diemer/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed January 13, 2021. 818
167
Replenishment System (GWRS) for reuse or before releasing to the ocean.149 These include Reclamation Plant No. 1 in the City of Fountain Valley and Treatment Plant No. 2 in the City of Huntington Beach. Both plants provide a mix of advanced primary and secondary treatment. OC San is required by federal and State law to meet applicable standards of treatment plant discharge requirements, including NPDES Permit No. CA0110604 issued by the Santa Ana RWQCB in 2012 under Order No. R8-2012-0035. The NPDES permit regulates the amount and type of pollutants that the system can discharge into receiving waters. OC San’s wastewater treatment system is currently operating and would continue to operate in compliance with State waste discharge requirements and federal NPDES permit requirements as set forth in the NPDES permit and order.

OC San Plant No. 1, located in Fountain Valley, has a secondary treatment capacity of 182 mgd for Average Daily Flow (ADF), and 274 mgd for Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF). OC San Plant No. 2, located in Huntington Beach, has a secondary treatment capacity of 150 mgd for ADF and 317 mgd for PWWF. Together, the two plants currently treat approximately 185 mgd from approximately 2.5 million people in north and central Orange County. 150 The proposed project
would generate 0.0973 mgd, which is approximately 0.03 percent of the combined treatment capacity of the wastewater treatment plants. Therefore, the wastewater treatment system has the available capacity to accommodate the proposed project’s wastewater generation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the relocation or construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Stormwater Drainage
As discussed in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would comply with the City of Orange Stormwater LIP151 and would prepare and implement a SWPPP and BMPs.

Additionally, the proposed project would implement MM GEO-1. Stormwater drainage would be conveyed via a proposed curb, gutter, and storm drain system. Flows beyond the capture efficiency volume would bypass the system and discharge directly to the Santa Ana River via the proposed private and existing public storm drain system. According to the WQMP, the proposed project would decrease impervious surfaces and increase infiltration capacity as compared to existing conditions.152 Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase stormwater drainage such that new or expanded facilities or relocation would be required. Impacts would be less than significant.
149 Orange County Sanitation District (OC San). 2017. Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities Master Plan. Website:
https://www.ocsd.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=23429. Accessed January 13, 2021. 150 Orange County Sanitation District, Orange County Water District. 2016. GWRS Final Expansion Final Implementation Plan. Website:
https://www.ocwd.com/media/5119/sp-173-vol1.pdf. Accessed January 13, 2021. 151 City of Orange. 2011. Stormwater Local Implementation Plan (LIP). July. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/500/637702460732200000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 152 Kimley-Horn. 2022. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). August 30. 819
168
Electric Power
The proposed project would connect to the City’s existing electrical infrastructure and would be served by SCE. Impacts associated with electricity required by the proposed project are discussed in further detail in Section 5.6, Energy. Impacts were concluded to be less than significant.

Natural Gas
Natural gas services to the project site would be provided by SCE. Impacts associated with natural gas required by the proposed project are discussed in further detail in Section 5.6, Energy. Impacts were concluded to be less than significant.

Telecommunications
Charter Communications would provide cable service to the proposed project. The proposed project would connect to the existing telecommunications infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the installation or development of new or improved telecommunications facilities such that environmental impacts would occur. Impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? A significant impact may occur if a project were to increase water consumption to such a degree that new water sources would need to be identified, or that existing resources would be consumed at a pace greater than planned for by purveyors, distributors, and service providers. A forecast of the City of Orange water supplies and water demands in normal, dry, and multiple dry year conditions from 2020 through 2040 are listed in the City’s most current UWMP. According to the UWMP, the available supply would meet projected demand due to diversified supply and conservation measures. By 2025, the City would have both a supply and demand of 31,270 acrefeet of water during a multiple dry year scenario.153 The proposed project’s anticipated demand of 175.14 acre-feet per year would be 0.56 percent of the available supply. However, the estimated water demand for the proposed project does not take into account the water-saving measures that the City would require in order to achieve a water reduction target. Therefore, the City would have the available water supply to serve the proposed project, and development of the proposed project would not require the City of Orange to obtain new or expanded water facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. 153 City of Orange. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, Final. June. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/1540/637873464981145739. Accessed August 18, 2022. 820
169
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (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?
A significant impact may occur if a project would increase wastewater generation to such a degree that the capacity of facilities currently serving the project site would be exceeded. As discussed previously, the wastewater treatment system has the available capacity to accommodate the proposed project’s wastewater generation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (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? A significant impact may occur if a project were to increase solid waste generation to a degree that existing and projected landfill capacity would be insufficient to accommodate the additional solid waste. Trash, recyclables, and organic waste within the City are collected by CR&R Waste and Recycling Services.154 Trash is disposed at any of the three facilities in Orange County: Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea, Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine, and Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano.155 Recyclables and organic waste are process by CR&R.

According to the General Plan EIR, the waste generation rate for mixed-use residential components is 7.9 pounds per dwelling unit per day.156 The proposed project would have 225 residential units. According to this waste generation rate, the proposed project would generate 1,777.5 pounds (0.89 tons) of solid waste per day.

The Olinda Alpha Landfill is permitted to receive a daily maximum of no more than 8,000 tons per day of solid waste. The total amount of solid waste (0.89 tons) generated by the proposed project would be only 0.01 percent of the landfill’s daily capacity. Additionally, waste diversion and public education programs can potentially reduce the amount of solid waste at the source before making it to landfills. Although the proposed project would increase demand for solid waste services by generating additional solid waste, the existing landfills have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant. 154 Morehead, Kristy. Sustainability Supervisor. CR&R Environmental Services. Personal communication: email. October 22, 2020. 155 OC Waste & Recycling. 2020. Landfills. Website: https://www.oclandfills.com/landfills. Accessed January 13, 2021. 156 City of Orange. 2010. General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Table 5.12-9, Estimated Current and Future Solid Waste Generation.

Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/240/637698173340500000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 821
170
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. (e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid wastes?
A significant impact may occur if a project would generate solid waste that was not disposed of in accordance with applicable management and reduction regulations. The proposed project would be served with recycling and organic waste services provided by the City of Orange and would comply with applicable statutes associated with solid waste and solid waste reduction. Therefore, there would be no impacts.

Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. 822
171

5.19 Wildfire
If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(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? Impact Analysis
(a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
As discussed in Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the City has an EOP that establishes emergency preparedness and emergency response procedures. The proposed project would be adequately served by police, fire, and emergency response services, including respective evacuation or emergency vehicle access. The project site would be served by the OCFD. The proposed project would comply with fire safety standards of the Municipal Code and the Orange Fire Code, which has adopted by reference the California Fire Code, 2019 Edition.157 The proposed project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, including the City’s EOP. Fire emergency evacuation routes are mapped in the eastern portion of the City of Orange, where wildfires are the greatest risk. There are 10 evacuation areas that are mapped in this area.
158 The project site is not included in one of the 10 evacuation areas; however, Chapman Avenue, located 1.1 miles north of the project site, is designated as a fire evacuation route.
159 In the very unlikely event of an evacuation due to wildland fires, project occupants would have access to the Chapman Avenue emergency evacuation route via The City Drive South or via Garden Grove Boulevard west to Lewis Street. The proposed project would not interfere with any evacuation routes during construction or operation of the project. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to emergency response and evacuation plan consistency. 157 City of Orange. Orange Municipal Code Chapter 15.32 – City of Orange Fire Code. Website:
https://library.qcode.us/lib/orange_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_15-chapter_15_32?view=all. Accessed August 18, 2022. 158 City of Orange. 2020. Fire Evacuation Area Maps. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/1606/637705892325070000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 159 City of Orange. 2020. Evacuation Information. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/our-city/departments/police/evacuation-information.

Accessed August 18, 2022.
823
172
Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. (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?
The proposed project is in an urbanized area and is surrounded by a mix of residential and commercial uses. The project site is currently developed with a commercial building and parking lots and is not in an area at risk of wildland fires. According to CAL FIRE, the project site is not located within or adjacent to a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.160 The nearest Fire Hazard Severity Zone is in Villa Park, California, 5.31 miles northeast of the project site.

Additionally, according to the General Plan Public Safety Element, wildland fires are most problematic along the wildland-urban interface, the area between residential development and open grassland and vegetation along hillsides.161 The proposed project is not located in or near an area that is at risk of wildfire hazards as designated by the General Plan Public Safety Element.

Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire. There would be no impacts.

Significance Determination: No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. (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? The proposed project would consist of construction of a multi-family apartment building in an urbanized area on a site that is currently developed with a commercial building and parking lot.

As such, the proposed project may require the installation of new infrastructure and utilities to the site. The new infrastructure would be constructed in compliance with all applicable regulations and approvals, including the California Building and Fire Code and Municipal Code Chapter 15.32 –City of Orange Fire Code. Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate fire risks upon compliance with applicable regulations, and there would be no impacts. 160 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2020. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Website:
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed October 15, 2020. 161 City of Orange. 2010. General Plan – Public Safety Element. Website:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/214/637698172567530000. Accessed August 18, 2022. 824
173
Significance Determination: No impact.