HomeMy WebLinkAboutSR - APP-0533-14 - PART 6 EXHIBIT A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 1818-09 �E�T�flI� B.tI. ��CI�1����'��la �hl���������IPA�'�''�
An EIR must disclose the significant unavoidable impacts that will result from implementation of a
proposed project. State CEQA Guideline Section 15126(b) states that an EIR should explain the
implications of such impacts and the reasons why the project is being proposed notwithstanding such
impacts. Implementation of the project would result in the alteration of the physical environment. The
proposed project includes Project Design Features and recommends mitigation measures to either reduce
or eliminate potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. However, the proposed project
was determined to have significant unavoidable impacts.
8.1 Effects Found Not To Be Significant
After implementation of the proposed project, it has been determined that the following topical
environmental issue areas are less than significant:
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
. Land Use/Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Population/Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Utilities/Service Systems
8.2 Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant with Mitigation
After implementation of the proposed project, it has been determined that the following topical
environmental issue areas can be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level:
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology/Soils
• Hazards&Hazardous Materials
• Noise
City of Orange-Draft EIR—May2013 Page 8-1
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
8.0 Significant and Unavoidable
8.3 Effects Found To Be Significant
After implementation of the proposed project, including project design features and mitigation measures,
it has been determined that the following topical environmental issue areas would remain significant and
unavoidable:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
. Hydrology and Water Quality
• Transportation/Traffic
• Cumulative
— Aesthetics
— Air Quality
— Traffic
8.3.1 Aesthetics
Short-Term Construction Scenic View (Planning Area A)
The short-term construction impacts of the proposed project would be anticipated to be similar to the on-
going backfilling operation as defined in Section 3.0, Project Description. However, grading and
construction of infrastructure improvements for drainage and flood control are project specific actions.
The proposed project may be perceived as substantially degrading the short-term visual impact on a
portion of Planning Area A (Impact AES-1). As indicated in Section 3.0,Project Description, this short-
term grading activity would occur over approximately 4.4 years. PDF AES-16 and Mitigation Measure
AES-1 would reduce the construction impact; however these would not eliminate this potential perceived
short-term visual impact. While this impact would be temporary and visually similar to the backfilling
operation, it may be perceived as substantially degrading the visual character of Planning Area A.
Therefare, the proposed project would have an unavoidable short-term significant impact on scenic views
during construction activity. Please refer to Section 5.1,Aesthetics for more detailed information.
Short-Term Construction Scenic View (Planning Area D)
The short-term construction impacts of the proposed project would be similar to the backfilling operation;
however the operation was not occurring on Planning Area D at the time the NOP was published. The
materials recycling operation(i.e. asphalt and concrete crushing)were happening on five acres adjacent to
East Santiago Canyon. The proposed project may be perceived as substantially degrading the short-term
visual impact on a portion of Planning Area D (Impact AES-2). As indicated in Section 3.0, Project
Description, this short-term grading activity would occur over approximately 4.4 years. Mitigation
Measure AES-2 and PDF AES-16 would reduce the construction impact, however would not eliminate
this potential perceived short-term visual impact. While this impact would be temporary, it may be
perceived as substantially degrading the visual character of the vacant portion of the Planning Area D.
Therefore, the proposed project would have an unavoidable short-term significant impact on scenic views
during construction activity. Please refer to Section 5.1,Aesthetics for more detailed information.
Page 8-2 City of Orange-Draft E/R—May 2013
SCH No.2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
8.0 Significant and Unavoidable
Long-Term Operational Scenic View (Planning Areas B, C, and D)
PDF AES-1 through PDF AES-5, PDF AES-7 through PDF AES-14, and PDF AES-16 through PDF
AES-21, would reduce potential long-term impacts related to the proposed project improvements in
Planning Area B, C, and D. The proposed project may be perceived as substantially degrading the long-
term visual character of a portion of the project site, including Planning Areas B, C, and D (Impact AES-
3). These PDF's would require compliance with the Ciry's Municipal Code related to landscaping and the
establishment of specific design features to lessen the impact on the visual character of this area.
Mitigation Measures AES-3 and AES-4 which setback the buildings from East Santiago Canyon Road
would reduce Impact AES-3, however the development in these areas may be perceived as substantially
degrading scenic views to and of the project site. Therefore, an unavoidable long-term visual impact
would occur. Please refer to Section 5.1,Aesthetics for more detailed information.
Light and Glare (Planning Area B)
The proposed project would have the potential to result in impacts related to light and glare in Planning
Area B (Impact AES-5). The Rio Santiago Specific Plan outdoor lighting criteria, PDF AES-8, PDF
NOI-2, and Mitigation Measure AES-6 reduce sources of light and glare potential impact in Planning
Area B, however not to a less than significant level. Therefare,related to Planning Area B new sources of
substantial light or glare, which could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, would be
anticipated to occur. This is an unavoidable impact of the proposed project. Please refer to Section 5.1,
Aesthetics for more detailed information.
Light and Glare (Planning Area C and D)
The proposed project would have the potential to result in impacts related to light and glare in Planning
Areas C and D (Impact AES-6). Potential light and glare impact would be reduced with PDF AES-8, the
requirements of the Specific Plan, and Mitigation Measure AES-7, however not to a less than significant
level. Therefore, related to Planning Area C and D new sources of substantial light or glare, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, would be anticipated to occur. This is an unavoidable
impact of the proposed project. Please refer to Section 5.1,Aesthetics for mare detailed information.
8.3.2 Air Quality
Regional Construction Air Emissions
The proposed project would have the potential to result in impacts related to NOx emissions during the
grading phase and VOC emissions from the application of architectural coatings (Impact AQ-1). Refer to
Section 3.0,Project Description and Section 5.1,Air Quality related to existing on-site grading activities.
Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 have been provided to reduce the emissions from the on-site
construction equipment. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 has been provided to reduce the on-road vehicle
emissions from vehicles controlled by the applicant, however no mitigation is available to control the
emissions from the on-road haul which are regulated by the State and not by local jurisdictions.
Mitigation Measure AQ-lthrough AQ-3 would reduce the short-term construction-related regional air
quality impacts (NOx emissions) (Impact AQ-1), however not to a less than significant leveL Mitigation
City of Orange-Draft EIR—May 2013 Page 8-3
Rio Santiago Project SCH No.2009051072
8.0 Significant and Unavoidab�e
Measure AQ-4 has been provided to reduce the VOC emissions from architectural coating to less than
significant levels. Therefore, the short-term construction-related regional emissions would remain a
significant unavoidable impact. Please refer to Section 5.3,Air Quality for more detailed information.
8.3.3 Hydrology and Water Quality
Dam Inundation
The proposed project would have the potential to be in the path of inundation were a dam break to occur
(Impact HWQ-1). The project design component for mitigation to dam break failure has been considered
and it is concluded it is unfeasible to raise the site grading to a level that would mitigate this significant
unavoidable condition. Mitigation Measure HWQ-1, PDF PS-4, and PDF-PS-S would reduce this
potential impact; however not to a less than significant level. Based on the City's General Plan Safety
Element, these dam facilities are maintained and safety-inspected to ensure that risks are minimized; the
information provided in Draft EIR, Appendix G, Geotechnical Investigation suggests that only a very low
risk of catastrophic failure exists considering the past favorable dam inspection reports, the remote
location of active faults in the area and the factor of safety and stringent design criteria used in modern
dam design and construction; and, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM HWQ-1, the
potential impact would be reduced; however, not to a less than significant level. Therefore, this would
remain a significant unavoidable impact due to the potential for a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee ar dam. Please refer to Section
5.9,Hydrology and Water Quality for more detailed information.
8.3.4 Transportation and Traffic
Traffic Increase
The proposed project would have the potential to create significant traffic impacts at the Katella Avenue,
Handy Street to Santiago Boulevard roadway segment(Impact TRA-1). With the implementation of PDF
TRA-1, TRA-2, TRA-3, TRA-5, TRA-6, LUP-1, REC-1, REC-6 and REC-7 and MM TRA— 1,payment
of TSIP fees, and the project applicant's construction of roadway segments and intersections in the City
that would be impacted by the project in would be reduced to a less than significant level.
The proposed project would have the potential to create significant traffic impacts at the 5 intersections:
Wanda Road/Katella Avenue — Villa Park Road, Cannon Street/Villa Park Road — Santiago Canyon
Road, Orange Park Boulevard/Santiago Canyon Road, Newport Boulevard/Santiago Canyon Road, and
Jamboree Road/Chapman Avenue — Santiago Canyon Road (Impact TRA-2). Implementation of
Mitigation Measure TRA-3, intersections for Opening Year 2017 plus Project (Impact TRA-2) would be
reduced to a less than significant level.
The following roadway segments would be potentially significantly impacted by the proposed project:
Katella Avenue, SR 55 northbound ramps to Handy Street, Katella Avenue, Handy Street to Santiago
Boulevard, and Cannon Street, Taft Avenue to Santiago Canyon Road (Impact TRA-3). With the
inclusion of Mitigation Measure TRA-4, roadway segments for Opening Year 2017 plus Project (Impact
TRA-3)would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Page 8-4 City of Orange-Draft EIR—May 2013
SCH No.2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
8.0 Significant and Unavoidable
The proposed project would have the potential to create significant traffic impacts at the 3 intersections:
Wanda Road — Santiago Boulevard/Meats Avenue, Newport BoulevardlSantiago Canyon Road, and
Newport Boulevard/Chapman Avenue (Impact TRA-4). Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-5,
intersections for General Plan 2030 plus Project (Impact TRA-4) would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
The proposed project would have the potential to create significant traffic impacts at roadway segments:
Santiago Canyon Road, Cannon Street to Orange Park Boulevard (Impact TRA-5). With the inclusion of
Mitigation Measure TRA— 6, roadway segments for General Plan 2030 plus Project (Impact TRA-5)
would be reduced to a less than significant level.
However, due to the fact that these improvements are not presently included in the City's CIP and may
not be constructed when needed to mitigate the impact; this impact is considered significant and
unavoidable. The construction of the mitigation measure provided above will not create additional
impacts. All of the mitigation measures will be constructed within rights-of-way as provided by the
City's Circulation Element.
8.3.4 Cumulative
Aesthetics
The proposed project and related projects would have a cumulative aesthetic impact(e.g., Salem Lutheran
Expansion), even with the incorporation of site specific mitigation measures at each project site. These
impacts would occur from light and glare (i.e. urban glow). There are no known cumulative mitigation
measures that would be reasonable and technically feasible to reduce this cumulative aesthetic impact to a
less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project and related projects would have incremental
aesthetic effect which could be cumulatively considerable. Please refer to Section 6.0, Cumulative
Impacts for more detailed information.
Air Quality
The proposed project and related projects would have a cumulative short-term air quality impact, even
with the incorparation of site specific mitigation measures at the project site during construction. There
are no known cumulative mitigation measures that would be reasonable and technically feasible to reduce
this cumulative air quality impact to a less than significant level. Therefore during the time of
construction, the proposed project and related projects would have incremental air quality effects which
could be cumulatively considerable. Please refer to Section 6.0, Cumulative Impacts far mare detailed
information.
Traffic
The proposed project and related projects would have a cumulative traffic increase impact, even with the
incorporation of site specific mitigation measures. There are no known cumulative mitigation measures
that would be reasonable and technically feasible to reduce this cumulative traffic increase impact to a
less than significant level. Due to the fact that these improvements are not presently included in the City's
City of Orange-Draft EIR—May 2013 Page 8-5
Rio Santiago Project SCH No.2009051072
8.0 Significant and Unavoidable
CIP and may not be constructed when needed to mitigate the impact; this impact is considered significant
and unavoidable. Therefore the proposed project and related projects would have incremental traffic
effects which could be cumulatively considerable. Please refer to Section 6.0, Cumulative Impacts for
more detailed information.
Page 8-6 City of Orange-Draft EIR—May 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
__ _ _ .
�ECT�C�N�.�:�T#��R�1��FI�II��`��3N�����11Mf�L1+CA'���I�I� _-.� E
9.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts
This section evaluates the potential for the proposed project to affect economic or population growth or
the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.
There are two types of growth inducing impacts that a project may have: direct and indirect. To assess
potential for growth-inducing impacts, the project's characteristics that may encourage and facilitate
activities that individually ar cumulatively affect the environment,must be evaluated.
Direct growth inducing impacts occur when the development of a project imposes new burdens on a
community directly inducing population growth or by leading to the construction of additional
developments in the same area. Also included in this category are projects that remove physical obstacles
to population growth such as new roads into an undeveloped area or a wastewater treatment plant with
excess capacity. The removal of these obstacles could allow additional development in the service area.
Construction of these types of infrastructure projects cannot be considered isolated from the development
they facilitate and serve. Projects that physically remove obstacles to growth, or projects that indirectly
induce growth, may be catalysts for future unrelated development in residential areas that require
additional commercial use to support residents.
Proposed Project
The proposed project as described in Section 3.0, Project Description, contains approximately 110 acres
on-site and 0.8 acres off-site. Approximately 0.8 acres of grading activity will occur off-site in the
Santiago Oaks Regional Park. Implementation of the Rio Santiago Specific Plan would provide for the
development of four planning areas: Open Space (Planning Area A), Open Space — Park (Planning Area
B), Age-Qualified Residential (Planning Area C), and Single-Family Residential (Planning Area D).
Each planning area is described below.
• Planning Area A is approximately 48 acres in size (approximately 44 percent of the project site)
and would be retained in its current condition except for infrastructure improvements, such as
flood control, construction of a multi-use trail along the southern edge of the Planning Area, and
minor clean up to the creek.
• Planning Area B would allow a variety of recreational and community uses including "pay-for-
play" uses, such as, but not limited to, softball/baseball fields, soccer fields, court sports,
swimming pool, open turf areas, and athletic training center. Planning Area B would include a
multi-purpose facility with a maximum of 81,000 square feet.
• Planning Area C would be comprised of 265 total units including Age-Qualified Casitas Living,
Independent Senior Living, and Assisted/Skilled Nursing Senior Living.
City of Orange-Draft E/R—May 2013 Page 9-1
Rio Santiago Project SCH No.2009051072
9.0 Other Significant Long-Term Implications
• Planning Area D would contain a neighborhood of 130 low density residential lots. The lots
range in size from 6,000 s.f. to 20,000+s.f.
As discussed in Section 5.13, Population and Housing, to the potential population growth related to the
proposed project residential development population overall trends in the City were analyzed. The total
proposed project would increase the City's population by 697 persons. The increase in population
resulting from the proposed project would be less than one-percent (0.0051%) of the City's population
based on an existing population of 136,416 per Table 2:E-S City/County Census Population and Housing
Counts, 4/1/2010 from the California Department of Finance.
The proposed project's less than one-percent growth in population would be within current population
projections for the City based on Figure H-I, Ciry of Orange Population Growth Forecast, 1980-2030 in
the City's 2010 Housing Element. The City's 2010 Housing Element states that according the US Census
and the Department of Finance, the City experienced an eight percent increase in population between
2000 - 2007. The Center for Demographic Research at the California State University at Fullerton
forecasts a gradual population growth rate over in the City until 2030 with an estimated population of
160,000 in 2030. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less that significant impact on population
growth in the City and no mitigation measures would be required.
The implementation of the proposed project would increase the concentration of housing within this part
of the City. While components of the proposed project would be denser then adjacent residential areas,
the overall density of the proposed project is comparable to the surrounding neighborhoods. The overall
total project has a density of 3.6 units per acre. In addition, as discussed in detail in Section 5.10, Land
Use and Planning,the proposed project would be a logical extension of the existing and planned growth in
the project vicinity. The proposed project provides for the development of a planned community on an
under developed infill site that has existing infrastructure and roadways, public services, and utilities and
service systems and is close to employment and services. Therefore, the development of the proposed
project would not foster growth in the surrounding area or remove an impediment to future growth (e.g.,
extension of a roadway, public services, or utilities) in the area surrounding the project site. Growth
anticipated in the project vicinity would be consistent with the types of land uses as described in Section
6.0, Cumulative Impacts.
The implementation of the proposed project would directly create new long-term employment
opportunities in the City. In addition, the proposed project would generate short-term construction-related
jobs which are anticipated to be filled by the existing wark farce in the City or the surrounding cities.
Although other jobs in a wide variety of sectors in the local and regional economies may indirectly occur
as a result of the proposed project, the number of jobs is not anticipated to be significant and would for the
most part be filled by the existing work force in the local area or the region. Therefore,the influence of the
proposed project on the job market and potential increases in employment would not be expected to
generate significant growth beyond the growth assumed in local and regional plans.
Page 9-2 City of Orange-Draft EIR—May 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
9.0 Other Significant Long-Term Implications
Based on the above discussion, the development of the proposed project would not be anticipated to result
in a significant impact due to the inducement of growth in the area surrounding the project site.
9.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment to Resources
The environmental effects of the proposed project are discussed in Section 5.0, Environmental Impact
Analysis. Implementation of the proposed project would require the long-term commitment of natural
resources as described below.
Approval and implementation of the actions related to the implementation of the proposed project would
result in an irretrievable commitment of non-renewable resources such as energy supplies. The energy
resource demand will be used for construction activities, heating and cooling of buildings, transportation
of people and goods, as well as lighting and other energy associated needs. Non-renewable resources will
be committed primarily in the form of fossil fuels and, will include fuel, oil, natural gas, and gasoline
used by vehicles and equipment associated with the construction of the project. Those resources include,
but are not limited to: lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, photochemical construction
materials, steel, copper, lead, and water. At present alternative energy sources such as solar and wind
energy are not currently in widespread use, based on this it is unlikely that real savings in non-renewable
energy supplies (i.e., oil and gas)may be realized in the immediate future.
The financial and material investments that would be required of the applicant and the City would result
in further commitments of land resources making it likely that the same or similar uses would continue in
the future. Implementation of the proposed project represents a long-term commitment to urbanization.
Environmental changes associated with the implementation of the proposed project result in alterations of
the physical environment. If the proposed project is approved, and subsequently implemented, new
structures would be built, additional utilities would be constructed, and circulation improvements would
be made.
The commitment of resources and the levels of consumption associated with the proposed project are
consistent with anticipated changes. Therefore, there is no particular justification for avoiding or delaying
the continued commitment of these resources.
9.3 Cumulative Impacts
Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the consideration of cumulative impacts within an
EIR Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual effects which, when considered together,
are considerable or which compound or increase other effects. The individual effects may be changes
resulting from a single project or other separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is
the change in the environment which results from the projects when added to other closely related
projects. In identifying projects that may contribute to cumulative impacts, the State CEQA Guidelines
allow the use of a specific list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects (related
projects), that provide related ar cumulative impacts, including those impacts that are outside of the
City of Orange-Draft EIR—May 2013 Page 9-3
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
9.0 Other Significant Long-Term Implications
control of the Lead Agency. Related projects and the cumulative impacts of the proposed project are
discussed in Section 6.0, Cumulative Impacts. Related projects are identified and cumulative impacts are
discussed below.
Related Projects
Related projects considered in the cumulative analysis include projects that, when combined with the
proposed project, have the potential to result in cumulative impacts. The list of related projects is
provided in Table 6-2, Related Projects, which provides summary details on related projects that will be
used in the cumulative analysis (this list also was provided in Section 4.0,Environmental Setting). All of
the related projects are located in the City or the unincorporated territory within the County of Orange
(County) and are identified on Figure 6-1,Related Projects. The City provided the list of related projects
after a review of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects that are were
determined to potentially produce related or cumulative effects.
Cumulative Impacts
Based on the analysis proved in Section 6.0, Cumulative Impacts, the following cumulative impacts have
been identified. Each of these cumulative impacts is considered significant and unavoidable with project
mitigation. There are no known cumulative mitigation measures that would be reasonable and technically
feasible to reduce this cumulative these cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.
Impact: CAES-1: The proposed project and related projects would have incremental aesthetic effect
which could be cumulatively considerable.
Impact: CAQ-1: The proposed project and related projects would have incremental air quality
effect which could be cumulatively considerable.
Impact: CTRA-1: The proposed project and related projects would have incremental traffic increase
effect which could be cumulatively considerable.
Page 9-4 City of Orange-Draft EIR—May 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
SEC71GiN ifl,t1: Q�;����►TI�?N� ��������� CflN�U�'�'��
10.1 Organizations Consulted
City of Orange
City Attorney
David A. DeBerry, City Attorney(Retired)
Wayne W. Winthers, City Attorney
Gary A. Sheatz,Assistant City Attorney
Community Development Department
Alice Angus,Director Community Development(Retired)
Ed Knight,Acting Director Community Development
Leslie Roseberry,Planning Manager
Chad Ortlieb, Seniar Planner
Community Services Department
Marie Knight, Community Services Department Director
City Manager
John W. Sibley, City Manager
Rick Otto,Assistant City Manager
Fire Department
Bart Lewis,Fire Chief
Patrick Dibb, Services Chief/Fire Marshall
Ed Engler,Fire Marshall
Ian McDonald, Fire Marshal
Wendy Fahey, Fire Safety Specialist
Police Department
Patrick Thayer,Lieutenant
Jeff Burton, Lieutenant
City of Orange-Draft EIR—May 2013 Page 10-1
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
10.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted
Michelle Micallef, Crime Prevention Specialist
Public Works Department
Joe DeFrancesco,Public Warks Directar
Frank Sun, Deputy Public Warks Director/City Engineer
George Liang, Principal Civil Engineer
Jim Devore, Associate Civil Engineer
Dan Vu,Associated Civil Engineer
Bob Baehner, Principal Civil Engineer
Ramona Takahashi,Project Engineer
Amir Farahani, City Traffic Engineer
Gene Estrada, Environmental Program Manager
Mike Canrey,Environmental Scientist
Doug Keys, Transportation Analyst
Gregory Warren, Senior Administrative Analyst(Recycling)
City of Carlsbad
Fire Department
Brianne Daley,Analyst
Police Department
Fiona Evertt,Analyst
10.2 Persons Consulted
Be.Regents Point of Irvine
J. Baker, Marketing Division
BCR Consulting
David Brunzell,Principal Investigator/Archaeologist
Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.
John Oliver, P.E., Regional President
Page 10-2 City of Orange-Draft EIR—May 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
10.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted
Dino Capannelli, Project Engineer/Manager
Ian Adam, Principal/Stormwater Manager
Hao Nguyen, P.E.
Gayle Cade, Information Coordinator
Ginter& Associates, Inc.
David H. Ginter, President
JMI Properties/Santiago Partners, LLC
Christopher Nichelson,President
Bret B. Bernard,AICP, Director of Planning and Development
JMI Real Estate
John Martin, Principal (Original Rio Santiago Specific Plan Developer/Former JMI
Properties/Santiago Partners, LLC Member)
KTGY Group Inc.
Ken Ryan, Principal
Megan Penn, Senior Project Planner
Lantex Associates, Inc.
Blake Hinman, Project Manager
Lighthouse Real Estate Solutions
Alice Sorenson, Chief Operations Officer
Michael Brandman Associates (MBA)
Dr. Michael Brandman, Ph.D.,Principal
Michael H. Dice, M.A.,Archaeologist
Emilie L. Johnson, REA I, Senior Project Manager
Vince Mirabella,Air Quality Specialist
Jennifer M. Sanka, M.A., RPA, Project Archaeologist
Kevin Shannon, Project Manager
City of Orange-Draft EIR—May 2013 Page 10-3
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
10.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted
Morningside of Fullerton
Sandy Soski,Marketing Division
Pacific Development Solutions Group
Wes Alston,Principal
PCR Services Corporation
Steve Nelson, Senior Vice President/Director of Biological Services
Crysta Dickson, Senior Biologist II
Amir Morales,Principal Regulatory/Environmental Scientist
Maile Tanaka, Senior Biologist I
Sheldon Group
Stephen Sheldon,Principal
Tait Engineering
Stephen Mulligan, Senior Engineer
Ann Hillyard,PG, Senior Geologist
The Collaborative West
R. Luke McHugh, Senior Project Manager
The Planning Center
Phil Brylski, Senior Biologist
Tin Cheung, Senior Scientist
Denise Clendening,Hazards Specialist
Sherri Gust,Archaeologist and Paleontologist
William Halligan,Vice President Environmental Services
Cathy Fitzgerald, Senior Engineer
Stuart Michener, Senior Geologist
Vision Scape Imagery
Joe Font,Principal
Page 10-4 City of Orange-Draft EIR—May 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
10.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted
Vista Community Planners (VisTA)
Fred Talarico, Principal Planner
Jakki Tonkovich, Senior Project Manager
Aaron Talarico, Project Manager
Nicole Talarico,Technical Editor
Vista Environmental
Greg Tonkovich,AICP, INCE
Dennis Pascua, PTP
City of Orange-Draft EIR—May 2013 Page 10-5
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
�EG��'31� 9�.#�: ���RT P��ARAT1�� �tESC��I���
11.1 EIR Preparation Resources
Lead Agency
City of Orange
Alice Angus, Director Community Development(Retired)
Ed Knight,Acting Director Communiry Development
Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
The P/anning Center
Phil Brylski, Senior Biologist
Tin Cheung, Senior Scientist
Denise Clendening, Hazards Specialist
Sherri Gust,Archaeologist and Paleontologist
William Halligan,Vice President Environmental Services
Cathy Fitzgerald, Senior Engineer
Stuart Michener, Senior Geologist
Vista Community Planners (VisTa)
Fred Talarico, Principal Planner
Jakki Tonkovich, Senior Project Manager
Aaron Talarico,Project Manager
Nicole Talarico,Technical Editor
City of Orange-Draft E/R—May 2013 Page 11-1
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
11.0 Report Preparation Resources
11.2 Technical Sub-Consultants
BCR Consulting
David Brunzell, Principal Investigator/Archaeologist
Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.
John Oliver, P.E., Regional President
Dino Capannelli, Project Engineer/Manager
Ian Adam, Principal/Stormwater Manager
Hao Nguyen, P.E.
Gayle Cade, Information Coordinator
Ginter&Associates, Inc.
David H. Ginter,President
Michael Brandman Associates (MBA)
Dr. Michael Brandman, Ph.D., Principal
Michael H. Dice,M.A.,Archaeologist
Emilie L. Johnson,REA I, Senior Project Manager
Vince Mirabella,Air Quality Specialist
Jennifer M. Sanka, M.A., RPA, Project Archaeologist
Kevin Shannon, Project Manager
Pacific Development Solutions Group
Wes Alston,Principal
PCR Services Corporation
Steve Nelson, Senior Vice President/Director of Biological Services
Crysta Dickson, Senior Biologist II
Amir Morales, Principal Regulatory/Environmental Scientist
Maile Tanaka, Senior Biologist I
Page 11-2 City of Orange-Draft E/R—May 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
11.0 Report Preparation Resources
Tait Engineering
Stephen Mulligan, Senior Engineer
Ann Hillyard, PG, Senior Geologist
Vista Environmental
Greg Tonkovich, AICP, INCE
Dennis Pascua,PTP
City of Orange-Draft EIR—May 2013 Page 11-3
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
���'"i'���N '��:�1: R�FE:#�1��
12.1 References
BCR Consulting
• Addendum to a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment and Paleontological Records Review Rio
Santiago Specific Plan Project,prepared by BCR Consulting, March 25,2011.
• Updated Native American Consultation for the Rio Santiago Specific Plan Project, prepared by
BCR Consulting,May 12, 201 l.
City of Orange
• City of Orange General Plan,March 2010.
• City of Orange General Plan Program EIR,prepared by EDAW,March 2009.
• City of Orange Municipal Code.
• Draft Rio Santiago Specific Plan, City of Orange,prepared by KTGY, May 2013.
• Electronic Correspondence with Ramona Takahashi, Project Engineer, City of Orange Water
Division.
• Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ENV 1822-09, City of Orange 2006-2014
Housing Element, City of Orange, February 16, 2010.
• Interviews with the City Fire Department Ian MacDonald, Deputy Fire Marshal, City of Orange.
• Interviews and electronic corresponds with the City Police Department, Michelle Micallef, Crime
Prevention Specialist, City of Orange.
• Master Plan for Park Facilities, Recreation, and Community Services, City of Orange,November
2009.
• Master Plan of Recreational Trails, City of Orange,Apri127, 1993.
• Orange Park Acres Plan, City of Orange,December 23, 1973.
• Year-2011 Recorded Incidents Memo, Juan Ordaz, Metro Cities Fire Systems Administrator,
January 5, 2012 (http://www.cityoforange.org/civica�filebank/blobdload.aspx?B1obID=10879).
• 1975 East Orange (EO)General Plan, City of Orange,August 1975.
• 2006—2014 Housing Element, City of Orange,February 2010.
• 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, City of Orange, May 2011.
County of Orange
• Commuters Strategic Plan, Orange County Transit Authority's(OCTA), 2009.
Cify of Orange-Draft EIR—May 2013 Page 12-1
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
12.0 References
• Electronic Correspondence with James L. Burror, Jr. P.E., Engineering Supervisor Orange
County Sanitation District(OCSD). ��� �
• Majar Riding&Hiking Trails and Off-Road Paved Bikeways, County of Orange, March 2008.
• 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, Municipal Water District of Orange County, December 21,
2005.
The Earth Corporation
• Assessment of Diesel-Contaminated Soils at the Asphalt Plant, 6145 Santiago Canyon Road,
Orange County, CA, The Earth Technology Corporation,April 11, 1986.
• Final Report on Additional Soil Excavation at the Orange Asphalt Plant, The Earth Technology
Corporation, February 18, 1987.
• Final Report on Sampling and Analysis of Soil in an Excavation Pit at the Orange Asphalt Plant,
The Earth Technology Corporation,June 10, 1986.
Fuscoe
• Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, City of Orange, by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.,
September 20,2012.
• Rio Santiago, Hydrological Assessment Report, City of Orange, by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.,
December 16, 2011.
• Rio Santiago Water Quality Technical Report, City of Orange, by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., May
1, 2013.
Geomatrix
• Groundwater Characterization Report for Former Underground Fuel Storage Tanks Area, Sully-
Miller Contracting Company, Orange, California, Geomatrix Consultants,August 7, 1998.
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 6145 and 6146 Santiago Canyon Road, Orange,
California,prepared by Geomatrix Consultants,August 2000.
• Site Closure Report, Sully-Miller Contracting Company, Orange, California, Geomatrix
Consultants, March 6, 1997.
• Underground Storage Tank Closure Report, Sully-Miller Contracting Company, Orange,
Geomatrix Consultants, California,January 2, 1996.
Ginter 8�Associates
• Geotechnical Investigation and Recommendations for Rio Santiago, prepared by Ginter &
Associates, October 2011.
• Infiltration Opportunities, Constraints and Recommendations for Water Quality Treatment
Purposes,prepared by Ginter&Associates, March 2012.
Page 12-2 City of Orange-Draft EIR—May 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
12.0 References
Michael Brandman Associates
• Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) response, October 2008 and MBA information-
request letters to each tribal entity named by the NAHC on November 3, 2008.
• Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment and Paleontological Records Review Rio Santiago
Specific Plan Project,prepared by Michael Brandman Associates (MBA),December 3,2008.
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Rio Santiago Specific Plan Project Site, 6118 East
Santiago Canyon Road, Orange, Orange County, California, Michael Brandon Associates,August
6,2009.
Neblett � Associates
• Geotechnical Investigation and Recommendations for Rio Santiago, prepared by Neblett &
Associates, Inc.,August 20, 2009.
PCR
• Biological Resources Assessment Rio Santiago, City of Orange, prepared by PCR Services
Corporation,January 2013.
• Investigation of Jurisdiction Delineation Rio Santiago, City of Orange,prepared by PCR Services
Corporation,January 2013.
• Tree Survey Report Rio Santiago, City of Orange, prepared by PCR Services Corporation,
January 2013.
State of California
• Advisory—Active Soil Gas Investigations, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and
CRWQCB -LA,January 28, 2003.
• Designation of Regional Significant Construction Aggregation Resource Areas in the Orange
County-Temescal Valley and San Gabriel Valley Production-Consumption Regions, State of
California, State Mining and Geology Board.
• Interim Final Guidance for the Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to
Indoor Air, DTSC, December 15,2004, Revised February 7, 2005.
• Mineral Land Classification Map, State of California Geological Survey.
• Orange County Important Farmland Map, State of California, Department of Conservation,
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
• Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater,
California Regional Water Quality Control Board — San Francisco Bay Region, Interim Final —
November 2007.
• State of California, Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program,
Orange County Important Farmland Map.
City of Orange-Draft EIR—May 2013 Page 12-3
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072
12.0 References
• Table 2:E-5 City/County Census Population and Housing Counts, 4/1/2010, State of California
Department of Finance.
• Use of Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) in Evaluation of Contaminated Properties,
California Environmental Protection Agency,January 2005.
• User's Guide (Regional Screening Levels), http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-
concentration table/usersguide.htm,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,November 2010.
Tait
• Response to City of Orange Environmental Comments Regarding Rio Santiago Specific Plan
Project Located at 6145 East Santiago Canyon Road in Orange, California, Tait Environmental
Services,June 7,2010.
• Response to City of Orange Environmental Comments Regarding Rio Santiago Specific Plan
Project Site Located at 6145 East Santiago Canyon Road in Orange, California, Tait
Environmental Services,July 28,2010.
• Report of Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Activities Conducted at Rio Santiago Project
Site, 6145 East Santiago Canyon Road, Orange, California,Tait Environmental Services, May 16,
2011.
• Work Plan Describing Proposed Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Activities to Address
Data Gaps Identified in City of Orange Environmental Comments Regarding Rio Santiago
Specific Plan Project Site Located at 6145 East Santiago Canyon Road in Orange, California,Tait
Environmental Services,Januaryl2, 2011.
Vista Environmental
• Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Rio Santiago Specific Plan, City of Orange, prepared by
Vista Environmental, December 28, 2012.
• Global Climate Change Analysis Rio Santiago Specific Plan, City of Orange, prepared by Vista
Environmental, December 20,2012.
• Noise Impact Analysis Rio Santiago Project, City of Orange, prepared by Vista Environmental,
December 20, 2012.
• Traffic Impact Analysis Rio Santiago,prepared by Vista Environmental, dated January 7, 2013.
Other
• Conversation with Sandy Soski, Marketing Division, Morningside of Fullerton "A Continuing
Life Retirement Community, 7-28-2011.
• Conversation with J. Baker,Marking Division,Be.Regents Point of Irvine, 7-28-2011.
• Conversation with staff of Glen View Assisted Living, & Glenbrook Skilled Nursing, City of
Carlsbad,August 2011.
Page 12-4 City of Orange-Draft EIR—May 2013
SCH No. 2009051072 Rio Santiago Project
12.0 References
• Conceptual Fire Prevention Plan, City of Orange, prepared by Pacific Development Solutions
Group,March 6, 2013.
• Crime Data Anaheim: http://www.crimemapping.com/map/ca/anaheim
• Crime Data San Diego: http://www.sdsheriff.net/crimeanalysis.html
• Crime Data San Deigo: http://mapping.arjis.org/CrimeMAPS/main.aspx
• Fire and Police Data for Glen View Assisted Living, & Glenbrook Skilled Nursing, City of
Carlsbad,May 2010
• Forecasting California's Earthquakes — What Can We Expect in the Next 30 Years, prepared by
US Geological Survey, 2008. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3027�
• Google, Inc., 2010, Google Earth (Version 6.0.1.2032 (beta)) [Software], Available from
http://www.google.com/earth/index.html.
• Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or Easements of the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California.
• Orange County Projections 2006, Center for Demographic Research at California State
University of Fullerton, March 2007.
• Profile of the City of Orange, Southern California Association of Governments, May 2011
(http://www.scag.ca.gov/resources/pdfs/2011 LP/Orange/Orange.pd fl.
• Table of Dam Failures:
http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lund/dams/Dam_History_Page/Failures.htm
• Villa Park Dam information:
http://bos.ocgov.com/legacy3/newsletters/pdf/Villa_Park_Dam_emails.pdf.
• Water Supply Assessment for Rio Santiago Project, City of Orange, by Ergun Bakall Consulting
Civil Engineer, December 2009.
• www.tollfreeairline.com/california/orange.htm.
• Year-2011 Recorded Incidents Memo, Juan Ordaz, Metro Cities Fire Systems Administrator,
January 5,2012 (http://www.cityoforange.org/civica�filebank/blobdload.aspx?B1obID=10879).
• 2010 California Regional Progress Report, Southern California Association of Governments,
November 2010.
City of Orange-Draft EIR—May 2013 Page 12-5
Rio Santiago Project SCH No. 2009051072