Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2021090399
534 Struck Avenue
City of Orange, California
Lead Agency
City of Orange
300 East Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
CEQA Consultant
T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
Project Applicant
Prologis, L.P.
17777 Center Court Drive North, Suite 100
Cerritos, CA 90703
Lead Agency Discretionary Permits
Conditional Use Permit No. 3137-21
Major Site Plan Review No. 1039-21
Design Review No. 5028-21
Environmental Review No. 1870-20
June 28, 2023
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Section 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Public Review Process .........................................................................................................1-2
1.2 List of EIR Commenters ......................................................................................................1-2 Section 2.0 Responses to Comments Received During the Public Review Period.........................2-1 Section 3.0 Clarifications and Revisions ........................................................................................3-1
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Orange , as the Lead Agency , has evaluated the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the 534 Struck Avenue Proje ct (Project) (SCH No. 2021090399) and has prepared written responses to these comments. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and represents the independent judgment of the lead agency.
According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft;
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
The City Council will consider certification of the EIR, adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings and Facts, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of the approval process for the Project.
This Final EIR document is organized as follows:
Section 1 provides a brief introduction to this document, a summary of the public review process, and a list of commenters.
Section 2 provides responses to the public comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period. Responses are provided in the form of individual responses to comment letters received. Comment letters are followed immediately by the responses to each letter.
Section 3 contains revisions and clarifications to the Draft EIR as a result of the comments received from agencies and interested persons as well as errata identified in the EIR. This information does not constitute significant new information and recirculation of the EIR for further review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 is not required. 534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
1.1 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
In compliance with Section 15201 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Orange (City) has taken steps to provide opportunities for public participation in the environmental review process. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed on July 29, 2022 to responsible agencies, local government agencies, and interested parties for a 30-day public review period (from August 1, 2022, to August 30, 2022) in order to solicit comments and inform agencies and the public of the Project. The NOP was also distributed to the State of California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH) for distribution to State agencies. The NOP was posted on the City’s website, Newspaper, and at the County Clerk’s office on July 29, 2022. The Project was described; potential environmental effects associated with Project implementation were identified; and agencies and the public were invited to review and comment on the NOP. A copy of the NOP and comments received are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. The City received 5 comment letters in response to the NOP. Table 1-1 of the Draft EIR provides a brief summary of the NOP comments received that address environmental and related issues.
CEQA requires that a Draft EIR have a review period l asting at least 45 days for projects that have been submitted to the SCH for review (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15105[a]). The Draft EIR was available for public review for 45 days, beginning on March 31, 2023 and ending on May 15, 2023.
The Draft EIR was distributed to various public agencies, organizations, and individuals on March 30, 2023. The City used several methods to elicit comment s on the Draft EIR. A Notice of Availability (NOA) and the Draft EIR was distributed to the SCH for distribution to State agencies and was posted on the City’s website. The NOA was posted also at the County Clerk’s office on March 31, 2023. The NOA was mailed to responsible agencies, local government agencies, and interested parties that received the NOP, to individuals who had previously requested the NOA or EIR , and to individuals who provided NOP comments on March 30, 2023. The NOA and Draft EIR were made available for review, on the City’s web site at: https://www.cityoforange.org/our-city/departments/community- development/planning-division/current-projects.
The Planning Commission, as a recommending body, is scheduled to hold a public hearing on July 17, 2023, to consider whether to recommend approval of the Project, associated actions, and certification of the EIR to City Council.
Following the Planning Com mission hearing, City Council, as the final approval body, will hold a public hearing to consider approving the proposed Project, associated actions, and certification of the Final EIR for the Project.
1.2 LIST OF EIR COMMENTERS
In accordance with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, following is a list of the agencies , organizations, and individuals that submitted comments on the Draft EIR. The City received a total of 5 comment letters, including 3 from agencies and organizations and 2 individuals.
Responses to each comment are in Section 2.0. Agency and Organization Comment letters have been assigned a letter (i.e., A, B, C) and each comment within the tran smittal is divided into sequential numbered comments (i.e., A-1, A-2, A-3). Individual comment letters have been assigned a number (i.e., 1, 2, 3) and each comment within the transmittal is divided into sequential numbered comments (i.e., 1-1, 1-2, 1-3).
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
Comment Date of Letter
Agencies and Organizations
A. California Department of Transportation, District 12 May 15, 2023 B. Orange County Health Care Agency Land Use and Water Quality Division May 2, 2023 C. Orange County Transportation Authority May 15, 2023
Individuals
1. Keith Ealy May 12, 2023
2. John Miller April 12, 2023
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
SECTION 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
All of the comment letters received by the City have been included and responded to in this Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). Comments that address environmental concerns have been thoroughly addressed. Comments that do not require a response are indicated below and include those that (1) do not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR (i.e., are outside the scope of CEQA); (2) do not raise environmental issues; (3) do not address the P roject; or (4) request the incorporation of additional information not relevant to environmental issues.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) outlines the parameters for public agencies and interested parties to submit comments and the Lead Agency’s responsibility for responding to specific comments. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a), comments should be related to:
[T]he sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible…CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or suggested by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises that, “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(d) notes that, “[e]ach responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility;” but, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(e), “[t]his section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section [CEQA Guidelines Section 15204].”
Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, states:
a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments.
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
b) The lead agency shall provide a written proposed response, either in a printed copy or in an electronic format, to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report. c) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the Lead Agency’s position is at variance with recommendations and objections r aised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. The level of detail contained in the response, however, may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refer to readily available information, or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment. d) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the final EIR. Where the respons e to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the lead agency should either:
1. Revise the text in the body of the EIR; or
2. Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the response to comments.
This section includes responses to substantive Draft EIR comments received by the City. With respect to comment letters received, aside from certain courtesy statements, introductions, and closings, individual comments within the body of each letter have been identified and numbered. A copy of each comment letter and the City’s responses to each applicable comment are included in this section.
Brackets delineating the individual comments and a numeric identifier have been added to the right margin of the letter. Responses to each comment identified are included on the page(s) following each comment letter.
In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, written responses to public agency comments shall be provided to the public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an EIR.
As described in Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions, of this document the Draft EIR, revisions and information presented in response to comments received do not result in any of the conditions set forth in Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring recirculation; therefore, the EIR does not need to be recirculated prior to its certification.
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
Comment Letter A
A-1
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
Comment Letter A
A-2
A-3
A-4
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
Responses to Comment A
California Department of Transportation, District 12, Scott Shelley, Branch Chief, Regional - IGR-Transit Planning, dated May 15, 2023.
A-1 The commenter expresses gratitude for the opportunity to review the Draft EIR for the Project and provides a general summary of the Project Description as provided in the Draft EIR. The commenter notes that Caltrans is a responsible agency for the Project. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter, which are responded to in the following responses below.
A-2 The commenter states that the applicant’s assertion that “the Project site is within an urbanized and industrial portion of the city that is not conducive to walking (pg. 4.10-9)” is an unacceptable characterization of the local context. The commenter then states that complete streets elements are appropriate in all conventional roadway contexts.
The City disagrees with the commenter that the Draft EIR incorrectly asserted that the Project site is within an urbanized and industrial portion of the city that is not conducive to walking.
As discussed in Section 2.3, Surrounding Land Uses , of the Draft EIR, the Project site is surrounded on all sides by industrial and commercial development. Specifically, the City of Orange Corporate Yard and Public Works Department and HUB OC are to the north; the OCTA/SCRRA Railroad, industrial buildings and storage yard to the east, multifamily to the northeast; and several industrial and commercial businesses to the south and west. As described in Section 2.5.7, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, t he Project site is not located in any of the key commercial corridors of the pedestrian-oriented streetscape master plan as identified by the City and there are no sidewalks provided along the Project’s site frontage from North Parker Street to the Struck Avenue cul -de-sac, or along North Parker Street. Additionally, there are no existing or proposed bicycle facilities in the Project area . While the Project area does not have enhance pedestrian amenities, the City acknowledges that complete streets elements for all users (p edestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit) can be incorporated into roadway designs. However, the Project would enhance pedestrian facilities by providing a sidewalk and landscaping along the Project’s site frontage. Nevertheless, pursuant to Caltrans’s request, the reference to the Project site not being conducive to walking has been removed from the Draft EIR, as shown in in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR.
The commenter also rejects the assertation that “no impacts would occur” regarding bicycle and pedestrian circulation and encourages the applicant to work with the City of Orange to supplement its Bikeway Master Plan to enhance safety for all road users. The commenter does not provide any reasoning or support for the assertion that the Project would impact bicycle and pedestrian facilities or circulation. As discussed in Section 2.5.7 of the Draft EIR, under existing conditions, Struck Avenue is classified as a Collector Street (2 lanes undivided) and sidewalks are provided along Struck Avenue, except along the Project’s site frontage , from North Parker Street to the cul -de-sac. The Project would enhance pedestrian facilities by providing a sidewalk and landscaping along the Project’s site frontage.
According to Figure CM-3 of the City’s General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element, there are no existing Class II (on-street, striped) or Class III (signed, but not striped) bike lanes within 534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
the Project site and its surroundings. The nearest bike lane is a proposed Class I (off-road) bike facility proposed along the Collins Channel, approximately 0.3 miles northwest from the Project site. In addition, according to OCTA’s Orange County Bikeways M ap, there are no existing Class I Off Road (Paved), Class II On-Road (striped lanes), or Class III On-Road (Signed Only) bikeways within the Project site and its surroundings 1. Implementation of the Project would not interfere with the City’s Bikeway Mast er Plan or result in changes to the existing surrounding bikeways. Thus, no changes were made to the conclusion regarding impacts to bicycle and pedestrian circulation. The Project Applicant is not required to update the City’s Bikeway Master Plan and Struck Avenue is not identified as a proposed bikeway in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, no further response is needed. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are needed.
A-3 The commenter suggests encouraging or incentivizing th e use of transit among both construction workers and future employees of the proposed Project. The commenter states that increasing multimodal transportation will lead to a reduction to congestion, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and improve air quality. As discussed in the Section 4.10, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, the Project meet s the Low VMT Area screening criteria and would result in a less than significant VMT impact (refer to Pages 4.10-11 to 4.10-12). Therefore, no mitigation measures, such as incentivizing transit, are required.
However, with respect to construction, the Project Applicant has entered into a Project Labor Agreement with Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA), which will provide that local workers are hired i n first priority. This will have the effect of reducing air quality emissions by allowing local workers to work on the construction of a local project instead of commuting to a job site in downtown Los Angeles.
Chapter 10.83 Transportation Demand Managem ent Program of the City’s Municipal Code requires new industrial developments and redevelopment resulting in a job site employment of 100 persons or more are required to prepare a “Transportation Demand Management Program.” This policy would reduce the number of peak-period vehicle trips generated in association with additional development, promote and encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, achieve related reductions in vehicle trips and trip congestion, and achieve air quality improvements.
2 It is anticipated that the proposed facility would employ a total of 60 to 130 employees. Therefore, t he Project would be required to comply with Chapter 10.83 of the City’s Municipal Code. Accordingly, the commenter’s suggestion will be addressed through the “Transportation Demand Management Program” which the Project Applicant will prepare as part of the Project.
A-4 The commenter concludes the letter and requests continued coordination with Caltrans for any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. The City will continue to coordinate with Caltrans and acknowledges Julie Lugaro as the Caltrans contact person. Therefore, no further response is needed.
1 https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/326/637699036134830000 2 https://library.qcode.us/lib/orange_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_10 -chapter_10_83-10_83_010 534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
Comment Letter B
B-1
B-2
B-3
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
Responses to Comment B
Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) Land and Water Quality Division (LWQD), Geniece Higgins, Supervising Hazardous Materials Specialist, dated May 15, 2023.
B-1 The commenter expresses gratitude for the opportunity to review the Draft EIR for the Project.
The commenter states that the Draft EIR acknowledges the presence of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) at the Project site. The commenter provides records for assessment and cleanup activities for VOCs, conducted at the Project site with OCHCA oversight, which can be found on the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
. The City ac knowledges this comment and no further
response is needed. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are needed. The City has reviewed the attachments provided and referenced by the commenter, which are included as Appendix A to this Final EIR.
B-2 The commenter states that for all sites with historical uses or releases of hazardous chemicals, a qualified person should be onsite during excavation/grading activities to identify areas with residual contamination to ensure that removal, disposa l, and waste tracking is conducted in accordance with applicable regulations. The commenter states that if previously unknown contamination is encountered during site development, the Project Applicant should contact the OCHCA LWQD supervisor at (714) 433-6260 or the Environmental Health Main Line at (714) 433-6000. As discussed in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, there is a potential for the Project site to contain impacted soil or other subsurface features that may need to be appropriately and expeditiously managed due to additional agency oversight and/or any permitting necessary to properly abandon such features (refer to Page 4.7- 10). A Soil Management Plan was prepared (Technical Appendix H3 of the Draft EIR) to provide procedures for efficiently managing potentially-impacted soils and/or Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) during site preparation activities. Contractors must follow the applicable California Department of Health and Safety Administration (Cal/OSHA) regulations for construction safety in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 8, Sections 1500-1938.
Contractor employees involved in remediation activities must be HAZWOPER-trained personnel. Compliance with the Soil Management Plan by all Project construction contractors and occupants would ensure that any hazardous materials used on-site would be safely and appropriately handled. The City and the Project Applicant will coordinate with OCHCA LWQD if previously unknown contamination is encountered during site development. Thus, no further response is needed. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are needed.
B-3 The commenter notes that cleanup cases that have previously been issued No Further Action (NFA) letters were evaluated for NFA based o n site use and cleanup standards at the time of NFA determination. The commenter notes that additional evaluation, by a qualified environmental professional familiar with the proposed development, may be necessary. The City acknowledges this comment and understands that standards and regulations at the time of NFA determination may be different to what is in place currently. A Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Technical Appendices H1 and H2) and Soil Management Plan (Technical Appendix H3 of the Draft EIR) were prepared by experts to provide procedures for efficiently managing potentially -impacted soils and/or Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) 534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
during site preparation activities (see Response to Comment B-2). Thus, no further response is needed. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are needed.
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
Comment Letter C
C-1
C-2
C-5
C-6
C-8
C-3
C-7
C-4
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
Comment Letter C
C-11
C-9
C-10
C-8
(CONT .)
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
Responses to Comment C
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Dan Phu, Manager, Environmental Programs, dated May 15, 2023.
C-1 The commenter expresses gratitude for providing OCTA with the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR for the Project. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter, which are responded to in the following responses below.
C-2 In Section 4.10.1 subsection c: Existing Transit Service on page 4.10 -1 of the Draft EIR, the commenter requests removal of the reference to Route 153 as this route does not serve the Project area. Pursuant to OCTA’s request, the reference to Route 153 has been removed from the Draft EIR, as shown in strikeout below and in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR.
OCTA Route 50 and Route 153 runs along Katella Avenue and portions of Main Street (north of Katella Avenue).
C-3 The commenter notes there are references to a BNSF railroad. The commenter notes that the railroad on the east side of the property is owned by OCTA and operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA). The City acknowledges that the railroad east of the project is owned and operated by OCTA and SCRRA, respectively; however, the railroad spur within the Project site boundary is privately owned.
The commenter requests removal of all references of BNSF from all plans and applicable documents and revise the reference to OCTA/SCRRA. Accordingly, pg. 5-10 has been revised as shown below and in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR.
Existing industrial development borders the Site to the south and west; the BNSF OCTA/SCRRA railroad track borders the Site to the east, and Struck Avenue and the public facility uses border the site to the north.
C-4 The commenter notes that there is an industry track along the eastern property line of the Project site that is proposed to be removed. The commenter notes that coordination with SCRRA is required for the abandonment of the industry track. The commenter reques ts coordination with SCRRA for the abandonment. Redevelopment of the Project site would include the removal of the existing, unused private railroad spur located on the east side of the Project site. This railroad spur is privately owned and is not owned, maintained, or operated by OCTA/SCRRA; therefore, no approvals form OCTA/SCRRA are re quired for its abandonment. However, pursuant to the conditions of approval required by the City, the Project Applicant will coordinate with OCTA and SCRRA during submitta l of Project plans (e.g. building permits). Thus, no further response is needed. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are needed.
C-5 The commenter requests that all site drainage, both temporary and permanent, is drained away from the railroad. Under existing conditions, the Project site slopes down at approximately 1% grade to the west. The existing drainage pattern for the Project site is characterized by draining south to north and east to west. For the majority of the existing s ite, flows drain to a ribbon gutter located on the western side of the Project site. The ribbon gutter conveys flows off-site 534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
to Struck Avenue without migration or treatment. The eastern portion of the site, including the existing railroad, drains from south to north along an existing curb and gutter. This includes the existing railroad facility along the eastern boundary of the Project site. All flows from this area drain north to Struck Avenue and west to North Batavia Street.
As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality , of the Draft EIR, under Project conditions, the Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern by draining flows from south to north, to the northwest corner away from the railroad (refer to Page 4.8-11). Thus, no further response is needed. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are needed.
C-6 The commenter states that any Project lighting must be designed and shielded in a manner that does not allow light to shine towards or onto the tracks. As discussed in Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations, of the Draft EIR, the Project’s proposed lighting is required to be consistent with the City Municipal Code Section 17.12.030, Lighting, and Section 17.20.280, Emission of Lighting, Glare, Dust, and Heat, whi ch states that lighting shall be directed, controlled, screened, or shaded in a manner as not to shine directly on surrounding premises.
Implementation of the Project would not introduce new sources of light that would substantially affect day or nighttime views in the area (refer to Page 5 -8). Thus, no further response is needed. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are needed.
C-7 The commenter states that any landscaping and trees near the railroad tracks must be maintained and avoid encroaching onto the railroad. The commenter references Section 26.4.2 General Clearances of the SCRRA Design Criteria Manual
3 for any trees along the right of
way (ROW) line. The Project Applicant would be required to comply with Metrolink’s Manual to ensure adequate visibility along the railroad right of way. Although no environmental impact has been identified, in order to address the commenters concerns, the following measure will be added to the mitigation monitoring and reporting program:
Prior to approval of the final landscape plan, the Project Applicant shall coordinate with the City and OCTA with respect to the type and location of trees at the northeast corner and along the northern boundary of the Project site to ensure consistency with Metrol ink’s Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA)’s Design Criteria Manual.
C-8 The commenter notes that a R ight of Way Encroachment Agreement with SCRRA may be necessary during construction. The commenter requests contact and coordination with SCRRA and references Metrolink’s ROW Encroachment
4. The Project Applicant will contact and
coordinate with SCRRA should a Right of Way Encroachment Agreement be necessary. No further response is needed. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are needed.
C-9 The commenter requests coordination with OCTA and Metrolink for the final design and construction of the Project. Refer to Response to Comment C-7, t he Project Applicant will coordinate with OCTA and Metrolink during final design and construction drawings.
C-10 The commenter requests confirmation that Metrolink has reviewed the proposed Project.
SCRRA/Metrolink was provided the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR and link to
3 https://metrolinktrains.com/globalassets/about/engineering/scrra_design_criteria_manual.pdf 4 https://metrolinktrains.com/about/agency/right-of-way/ 534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
download the Draft EIR. No comments were received from Metrolink during the public review period, which occurred for 45 days from March 31, 2023 to May 15, 2023.
C-11 The commenter concludes the comment letter and encourages communication with OCTA per the comments above. The City and Project Applicant will contin ue to coordinate with OCTA and acknowledges Dan Phu as the OCTA contact person. Therefore, no further response is needed.
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
Comment Letter 1
1-3
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-1
1-2
1-4
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
Responses to Comment 1
Keith Ealy, dated May 12, 2023.
1-1 The commenter introduces themselves and states that they are a property and business owner at 981 N. Parker Street. The commenter expresses concerns with the Project as the Project site is located adjacent to 981 N. Parker Street. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter, which are responded to in the following responses below. 1-2 The commenter expresses concerns with the location of the truck repair shop which is adjacent to their property. The commenter is correct in stating that the 5,400 square foot (sf) maintenance building is located adjacent to their property on the southwest portion of the property. Per the commenter’s concerns, the maintenance building has been relocated to the southeastern portion of the Project site , along the southern Project boundary. Accordingly, Figure 3-2, Truck Terminal Site Plan, has been revised to depict the relocation of maintenance building. The updated figure is shown below in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR. 1-3 The commenter expresses concerns with the ventilation of the exhaust fumes coming from the proposed facility. The commenter states that when working on trucks in the shop, the trucks must hook up to an exhaust system which then goes through a ventilation system and ventilated out the roof. The commenter states that their building is less than 20 feet from the proposed development and the fumes from the proposed facility would go directly into their building causing an unhealthful air for their employees and themselves. The commenter notes that they have addressed this situation a couple months back at the City Hall meeting.
Please refer to Response to Comment 1-2 regarding the relocation of the maintenance building.
The purpose of the maintenance building is to provide routine maintenance for trucks entering the site. Common activities include oil changes, tune -ups, tire gauging, cargo weighing, etc.
When needed, diagnostics will be run which may lead to the use of the exhaust capture system.
However, these services are performed on a n as needed basis . Additionally, a ccording to Section 4.1, Air Quality of the Draft EIR, the worker receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operational-source diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions i s Location R6, which represents the potential worker receptor approximately 22 feet west of the Project site (refer to Page 4.1-18). Location R6 represents Meter Tech Services & Equipment located at 1035 N. Parker Street in Figure 4.1-1, Sensitive Receptor Locations, of the Draft EIR. For the sensitive receptors that were analyzed, all distances are measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., backyards) or at the building façade, whichever is closer to the Project site. According to Section 4.1, Air Qualit y, of the Draft EIR, Project construction and operation would not exceed South Coast AQMD’s cancer and non- cancer thresholds during construction or operation. Sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations due to the Proje ct, and impacts would be less than significant (refer to Page 4.1-32). Nevertheless, to address the commenter’s concerns , the maintenance building has been relocated to the south boundary of the Project site , which is adjacent to a parking area to the sout h. The relocation of the maintenance building would increase the distance of this building from sensitive receptors and further reduce the air quality impacts of the Project, although they were found to be less than significant. 534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
1-4 The comment states that the facility must be relocated to a different part of the property. The commenter recommends the east side next to the railroad tracks. Refer to Response to Comment 1-2 regarding the relocation of the maintenance building. Thus, no further response is required.
1-5 The commenter states that they cannot stand for the location of the truck repair shop and that it would put a great health hazard on their employees and themselves. Refer to Response to Comment 1-2 and 1-3. Thus, no further response is required. 1-6 The commenter expresses concerns with the proposed truck routes. The commenter states that there is no truck route available and that Struck Avenue is a small street. With the new apartments being built at the end of the block, the commenter states that this will cause a lot of traffic and danger to pedestrians.
As discussed in Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis , of the Draft EIR, the proposed multifamily (low-rise) development north of the Project was analyzed in the traffic study as shown in Table 4.0-1, Cumulative Development Land Use Summary and Figure 4.0-1, Cumulative Development Location Map. As discussed in Section 4.10, Transportation, the analysis under Threshold “a” indicates that the Proj ect would not conflict with relevant programs, plans, and policies addressing the circulation system. Each related project is required to comply with all applicable relevant programs, plans, and policies. Therefore, no cumulative impact would occur. Moreover, as concluded in the Traffic Analysis (Technical Appendix K1 to this EIR), the Project would not result in deficiencies at any of the 9 study area intersections analyzed, including Struck Avenue at Katella Avenue, Main Street, or Batavia.
As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, trucks would be required to utilize City- designated truck routes to and from the Project site (refer to Page 3-7). The implementation of the Project would not require widening of surrounding roadways to accommodate truck-trailer traffic. Truck-trailers would travel to and from the site from the SR-57 and Katella Avenue.
Katella Avenue north of the Project is identified as a truck route. Truck-trailer travel would be limited to:
• Truck-trailer Truck-trailers exiting the site would travel west on Struck Avenue, turn right onto northbound Batavia Street and turn left onto westbound Katella Avenue to access the SR-57.
• Truck-trailers entering the site would exit the SR-57 at Katella eastbound, turn right at Batavia Street southbound, and turn left onto Struck Avenue eastbound.
• Traveling eastbound from SR-57 on Katella Avenue, truck-trailers would be prohibited from turning right onto Struck Avenue to access the site. West of Batavia Street, all eastbound and westbound truck-trailer movement will occur on Katella Avenue.
Additionally, the City will impose conditions of approval to require 1) posting of the truck routes in the building; 2) tenant provided driver education on the truck route; and 3) truck route street signage.
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
The commenter suggests that an increase in traffic in the area would result in increased safety hazards. As discussed in the Traffic Analysis (Technical Appendix K1 to this EIR), the Project would generate a total of 26 AM and 23 PM peak hour trips with 7 AM and 7 PM peak hour trips from 4+-axle trucks. As shown in Figure 4.10-5, Project Driveway Truck Access, Project’s driveways would be widened to accommodate 40- foot width and install stop control on the northbound approach (egress Project traffic) to implement a cross -street stop -controlled intersection. Additionally, the truck exit would occur at the westernmost driveway (driveway 1) away from the existing driveway across Struck Avenue to the north, which would provide access to the proposed Orange City Yard Affordable Housing Project, located approximately 220 feet north of the Project site . Therefore, there is adequate turning radius and queuing for trucking entering and exiting the Project site.
The current speed limit on Struck Avenue is 25 miles per hour. Due to the short distance along Struck Avenue, trucks will tend to travel at slower speeds, especially when carrying goods .
The Project would also improve pedestrian circulation by improving the sidewalk along the Project’s frontage. All Project driveways would be required to be designed to ensure all sight distance requirements are met. This ensures truck drivers and pedestrians maintain good visibility to minimize conflicts. The City has installed the necessary traffic control devices along Batavia (e.g. crosswalks and traffic signals) and has installed signage and roadway striping per the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) and City requirements along all roadways in the vicinity. Additionally, red curb marking are instal led as required by the City to maintain sight distance at driveways and intersections. Moreover, Struck Avenue has existing street lights per City standards for uniform lighting. Based on the preceding, the Project would not result in an increase in safety hazards to pedestrians.
Therefore, no additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
1-7 The commenter concludes the comment letter and provides their contact information. The commenter notes that the Project Applicant is a multi-billion company moving in and they can move the truck repair building to the other side of the property. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are needed.
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
Comment Letter 2
2-3
2-1
2-10
2-12
2-4
2-6
2-5
2-7
2-9
2-8
2-2
2-11
2-13
2-14
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
Responses to Comment 2
John Miller, dated April 12, 2023.
2-1 The commenter inquires whether trucks would be directed to go down Struck to Katella per map provided. Trucks would be prohibited from traveling directly to the SR-57 from Struck to Katella. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, truck-trailers would travel to and from the Project site from the SR-57 and Katella Avenue. Katella Avenue, which is north of the Project site, is identified as a truck route. Truck- trailer travel would be limited to:
• Truck-trailer Truck-trailers exiting the site would travel west on Struck Avenue, turn right onto northbound Batavia Street and turn left onto westbound Katella Avenue to access the SR-57.
• Truck-trailers entering the site would exit the SR-57 at Katella eastbound, turn right at Batavia Street southbound, and turn left onto Struck Avenue eastbound.
• Traveling eastbound from SR-57 on Katella Avenue, truck-trailers would be prohibited from turning right onto Struck Avenue to access the site. West of Batavia Street, all eastbound and westbound truck-trailer movement will occur on Katella Avenue.
No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
2-2 The commenter states there is no way a truck or trailer could make a turn from Struck to Katella or Katella to Struck. Refer to Response to Comment 2-1. All eastbound and westbound truck routes will occur on Katella Avenue and would be prohibited from traveling from Struck Avenue to Katella Avenue and vice versa.
2-3 The commenter states that the soil sample report shows several samples around the property.
The commenter asks why two testing locations are within an area highlighted in green and two others that are behind 1015 and 1031 are highlighted in orange.
The commenter is referring to the borings on Figure 2, Boring Location Map, of the Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), dated June 30, 2020. The colors on the figure have no relevance to soil contamination. The colored areas were part of the base map provided by the civil grading plan to depict the storm water design which are no longer applicable to the Project. The commenter is correct in stating that VOC concentrations were detected above screening levels in Borings 11 and 12, which are located in the green highlight . As discussed in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials , a Soil Management Plan (SMP) was prepared (Technical Appendix H3) to provide procedures for efficiently managing potentially- impacted soils and/or USTs during site preparation activities (refer to Page 4.7-10).
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1 would ensure that t he Project Contractor adheres to the protocols and performance standards stipulated in the SMP and any contaminated soils or other contaminated materials encountered during Project construction that are determined to be hazardous by an applicable government oversi ght agency are 534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
appropriately remediated so that they would not pose a hazard to the public or the environment during construction or in the long-term . Thus, no additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
2-4 The commenter requests testing of Boring B-10 and inquires about the levels. Table IA of the Limited Phase II ESA, which is Appendix H2 to the Draft EIR, discusses the results of the soil samples at each boring location collected on the Project site. At Boring B-10, no levels of Freon 113, Dichlorodifluoromethane, Tetrachloroethene, and Trichloroethene were detected at all depth levels. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
2-5 The commenter requests a copy of the results from the testing of Boring B-10. Refer to the Limited Phase II ESA, Appendix H2 to the Draft EIR, on the results of the soil testing at the Project site. The technical appendices to the Draft EIR can be found on the City’s website at:
https://www.cityoforange.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning- division/current-projects. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
2-6 The commenter states that based on the site plan, trailer stalls would be placed against their property line. The commenter is correct in stating that trailer parking stalls would be placed surrounding the proposed building against the property line. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
2-7 The commenter inquires about the type of fencing that will be installed, chain-link or block wall. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description , the Project Applicant would install an approximately 8-foot -high tubular steel fencing along the site’s perimeter to enclose the proposed building, parking area, truck court and loading dock area. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
2-8 The commenter states that the plans say the fencing will be 8’ tubular steel. The commenter is correct in stating that the fencing will be 8’ tubular steel. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to t he content and adequacy of the Draft EIR. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
2-9 The commenter prefers block wall due to the possibility of a trailer backing into the fence. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being take n on the proposed Project.
2-10 The commenter inquires about the engine rebuilding/tractor run for hours with diesel at the maintenance building. Refer to Response to Comment 1-3 on the operation of the maintenance building. Thus, no further response is required. .
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
2-11 The commenter states that the engine rebuilding/tractor run will emit smells and emissions into the air. Refer to Response to Comment 1-3 on the operation of the maintenance building. As discussed in Section 4.1, Air Quality, localized air quality impacts were evaluated at sensitive receptor land uses nearest the Project site as shown on Figure 4.1-1, Sensitive Receptor Locations (refer to Page 4.1-18). The worker receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operationa l-source DPM emissions is Location R6, which represents the potential worker receptor approximately 22 feet west of the Project site (refer to Page 4.1-31).
At the maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW), the maximum incremental cancer risk impact is 0.16 in one million which is less than the South Coast AQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. Maximum non-cancer risks at this same location were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled worker receptors are located at a greater distance than the MEIW analyzed herein, and DPM dissipates with distance from the source, all other worker receptors in the vicinity of the Project would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk t han the MEIW identified herein.
As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent workers.
In addition, the Project would comply with California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 10, Article 1, Section 2485, “Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel‐ Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling,” which limits nonessential idling to five minutes or less for commercial trucks. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
2-12 The commenter states that 62 automobile stalls are allotted on property. The commenter is correct in stating that the Project would provide 62 automobile parking stalls. The commenter does not raise any specific iss ues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR.
No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
2-13 The commenter states that 150-200 employees are estimated for the Project. This estimation is from the previously circulated Mitigated Negative Declaration (No. 1870-20) and is incorrect.
As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, it is anticipated that the facility would employ approximately 60 to 130 employees (refer to Page 3-5). The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
2-14 The commenter inquiries about overflow parking for employees and asks if employees will be parking on Parker or Struck Avenue. As stated above, the Project would employ approximately 60 to 130 employees in three shifts. According to the City’s Municipal Code and shown in Figure 3-2, Truck Terminal Site Plan, of the Draft EIR, a total of 47 parking spaces is required for the Project. The Project would provide a total of 62 parking spaces, exceeding the City’s requirements. Additionally, a total of 188 trailer parking spaces would be provided onsite.
Therefore, no additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
This page intentionally left blank.
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
SECTION 3.0 CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS
Corrections to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) text generated either from responses to comments or independently by the City, are stated in this section of the Final EIR. The information included in this section doe s not constitute substantial new information that requires recirculation of the Draft EIR. Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines states in part:
(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR aft er public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.
None of the information contained in this section constitutes significant new information or changes to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR. There were no new significant environmental impacts identified following circulation of the Draft EIR. Likewise, there were no substantial increases in the severity of environmental impacts identified after circulation of the Draft EIR. Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required because no new information was added to the EIR.
CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
This section includes recommended clarifications and revisions to the Draft EIR. This section is organized by respective sections of the Draft EIR. Deleted text is shown as strikeout and new text is underlined.
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
Table S-1 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1. Page S-9 is hereby modified to add MM 4.2-2 from EIR, Section 4.2, Biological Resources.
MM 4.2-2 Prior to approval of a grading permit, a note shall be placed on grading plans that “no personnel working within Project limits will “take” or destroy plants, animals, or active nests (or eggs) of birds that are protected under the Federal or State Endangered Species Acts and Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).” During pre -construction surveys, a biologist shall train all field staff on appliable local, state, and federal regulatory requirements, environmental laws, and regulations associated with working around biological resources. Verification of training shall be provided to the Community Development Director.
Section 2.0 – Environmental Setting
2. Page 2-11 is hereby modified in response to Comment A-2.
The Project site is not located in any of the key commercial corridors of the pedestrian-oriented streetscape master plan as identified by the City. The Project site is within an urbanized and industrial portion of the City that is not conducive to walking . Under existing conditions, sidewalks are provided along Struck Avenue, except along the Project’s site frontage.
Section 3.0 – Project Description
1. Figure 3-2, Truck Terminal Site Plan, Figure 3-4, Conceptual Landscape Plan, and Figure 3- 5, Proposed Grading Plan, are hereby modified in response to Comment 1-2.
Section 4.10 – Transportation
1. Page 4.10-1 is hereby modified in response to Comment C-2.
The Project site is currently served by Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) with bus service along Katella Avenue Main Street. OCTA Route 50 and Route 153 runs along Katella Avenue and portions of Main Street (north of Katella Avenue). OCTA Route 53 runs along Main Street. As shown in Figure 4.10-3, Existing Transit Routes, the closest existing bus stop is located at Batavia Street at Katella Avenue for OCTA Route 50, approximately 0.3 miles northwest from the Project site.
Section 5.0 – Other CEQA Considerations
1. Page 5.10 is hereby modified in response to Comment C-3.
The Project site is developed with the Nursery Supplies, Inc. manufacturing facility. Existing industrial development borders the Site to the south and west; the BNSF OCTA/SCRRA railroad track borders the Site to the east; and Struck Avenue and the public facility uses border the site to the north. The Project Applicant would redevelop the Site with another industrial use with associated parking and landscaping improvements. The Project would not have the potential to physically divide an established community. No impacts would occur.
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
Attachment A
OCHCA Comment Letter Attachments