The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSR - ZCG-1274-14 - EXHIBIT C CONSTRUCTION DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS 2025 NORTH ORANGE OLIVE RD ORANGE-OLIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ��F��1► `G�RPOR,� G'ti,`�'•'� � 'F° ''.G� �.� * � *.� �',t 7�. � . `e .��4 �'��-'!pp,�g,+ °�y� �o��s Lead Agency: City of Orange Community Development Department • Planning Division 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866-1591 Contact: Jennifer Le (714) 744 7238 Applicant: MBK Homes 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92614 Contact: Sunti Kumjim (949) 789-8368 Prepared By: �� environmental advisors 2400 E. Katella Ave., Suite 800 Anaheim, CA 92806 Contact: Greg McCafferty EXHIBIT C August 2015 MND 1837-14 ORANGE-OLIVE RESIDENTIAL NOVEMBER 10, 2015 CC MTG. Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND '��.� d� ��E �� SECTION1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1-1 1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance........................................................ 1-1 1.2 Content and Format of a Mitigated Negative Declaration ............................................ 1-1 1.3 Public Review Process.................................................................................................. 1-2 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................2-1 2.1 Project Location.............................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Existing Setting..............................................................................................................2-1 2.3 Proposed Project Characteristics ...............................................................................2-17 2.4 Discretionary Actions ..................................................................................................2-39 SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS........................................................3-1 3.1 Aesthetics......................................................................................................................3-4 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .............................................................................3-7 3.3 Air Quality......................................................................................................................3-9 3.4 Biological Resources...................................................................................................3-20 3.5 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................3-23 3.6 Geology and Soils.......................................................................................................3-27 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................................3-31 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................3-36 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality (Comments on this section already forwarded)..........3-43 3.10 Land Use and Planning...............................................................................................3-52 3.11 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................3-54 3.12 Noise ...........................................................................................................................3-56 3.13 Population and Housing..............................................................................................3-66 3.14 Public Services...........................................................................................�--..............3-68 3.15 Recreation ...................................................................................................................3-71 3.16 Transportation/Traffic..................................................................................................3-73 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems......................................................................................3-79 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance............................................................................3-85 SECTION4.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................4-1 �r � Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND �..A�'� �� Figure1 Project Vicinity Map.......................................................................................................2-3 Figure 2 General Plan Land Use.................................................................................................2-7 Figure3 Zoning............................................................................................................................2-9 Figure4 Conceptual Site Plan...................................................................................................2-19 Figure5 Floor Plans...................................................................................................................2-21 Figure6 Elevations....................................................................................................................2-27 Figure 7 Conceptual Landscape Plan .......................................................................................2-34 Figure 8 Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan................................................................................2-36 Figure 9 Tentative Tract Map, Conceptual Grading and Utility Plan ........................................2-40 Figure10 Fire Master Plan ........................................................................................................3-41 Figure 11 Project Noise Contours .............................................................................................3-59 LI�`� C.3� TABL�� Table 2-1 Project Site Information...............................................................................................2-1 Table2-2 Plan Type Summary..................................................................................................2-17 Table 2-3 Utility and Public Service Providers ..........................................................................2-38 Table 3-1 SCAQMD Regional Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance ........................3-10 Table 3-2 SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance ...........................................3-10 Table 3-3 Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions...................................................3-13 Table 3-4 Local Construction Emissions at Nearest Receptors Prior to Mitigation..................3-14 Table 3-5 Operational Air Pollution Emissions..........................................................................3-15 Table 3-6 Local Operations Criteria Pollutant Emission Levels at the Nearest Homes...........3-16 Table 3-7 Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions...............................................3-33 Table 3-8 Existing (Ambient) Noise Level Measurements........................................................3-57 Table 3-9 Exterior Private Backyard Noise Levels Prior to Mitigation ......................................3-58 Table 3-10 Proposed Residential Interior Noise Levels............................................................3-61 Table 3-11 Existing Project Traffic Noise Cont�ibutions............................................................3-64 Table 3-12 Worst-Case Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Homes ...................................3-65 Table 3-13 Project Trip Generation Estimates..........................................................................3-74 Table 3-14 Roadway Segment Levels of Service Project Trip Generation Estimates.............3-75 Table 3-15 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Used by the City of Orange..................................3-84 7M �� Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND �� ,� Appendix A— Orange-Olive Specific Plan Appendix B —Air Quality Analysis Appendix C — Due Diligence Geotechnical Investigation Appendix D — Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix E — Soil Sampling Report Appendix F — Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Appendix G — Hydrology and Hydraulics Study Appendix H — Noise Report Appendix I — Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix J — Sewer Area Study "" iii Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND I�G�Qt�Y � c� ,��R�'�/i/�k`T"IQi�� Acronyms/Abbreviation Definition ADT average daily traffic AFY acre feet per year Applicant MBK Homes AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ASE Associated Soils Engineering, Inc. ASTs aboveground storage tanks Basin South Coast Air Basin BMPs Best Management Practices C-1 Limited Business CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFCs chlorofluorocarbons cfs cubic feet per second CGS California Geologic Survey CH4 methane City City of Orange CMP Congestion Management Program CNEL community noise equivalent level CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide County Orange County CRHL California Registered Historical Landmark DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan dBA "A" weighted decibels DPW Department of Public Works EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc. EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Environmental Site Assessment FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration GHG generate greenhouse gas gpd gallons per day HCP Habitat Conservation Plan I-5 Interstate 5 IS Initial Study Leq equivalent sound level Lmax maximum sound level '" V Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Acronyms/Abbreviation Definition LBP lead-based paint LMDR Low Medium Density Residential LOS level of service LSTs Localized Significant Thresholds mgd million gallons per day MLD most likely descendent MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MPH miles per hour MRZ Mineral Resource Zone MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan N20 nitrous oxide NOz nitrogen dioxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 03 ozone OCPs organochlorine pesticides OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority OCWD Orange County Water District OMC Orange Municipal Code OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OUSD Orange Unified School District PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report PM particulate matter PM2.5 fine particulate matter PM�o respirable particulate matter RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model RDMD Resources and Development Management Department RECs Recognized environmental conditions RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD Southern California Air Quality Management District S02 sulfur dioxide SR-22 State Route 22 SR-55 State Route 55 SR-57 State Route 57 SR-91 State Route 91 '" vi Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Acronyms/Abbreviation Definition SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWQCB State Water Resource Control Board STC Sound Transmission Class TAC toxic air contaminant UWMP Urban Water Management Plan USTs underground storage tanks V/C volume-to-capacity VOC volatile organic compound WQMP Water Quality Management Plan '" vii Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND �� `�.� � T �T� This document evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the development and occupancy of the Orange-Olive Residential Project (Proposed Project), which would include the approval of the Orange-Olive Specific Plan and the development of 25 new detached single- family homes on an approximately 2.33-acre project site. The project applicant is MBK Homes (Applicant). The Proposed Project is considered to be a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resource Code § 21000 et seq.: "CEQA"). The primary purpose of CEQA is to inform the public and decision makers as to the potential environmental impacts of a project and to allow an opportunity for public input to ensure informed decision making. CEQA requires all state and local government agencies to consider the environmental effects of projects over which they have discretionary authority. CEQA also requires each public agency to mitigate or avoid any significant environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of projects subject to CEQA. The City of Orange, as the lead agency for the Orange-Olive Residential Development Project, is responsible for preparing environmental documentation in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.: "CEQA") to determine if approval of the discretionary actions requested and subsequent development of the proposed project site could have a significant impact on the environment. 1.1 Cr�II�QI°t1Ec� ECiVIN'Ot"�t1°1�C1��I Q4Jc�Iirt� ACf �Qt't1�3I1�1'1C� As provided in Public Resources Code Section 21064.5, a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared for a project that is subject to CEQA when an Initial Study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed Negative Declaration and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. Based on the Initial Study (IS) prepared for the proposed project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for the Proposed Project. The MND has been prepared in conformance with Section 15070(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The purpose of the MND and the Initial Study Checklist/Environmental Evaluation is to identify any potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project and incorporate mitigation measures into the project as necessary to eliminate the potentially significant effects of the project or to reduce the effects to a level of insignificance. 1,2 Content and For at of a itegated �gative eclaration An MND is an informational document intended to disclose to agencies and to the public the environmental consequences of approving and implementing the proposed project. This MND includes the following: Section 1.0 Introduction: This section provides an introduction to the MND, including project background, CEQA compliance, and public review process. ,� 1-1 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Section 2.0, Project Description: This section provides a detailed description of the proposed project evaluated in this MND. This section also includes the projecYs geographical and environmental setting, objectives of the project, characteristics of the project, and discretionary actions related to the project. Section 3.0, Environmental Impact Analysis: This section provides a determination of the level of significance of the proposed project's environmental effects, a detailed analysis of environmental issues and concerns surrounding the project, and corresponding mitigation measures to lessen potentially significant impacts. Section 4.0, References: This section provides a list of references used to prepare the MND. 1.3 P�biwc Rewi+��r Proc�ss Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(b), the Draft MND will be available for a 20- day public review and comment period from August 28, 2015 to September 16, 2015 at the following locations: • Orange City Hall, Office of the City Clerk, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA ■ Orange Main Library & History Center—407 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA. • Taft Branch Library— 740 East Taft Avenue, Orange, CA. ■ Online at www.ci�yofc�ranqe.org/commdev under Project Notices and Environmental Documents In reviewing the Draft MND, affected public agencies and the interested public should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment, as well as ways in which the significant effects of the project are proposed to be avoided or mitigated. Comments must be submitted on the Draft MND in writing before the end of the comment period. Following the close of the public comment period, the City will consider this MND and comments thereto in determining whether to approve the proposed project. Written comments on the Draft MND must be submitted via email to ,�e(cr7.cityafaranqe.orq or to the following address by September 16, 2015: Jennifer Le City of Orange Community Development Department Planning Division 300 E. Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92886 (714) 744-7238 [(714) 744-7222 '" 1-2 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND ��CTI � 2.0 � J Cl� �� "i 2.'� F'ra�ect Locati�r� The Proposed Project is located in the City of Orange (City), in the north-central portion of Orange County (Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map). The City is adjacent to the cities of Anaheim, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Tustin, and Villa Park. Regional access to the City is provided via State Route 22 (SR-22), State Route 55 (SR-55), State Route 57 (SR-57), State Route 91 (SR- 91) and Interstate 5 (I-5). The project site is located at 2025 North Orange-Olive Road in Orange, California. The project site is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Orange and is bounded by North Shaffer Street to the east, North Orange-Olive Road to the west, East Meats Avenue to the north, and East Grove Avenue to the south. Freeway access to the project site is provided by the Lincoln Avenue/SR-57 interchange, the Ball Road/SR 57 interchange, the Nohl Ranch Road/Lincoln Avenue/SR 55 interchange, the Katella Avenue/SR-55 interchange, and the Glassell StreeUSR- 91 interchange, which are all located within two miles of the project site. 2.� Ex6�ting �e�ting The project site is an approximately 2.33-acre rectangular parcel that is currently occupied by Shannon's Storage, a vehicle storage facility for trailers, motorhomes, boats, campers, and other autos. The project site is relatively flat and is predominately covered with asphalt pavement. A modular office with an attached carport is located on the west side of the property, along with a freestanding sign. There are several poles with mounted lights on site. Access to the project site is provided via a curb cut and driveway on Orange-Olive and through a gate located on the west property line. A concrete masonry block wall topped with chain link fencing and barbed wire runs around the perimeter of the project site. A landscaped setback is also provided along the Orange-Olive frontage. Table 2-1 below summarizes key information related to the project site. Table 2-1 Project Site Information Address 2025 North Orange-Olive Road Assessor's Parcel Mumbsr ' 374-431-09 5iz� ' 101,494.8 square feet(2.33 acres) G�neral Plan i�e�ignatic�n Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) ��n�n� Limited Business(C-1) �xi�ting Use Shannon's Storage Surrc�unctinc��lses�n�t Z+�ning; ' North ' Uses: Single-family residential, multi-family residential (apartments), and a gas station ' Zoning: Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) and C-1 ' South ' Uses: Retail plaza containing thrift stores and a restaurant, Shaffer Park ' Zoning: C-1 and Single Family Residential —8,000 square feet minimum lot size (R-1-8) '" 2-1 Orange-Olive Residential Development Project Mitigated Negative Declaration _i � �.� -1, ��E'S _�,„,,-City of � '�It�t1u$�r� . �flltl0 ' ' � � �. - � � Downey _ � ��a;� �� as -_� � � � t =��_`_:-_ �w � Projfct v �t Loution :- �I rfl 741, - C}r�n e pareM � ��'�� !��_��' � ,,,��j � 5ilverado � <<�t � �F r � � �. _ k ��. �� i.�•}I ��' NGW t?ft �+•`"� ��: � R $ � F�I��tics ■ __ - 1 � `:� __ _�.�_ _� � E A�e�� 'e `� Hart Com �„ � ■ �A�F Carpc►ration �j c'�- �,, ��-=l ,;� =_ � e-- :�l? i;� � '� ,-�; �rr ;'f1 '�. "�� j '1 � --r, --a �' � �*y" � VJ d�WFI�'E'�5 L� -' She�pfvld Thrift �d, United Industri�s � 5tore C�range --- Rovftops Chn�ti�a� ;��` Cvmmunity Chureh E ''. �.J��.�� !u oa�� L�q�id�tican �+ -s r:� Legend: � � Project Site City of Orange Environmental Advisors,LLC Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Table 2-1 Project Site Information Surrounding Uses and Zoning East Uses: Single-family residential uses Zoning: R-1-8 W est Uses: Railroad tracks, various commercial and industrial uses Zoning: Light Industrial (M-1) Regional Access SR-22, SR-55, SR-57, SR-91, I-5 Ingress/Egress Existing gated approximately 24' driveway on Orange-Olive Road Public Services and Utilities Water: City of Orange Public Works Sewer: City of Orange Public Works Solid Waste: CR&R Gas: Southern California Gas Company Electricity: Southern California Edison Police: Orange Police Department Fire: Orange Fire Department School District: Orange Unified School District The project site is designated Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) under the 2010 Orange General Plan (Figure 2 General Plan Land Use). The LMDR allows a density of 6.1 to 15 dwelling units per acre, which equates to a maximum of 35 dwelling units on the project site. The project site is currently zoned Limited Business (C-1) (Figure 3 Zoning). Existing Views of the Project Site Photo A through Photo E below provide existing views of the project site. As seen in the photos, the project site currently contains a vehicle storage facility and is surrounded by concrete masonry block walls topped with chain link fencing and barbed wire. Photo A: On Orange-Olive Road looking east into the project site. The gated entrance to the project site is shown in the foreground. The modular office building is located immediately behind the block wall on the left. The signage for the storage facility is also visible. Various vehicles stored at the facility can be seen in the background. r �_ , � � , ; , � � � � , '� �� _ . � , �- '� . ,�,, . _ � _ � ; lal:. . ; ,n�•+ __._ _ _. ._ _._ �'"�,.��:. ----- - -; ! "`�. :__�._ _.�.._ f i ��z� � �� ;� � � � ;��:.;._:- •."^�._ -� ,. 1 �l_ ' � g. +� ;�r, � ��,�r��"�` _� .� .�-�t_. ��TM 2-5 Orange-Olive Residential Development Project Mitigated Negative Declaration � , � , r � — --- _ _ _ _ _ �, � -� � r :' ; � r � �� ; r r r' � Legend: ��,,�[}(� Low Medium Residential ��-p Open Space Park �[)R Low Density Residential � Project Site �� Light Industrial City of Orange Environmental Advisors,LLC Figure 2: General Plan Land Use Orange-Olive Residential Development Project Mitigated Negative Declaration :� � �w � �' � � ,Cll' � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � RC�VE � 'VE Legend: � __ _ _.____._ Residential Multiple C-1 Limited Business �-� Family R-1-� Single Family Res �_�� Residential Duplex Project Site 8,000 sf 6,000 sf � City of Orange Environmental Advisors,LLC Figure 3: Zoning Map Orange-Olive Speciflc Plan Project MND Photo B: At the southeast corner of the project site looking northwest. The alley way and loading area for the retail plaza to the south of the project site is visible in this photo. This photo shows the block wall located at the southern border of the project site. Existing utility lines and poles run adjacent the block wall. ` ' - �"' -hu � . �..� r � �. ��_� .�., .v��r � a�::, � ' �_ � ti;�.:�,,�.� �� , �� ti "�,�_ .�,_ e • . .. ac.°"°* �:�t6'.n.d.�"c'�� _w e "�~. �"�. �-- ; � �� ,� , , � �� y s # - � � -�• . � .t 1 � a� � L'� �_�_ ��.. ��< :.:: , f�; .. . . ... � . �� r� � �-�t Photo C: On Orange-Olive Road looking northeast at the project site. Photo C provides a close-up view of the modular office building and signage located on the project site. .� «� HAn T a�•s � E ,, c� {5 J ♦"r�� +` i�� ,(� ��I� s ` �.� : , . � � aa.'�r. • ,P. "` � � �_ .,r..w ,... �._ _ ...._ d... . �r � '.,' : , .. ,� �.,.p.. . . , � � �..�. ...._. �y��y� } ^`�. ea. ` �",� M ' �rl S., ..�� w �� a.T �`Ita4� xi.. { a��ju �.�..'P `" �. /. � 'r.�. �,,,:-Y��' ��... .� �r t. -,3T -r'�'. ��TM 2—�� Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Photo D: At the southwest corner of the project site on Orange-Olive Road looking east. Photo D shows the gated entrance to the alleyway of the retail plaza located immediately south of the project site. ` - � . -�__ , > . . -�--..�� ' � .� • - _ ,. . 1L1 , . ._��:.�:.. �TI ON , � `�,; P OF� ,��►� �..� �_-r--'� �� ,,,,..»-�---- ,. �. , ._ �.� ' _ � �'` ..� .� �^`�' ��s. w.,� ,� r ...�,�:� � "" _ �' '��, , m�.' , "�` : �- � hy . ., , . . � _ � �" �'�� ... � . _ � � , _ . ro ^^ �..�: ' �.,,,g ._.�'14'� � � ' ; ,, r " �� w � i,yq � �� ..... �T,,� 4 r � iar:�:e � ''�� , . .. . � � � '`i �°�� ". y 1 -'�`�r; �� t, � �, . .�_; � ��p _ .� � �., � A S,• x��~ .. ��i � � Photo E: On the eastern portion of project site looking northeast. As seen in Photo E, the project site is predominately covered with asphalt surFaces and contains numerous vehicles. � �~ _ , . �. , " + kW rrr�� .t� 3 '.� ! �f � ...r � I �■�� :r. ,�.�...- ; �.=. �---- . � . � � � ,� �,� :�� -+�.-- < 4 . .��' �: . �.. " ,�.��;,� �.�` ""� �,: _ � �;: t : �� , f ��µ: r ti�^�-�. .�„� ��..1C.. � ��, ,�;��:� ,i}� +1 » ' .�. 1 �� :r �' �'` � � � �. �`;' `>�r ��. � � r• -*' _ tl� ��'� 2-12 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Surrounding Land Uses The Proposed Project is located within a residential/commercial/industrial corridor along North Orange-Olive Road befinreen Meats Avenue to the north and Taft Avenue to the south. Single family and multi-family residential uses are located immediately north of the project site. Further north at the northeast corner of Meats Avenue and Orange-Olive Road is a gas station. A retail plaza containing thrift stores and a restaurant is located immediately south of the project site, followed by a Shaffer Park, multi-family residential uses, and a church. Single-family residential uses are located to the east along both sides of Shaffer Street. Further east of Shaffer Street is a single-family residential neighborhood. The project site is located less than half a mile northwest of the Eichler Fairmeadow Tract, which is recognized in the City's General Plan as an area with unique architectural character. Orange-Olive Road is located immediately west of the project site, followed by railroad tracks and various commercial and industrial uses. Existing Views of the Surrounding Area Photo F through Photo L below provide existing views of the area surrounding the project site. As seen in the photos below, the project site is located within a commercial/industrial corridor in a highly urbanized area. Photo F: At the intersection of Orange-Olive and Meats Avenue looking southeast at the existing multiple-family residential buildings. ��. � RY i � ;� �"� � � a i� � � �� a��{U t � �;�� .. �� . ; �1� ■ v� , � . � , :� ».°: ;� ��11� ;� �� z ._ ' . r�...,. .�__.�. �._....�..- `: '{�� .j aii�`�r �►,. � Y ,� , ... � . .- �_. � � �, . . � r,... � ._ � . . � , .�, ,,. � . . ,�-� �. . . _.. � �-,v . � ... ^ s , , .. . . .� , . ... ;.: �,r.- # ,i+ Y � � ` , _ �_ • �,�,;,� --ti�, �+�` "'F 1 f' �. -,^.' � T �� Y��.,, r fiT ' ;� e� ��_�� h -ii� ' � .� Ir ,� ��'� 2-13 _ Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Photo G: At the intersection of Orange-Olive and Meats Avenue looking northeast at the existing gas station. ' �' � �� 7 � �� i� � �r. a � �.:�: .�.... �� .�. �� .w ��. . � , � �.� ` .� -� ... K �Mt.+�.., , . . � � � � i u �� .. �� m. � *�. �{ ,[i � w.Y • �i � ��.. �� '�� x� .M�. � DI �: .. ' �-. �� ... . .y '�,q �.. �� . � _ ` ��= ��._� ` � o �� ,.. •.."� ,u. . � � a� �-��.��.� _� . , „ • � . _ . 4, + � . -r� 1''�'�. ....�j < ;,k � � � �- j � �� . � , _ .� . . r� � ..n. . .. . . . . ... .. . . � � .'� . �'��,itY+ iN`� s . . �"` � . �o.,,: �Eti_R...,.-. , y � � � � ,�i ,,,,..,��.� �i IIIII�I�I I I�. � * '�" .. ,.- ., . TM ��,�^ � , � / }_ !� � �'� �� 1r. �� yl'� ��Jµr - Photo H: At the intersection of Orange-Olive and Meats Avenue looking southwest at the existing light industrial buildings. The railroad tracks and crossing on Orange-Olive Road is visible. .✓- w, ��E�� , �� - � ' � � � � _ � " ' ''� i 1 :G �rr � . , � � �3� u.� .1 �1�' ._ 1 � t, i ._._ _ � � .. � a } ' a ' ��e � � 4� / �E�� _ -..�.. � •.� , ,. . � >�E�.� " . .a .� - � . � a . . . ;":�r� ��,�}• k + �,..,,, x ,,. ,► ' � i�i�l6"". 1"ril ��;' �a'R""'R' � " .. � ,�.,.�,n y. . . . � , .__.._ �-� ._ _ i � � � �_,. �� . „ —�rT""^T'7' _ ., ,... ,., � � , . . _ - �. - . , . � _____ . � , � ,.e : � _ ..+a t ' i ,; � .r ...�.. �..�. , ' , . '..� .y. r _�.��r a .�• � �� _ . > "�. ._ � . - .....,.. .� ;"yfs�+.s. ..�.+>" � � ff , �r � . � �: � ,_ ... ; ; r . r .. _ < a - -. ,,� ._` _ . . , w,. . � �� h.r i,«�,�«�. � x.. ' . . � . . . .,�' .� ��:�. ....,.. _._. �-4 , .��:.•� ' ■ .::�.�e��i 1°., - �} ■ ` `=r ��".� . k`� _ y_� � � ` ,_ , a � �' �. � "'�_ � ._ _,..,� � � r� `� 3 , � �� F' �^ �� . ' �-�� 2-14 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Photo I: On Orange-Olive Road looking southwest. Existing industrial buildings, railroad tracks and utility poles are visible. �� -� :'� ' - . � . � � ! ___�_ .�.� ._.�__..�_ � ' � � :�-f°"' � . t �s �� : - - . �� . ._ , t . .. _ �� _ , , , � ._. , . . _ _.a;� , �r ..,;� �y� ;�+�' - ��;,� � � R_# ` � , , '�!�i� E ,� .;' �� -. :;;;„.� �Y.�`'� `�;�_�� r j�'�M3�'�t�Y- ��.".. �.. . . .«.,... ... � �' +� ' �' . �� Y � f� ��' �. � '� �� ., �� '� ___ .� .*�� Photo J: On Orange-Olive Road looking east down the northem property boundary of the project site. Existing multi-family residential buildings located immediate north of the project site is visible. � .. �. , �� » � � � ,�, . . � � � �F� . + 5.,., . , ; .+ # � �...: . .r{ '�� ..„ � F ` .` � ,.. &.°: . . • �. y� ,� 1� 'rvr„' ,�.+<.A , .,<. .....� .w:. �� .a .n..�.� ._. ,�i� '+'�! ``� '.n" ; �� . � '��1��i�° � ..'r � �;, _, ,� 1 ��i --` ��,�' � � � �5� rR � ` .+Y �� : �� f,. � 1�1� ` 3� ��TM 2-15 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Photo K: At the corner of Orange-Olive Road and Grove Avenue looking northeast at the existing retail plaza located south of the project site. ,�-~ �;� .�`�.°_,_... � '� �� *..:: .:,. T�i��1FY 'S��'FP� s �� - ,�.tt �, � �# F�EfD�NI TYiRtF� (� ��'��`� �i,, ��..� �}�i�I_�4t �,�'�. ' .: � . � '[",�[�ist= l7tr'► a� : �'� t; 'M-�--�---..... �... m�_�_ �.� "�"' �",1�`�` �`,s�� { �,�...��.�-- ��.��---�� : .�+ �.,;�; ,r��. ;.;� � ;�_ . � _ ,��_, ��< � } . �;,., •i s .3 � -�f. };.�' s s ��+�orww��.. �h�. ��: �� . . � ... . ., , .. ,:. ,z �:�. il � r. .�,:ti.. - � r" ��: i � �, a _ 1 y �- �;- _� � 5.+� � .:` x;�`� � ''�4_ � .�;��. Photo L: On Orange-Olive Road looking east at the existing retail plaza located south of the project site. � ; �� ,. , • �� { � �,- e � ; ,� ��`��` � � ...A,�`�~' i` � ` •+ � r , . �� }a, s�. wqx.�.r 4.;* � � ' � A y'� �ei —�.. * � � b�i..�-�`• � �S R i w i ' � � � '�� .. ��` r k. F ��.�`.��k . ��" 2-16 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND �.3 �rc�posed �rc�j��t �i��r��t�ri�ti�s MBK Homes is proposing to construct 25 detached single-family residential condominium units on the 2.33-acre project site at a density of approximately 10.73 dwelling units per acre. The project site is designated LMDR under the 2010 Orange General Plan, which allows a density of 6.1 to 15 dwelling units per acre. The project site is currently zoned C-1, which is inconsistent with the LMDR land use designation. The C-1 Zone does not allow single-family residential uses. According to the General Plan's Land Use Zoning Consistency table (Table LU-3), the R-2 (Duplex Residential), R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) and MH (Mobile Home) zoning districts are compatible with the site's LMDR General Plan land use designation. Therefore, the proposal would change the zoning of the site to R-3 in order to bring the zoning into consistency with the General Plan. The proposal would also include a Specific Plan to establish site-specific development standards for the Specific Plan area. This Specific Plan regulates the development of the project site and allows for the proposed single-family detached residential units on the project site. Development standards established under the Specific Plan are similar to the standards specified under the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone within the Zoning Code but are customized to better accommodate the detached condominium product type. A copy of the proposed Orange-Olive Specific Plan is included in this document as Appendix A. The Orange-Olive Specific Plan would specify development standards and design guidelines for the construction of 25 single-family residential condominium homes on the project site. The site design for the Proposed Project is provided in Figure 4 Conceptual Site Plan. As shown in Figure 4, access to the project site would be provided via an approximately 52-foot wide upgraded driveway off of Orange-Olive Road, which leads directly to the main drive aisle. There will also be a reconstructed sidewalk, ramps, and street lighting. The main drive aisle would be flanked by clusters of four single-family homes with each cluster arranged around a motor court. All proposed single-family homes would be two stories and one of three plan types, as summarized in Table 2-2. Figure 5 Floor Plans illustrates the floor plans for each plan type. Table 2-2 Plan Type Summary �ross ' Alcr.{?f Area ': Plan T � l�nits S ,Ft. * #C1f Stori�s #af B�droorns BD #�f Bath BA Plan 1 8 2,412 2 3 BD+Office+Loft 2.5 BA Plan 2 7 2,497 2 3 BD+Loft 2.5 BA Plan 3 10 2,519 2 3 BD+Den (or 4 BD) 3.0 BA Total Units 25 * Gross area for each floor plan is inclusive of garages. Architectur� and �sign The design guidelines contained in the Orange-Olive Specific Plan reflect modern interpretations of the Spanish, Craftsman, and Prairie architectural styles. The proposed architectural styles for the 25 single-family detached homes draws from Irving Gill's designs and feature architectural elements inspired by the Walter L. Dodge House, Horatio West Court, and various cottages designed by Gill. These architectural elements include the use of arches, flat rooflines, rectangular massing, and light exterior walls. Conceptual elevations are provided in Figure 6 Elevations. Additional details and descriptions of the proposed architectural styles are provided in Appendix A—Orange-Olive Specific Plan. TM 2-�7 m n � 7 ,:y; � ' � >� � � <, `G 1 "�, :.. �,t � O `'�"""�� II W I I $^ � # "`" �,-.:,.. ,� � - w-� � � � �.. ; ; O ' y � ..� .A � ` � .� o � 4 ., �� . ..: _ •': � p� r:a„ . � �� ,. ,�. .. ,: „:. � � �� >.:. m �� ,� , � � � � � �_ _ c) ;w'��*- � � w - � �� . k�� fl! � � Q9 g+ �ti . � � � ��,�4�� ti`� � � � ` �� ' ��t�``,��: °" � - � _ A .. :�:: :ti;�_. �� 4 � ' •.,�� S�� '� :a, , -..... < F+ � V f \ cr' �� i. 3" ! � ��LI � � Q ' �\ $� ��' � � .. (- �ST "�r :� ,��z _ . " �.i'�r7 y� Y , V1 �../ � —� � � � ' � ''--'- � ` ` �� .. . _- ' �.��,�� — r ' ._.� - ��=-�"i � � �,P"',� ' �� d r � � i r o , r � ��i ti � � 0 , n n- �� `� Gv � i ,.,�� ` �� , �� -� , - „ _ ,� , ' s � �� "�"' `�".z'=` � ��., � i b �� '.. r �. � 0' �_��--K ~ _XI.'.l co — � 3 �.N� I ' 4-_ � ' � Z• � W Idt °' � _ � . � � � � � m � 7� - m� 'A � � -- N � � 4 ., � v � o �� }°; ��A i � -= D w � �� w o � - � I � O N N y �p� i `��"� � � _� � . _ ; . —: � .,,. � A � t�. � � � � � . �: ; , . . N. � 2�= � -- �' w y �, �� , i � � � � � � o �s ' - � �u a; - i � a g � o ,- � �} --- � , , . _o � '; .. O ' ,.. ��; - = � o m . � 4 ' � ' � � ' ' _ . I m ' � . . _. � _._, . ' �� . � e - �� xa.��. � � ..... L—_� �' � � � , � — � ._.� � � N r �, T�° � , � � � � . A �,j .p U " ' � a "�. w w � � �W �� i ca I � - - � ��. m m � � � � ' �� £-A /� ' Y 1 0 = Y 1X ,o _ !l..�' . 8.3' -� � ' i - � I W N O M IO _ < ��— � � _a k_ i ` �� 00 �� ' 0 � s �n � � -- — � �. � �� _ _ � � , � � � 1 � �. O d .�� i i 0 -�� ' �� , �I � � � , � -7 - . � ' i - ( � � c/Q� , I � � p _�N I � .." 'I ' W �V a � �� _ . c . _ J_. 01 � C� ' � �o }W �• � � . � � � 1 � . " f . � " �.� � � � I � t!i �1 �` � . vV � X . 8 N �� (7 IA ' � � �., � � N r� � � � �' , A._.. �l. .o�n O �� ' � :a'i .... I i.�Tl _ �W �i� � . � � � .�.:. � ,, . -� '. .3 � � - _.d � . , o,� r -�• , 1� 1. ...; ..I � .� m �� W .' � /V _.I\.� ., ., . - _ ', � , , y. � � ,� � . . . _ 1 , � � , �� , �, .. __ , -- ; - � , - . ; z � ,; � 8� 2�� —' �, z � , , , : � ' �. i � � _ � � � � , cQ � w � N I .. � � A' rf ii/ O? � 01 I � � �h � � <• — �-. F, <^' Y•1 r Y-3 � �D � 0 0 v+ v, _ `n £.�l `�'-.l { 42 w Q � � B N O { O - ' � � `_ " __ � I � �� — — , - � o � �� r �, `� � i ll � ' � , �� i � � 'a # � � � � �� n � � _ � � - �� r�-r, � e o� � . � � f . — N o - � � �� II� �� r, W ! �` I �� .-r „ a .� �� -;'� i _' A �� , E.r''1 � � � - , in� < � �� ' � v A N - O 'n �� , , �� °° �^, _ � �" _ I `/}�. , a i � ..O N �_A.... _.p�.. ___—__— '" ." �V n ':wrn � - r - `"� �� , f1 , od 1 =� 8:9r"' ! __ _ _ ^� n (�,j �:i r-h < -- ooaooeo o -� I'd. r �y. �,��a�� _ a�,mwa� a ,� � � N ; � �'�� D §�' ti�� ;,. 0000000 o N ------- - .,= � ��M�� a } _��.�-�-� .. � - � �ssssss q • , g�� ; � - -- � �� - m------ _ �. - - -, - - _�� : : - _ 1 _. -- m�� A , � ' .-- - -- . �0000c F � � �z z� � � � a��a � . ... � . � � � .—} ___ . � __ a� }a W ''�,(n �•A W r ,,.,,.,,. lD '',W N � •A ' Y:�� ,. .. _ ' •yu F �$ ..�� +'aii-...�. ,�� - ;.,z � 's> n �.. � . _ m_._._.._. , '� .� ,..y>i-� �...:�: t .. � �' i� �� ,:rt.� .�� . - 3. � 1 ; , ' �k �". '. : .�, :.: , � s#''v.,: ��ka ''� � �.... :.... .�. ��... ,. . . .. . ...��. ._ _ .::... . .,. � a ,:, , ... � � ,. T1 co � � �l D � . _ � � � �� _ � � = o �� = oo e _ =o m a� m N � - - _�� ;�_ �_ � ' o � e �' � �� '_ C� � N � � 9m�[ Y = �ca � � -;�� o � � C� TI � � 9 �� S��ic �� -;�� r �'� � �D � D c� c p � _ � g� - �= o s'_` �� W � � + � � � $ a n �' � � - a�e = `=__-- �= ; � � 3 ` xe �_� � = --- ' V_ �, = = �a� s W=Me �_ n � _ �m _ - - � =�� s'= �- � m m� -- - � � . x . � 8= m� � - $ ` >� . - ''—'�� ,� � _ , � � _;=_�� - -p �� - � ��g�� e -� � � � m n < .� �' 0 � � � O i m � � � ,rt cQ � �p D � Q � < ..-, O � � T � � rr� r r'� r ..� n � N _ �,,_,.. k �..�� 23,0'. ��,_�,. � .._ __ ._____- .__._____— __-_._-- __..___ _ f CO �� W ''� I �I fD -� � i r __._-�_ (00D C� � p V1 V1 I - I�; — c�a c�o n°'i � �TI � T �, � , � r�� p N� N �1 L� �7 �=1�� , °' � � , 0 �� r�-� �� ''� - � I r' ''i I m Z � Z '' � � '�� -, �'� � --� rI N � � II � v I' v I�.�� I ' � �� I � o D ' I ��1� i O o T � � � � , � j I �, � � � �� r , r ' � �� O ,-�--, O , � O O � ��1��1�� ; , , � �� F___'�F___l � F___'�F___l ii I �( �` '��` ' ___r�__[_H_�___i.___. ��ll a �,x,�� ,� �,x,�� ,� - k.____�I____�I k.____dL.___� �— � � � , C .. LINEN __"_..__'______ • �� '�� O��y�� a ___ - ' - �----- - �i��L��i� � I--- I m W � � m --- _ o C� � i ' m w � I� i _,..... � � � _' -' " —_ a - �=- r � ....� �i � m3 � � � q O D - —_ . A � iI\ i O m _ • m o O ----- �- — � � ��\ o o n �� -��'� � � � � � � �� I � � - I� �� p � ! hDc�n � € (� I � � � � 3 � � � z �__�- __ , , ,� � = A ; � � � O � , � ____-- ��, � — � � � � ; O O � �`��1�'��}U� � �. � � I Q N � � � � � r-+ � �• � � � fi- - ----�" _ � _ __--- __ ---- -- _ -k (� x 13._8., K 2o.-e. �� n � c � 1 I ', � � �� ' ' � � a _ � O e � �' �T� _ � _____ i � �I � � I m �..f ` I _ -- - — - m T � � ' �o � � G� � p � � i �+� o o T� y O Z -� �� ' \\\ x' " `-m ',, 0. � � O „ D T �'" > m � I �D eaeeeee e m D O O m O �� ' II rn-F -_ -_ = O z7 D i ' ooaeeee e � (n � -- �' ' �NN� p , , � � a a��z��3 p � co N � 1 � __ }"� - - I�— — - _ ----- n c,c�i �, 20'-8"CLR ' cOo E �i m w � A I ~�:�� W A 'A y � O a y I o��e � � � � � `� ----- � � � ��I ,..,,.,,.,,. � � � � - —' --� '� . m � � � � A �- I: j Q i II ti —� I ! � � � .... __.__-__., . I _..'__ ..I .. I�i 1 � 7C CD � D � /h T` '. (p^ � � �l � � ��_ c-+i ❑ / ! � • h {' < � � � � � � . —' �, xo , � ..� Hz � - - _• � � o � i _ z , , � o � -� C� �"1 � — � � ;` ,'� " � � -- � D � � � � � <. � � � ? -'' � C �� `� z W N S � � �� — -- I �� .. � � ^� I � � i o� +�_ _ �� _ � --- — � d � _ � � • � 3 � T �� ., x��rs;, � � g� � . „ ��...�'�r.�,�"'�`��' �V y �"� �q,;�,S.� v' -� , . £ r�� o [ri�� o �� . � � , � � � � n � <, .G ' O � .�� O T4 � �+� � � d � �� — � � D . Q .-,- , �_o, � � k tn' '• /1 �, ��'-0" ,� 2z'-a" f,z o• z._o,•f � _ ___ � --- --- - � � _ ---� -- r r"�': e _ � f � 0 - � -� � m3 � �� .: (O � � � ^ � �'II_�D�� LMEN � � O � . l ) m � � q � .� ' � = O ,'_� ..._' (DC� � � �� ' ` � /` w � °' 0� 3 Z ! � �� e > � � '� O N N � � � ' ; _ � o A C y v �� (� ,,;_.,:,,� ''. V . =y __=k �-i _"__ � � � � � � 0 0 � 0 0 � � � o ;;x,; o o � � � � ��11i�V��4�� ---- � � ulQ�V�lUll� � ` 'I � _ � �� , v-�/ I a N � � �o �. �'-' i� .. c�> � _ � . _ f - �/ O i , - i I� ,._, ^; . � ��r��ti �-� -�-�-�-- � �� _ � / � m �' � i � � �� ',� ti i' , � - �' , ,i o °I . --- _ `, � � 1 � . w �. �.�! -- .. � p �� i -� ��. 1'� � � � ' ':1 r � � �� o -- �-�; . _.;� m = i �W � � p �� - � ; � � <' : , ; ,� �, � ' � � i a �° �r-e L e'-ia__f y,_e., �_ ir_z. — - "a -- z � i (D � t �"0� �Q � — --- — __— i �J � r--h � � � �,_o.. _ � � � �' --- - _ _ _ _ ir-a° ts-s^ s o� � � -- -- _,�---- --- -- � n � o � � � � � , � # � � �+ ti�, . _. � � �, � T__ -- � _ ti _ e e o �� e , � I � m y T� � ' '-- — � � ' e--F � -�. ( - � � - , � - - � V1 ' _ _ �. � � - ��.,_�.� m T F < I i I' o ' (� D � O � T� �� II en-h O z -� � '�� ' �� a �' r � ° m 0 a = �� s� - o � D � Z i; �—� ' -� � � C , - ,��F I 3� ` � ; � � � � ; D � � � � � � (J p p (J � - -- I � � � � , Z � I � . A � 0 o G� > A r� ____________-._ '� . � � � . m c, ��i I ��. e � � � � - (n � 3. � � � �i ' � � Ns � 8 Cn- ^' � � � : z .� � nT! � G� � z T j D ci � p ,� c� —�—•- � W N S f�D 'a �, � 'i I � O) � _ i ._� .. ..; (D A N C�'! I 3 ! � � • • 7 4 __ . —____—� —�- T � i � � - � � -o � N 1 1 �� A � ..... ..�F%ma�u ... ,_ , m `/ m n � � x 36..6.. _ , _. `< � -- _ - -- O O � _ Zo,o__ ,5 8° ;, -----— - -- -- 3 O , ,-,o• •-- � � > ".;� f 5'._ ��/� � a.. �:, , �. -� ! �_.__.... — ......____ _�. D � y� � _ �N��-��h��lt�t�� _ a ,,., ; �,� �� T ��i �� o ..... ,I �i ,, i I � � � W , r �� r `� j g � n � �� - � � � � � � �� T �r� � � I f V� � �. A3 T m � � W . � CO D . 7 � N C� � � ' --- � c� " s O 'I ! O w °° °' � 3 Z �, '', -- — --- - - - o A � y _♦ �'' � I I � __ - - t�-"� i � c T ' � . � �— � �a , Q x o m �I I � � � ' � O � o a o , � z_ > ;, ; ; � , i' � � �� i m � l._ ------}-- �� 1 ; i r a o � � �-� -v � � r r��fl��t8�ff��Cf��8�`� ! ,_ � �. - ; r � .��j�� a i , � , � �_ z - �_ �� , , � + €.� � � � � � _ :� � � - -- r,- � __ _ -- � � ' _ � � � > m i � w : � � �' I' c m 1 __ - � .. � , � � � � - _... N O m �'' � � ' D ��/� � v � � � � � � ,� ti � � � I I I � S m i b O D �, � \Li �� ° tiON 1 ,.� ___---- � ii 1 ', ��, '�. i��i 9 � � � m ` 1�1� � ' i , . p , � � 11 � ' - �_ � � � �' — �� - � � �, <. � � a � � �� I � � � !- � � � � N ___ 13._�� — 23'-6' Z YL. X as,�s. I� (Q � --- ---- - _ __l flJ � � � �. .___..... 36 6' ... �� ——_ . _ . ...._.___— ...._ - _ ....... � /� .................15-6'... .. . 2��_�• � �V � G n � � O � � � - � � .__ � # � � � � �..h � I N m � „ ; � ; ti� T � � ' i o m � i i m ^m � I�I V � � ; ' R �. m �, i � " �D � � � —n o b n ,�i 4�-�° r1 D � z � � � � � � �;_ .-r , :U � p ,n � O } .: I p m �- veo�000 � m � O O m O � ' ='s's='s�'s a O � D � �==_=== � cn _ = c m====W � ; =sss== � a��a � N � __.__._.__� 20'�1"CLR. �� T � ..r____- __________-__ _-__...___.. � 00o A O � � � �� A D I! N � p p p � � j j II � T T � T ��I�� , � � I � � � � � � I c� I I � p i -ip i c m _ � � omz D p � �I, II I,� ,'I � .'. I ' ' O � l� 2 V D � , I _ _ o v,- ^' �' � " �----- -- - I � �' N = � j j w � .. �� i _� � -' c7 �I � , � 'I ; Z ; I W � � � � i i j - a � _ � � j N T W ry � �o � � d � -_ . _ ��`� � � 3 . . ----- - ^ � � i � �, � � �� ,-� �� . . K n ❑'° I �i I - i� � � _ --- �_� o � � " m .____ _ " r O I � � Z �� Z � O , , � =- _ --_ — m � w �, , , _ -t r �, � �j_ . _ ' " _ �� .µ .• , { � ` � i � � �� I�� L , _ � �� t , _ ____ _ , � o ��F.,. .: ��' � ! � , . r 13'0'•. .. .. . 23�'6� ......... _ .. � rf �./ m n � ' <, .L � � � y�f?;, (� O � � � " ', �'M' � --- > > � rD .'i� - - - � ,� D T r - �-r,-----x..*=�+- ! � � Q rr' z: ___ � G7 � �T' T, �� . � T � � ► � � �; -f: - � � --1 o � � .� : .+ , r ; _:, ., � �: � _ '� � Vf T r � C � �I T � � ' n �'" a � � , , ; - a �� . , .� ;/' � :� �, I� �� i � � � � .. � .,_ �._, A 2 a 3 Z � ��.. . i i_ � � - , t'__ � �p �' � W Z �� ' , � m v (D � � �' - - .{ I �: Oo' �' = µ, _ m , � � � o - ' --- � wcoN3 � r � � : O N N y � O � x - , , � . _ � _. � (n _ _, s ` i A C. ` :. -� '.1_.�._;. �, � ._._.. . f � ., '. . N . I ._ ___ .:i� w � '' i o r � ; � . i" , � O _ � ...- --� __..._._..._._.__.__.... u O / i % %s;' A � ; U ' `/ � � { �') i .,�� - � i � I N I N l' / / �,-�:� Si 1�,'�.,..; i� � O _�_ . . ._� k�� . � \ � � I 9�_.��i ,�«,�.. .. I/1 � — � � ��:� .) ��. . `��J __ _ � �,_�,� ��s � 1 � � � �n ��,y � � � ! �~ ^ T �p � <� z•,y, rn tQ� v 9 t M1 i � � a � Q ��`� L�1 � �v t - � z �� 70 � � , t � ; ��, � �� fD rn � � � � ��.� � Q N A �� T' ; v L W r � c • ='-- � � m �`� �D �D , ,.� a � � cQ � , _..� � �� -� _ 1 a � �, � _ , Z .� .. O ��y�"��'�"��.. N � W .. _. I � L � �� O � "� - 9 f N �� ♦ --r ... _ '� ' _ . ...._. _.� � � `\ _� _— I I � �I � ..� (d� N � �✓ 1 �I ��. I L� I `b➢: � O � � ; ' . � - I J W � � _ '! �� t � � b� � N 3. O � ° S 4 I °° � r-r � � � i - A w kµ` � : � - �'i -, , �, ( � O, � �.�; �"� n _.__ � �e e �: ;�_, �� = a r-o� r.o� � �' �� _ � � � ' , -- �,`�-` s,_�„ s._�,� ��-� : _� t2r-s• � � :�� .�� m I�—_—_� .. � fJ --- } � ---------' ------ O i i'� �� i O ' � T� � I I � I � o00000000a E � � � � � I , � , � - m = � - � a i 4:,2 ,; ', � yo � � 8 � 0 � Z '�A a�� s � � _ = m � � z � n � i i � � � A � � � `� �D �' Nn ,n � � - - r �� N � � I I o o � � ^ i i y � � A r � T VI I A A I � Ny � � � � + + � 8 m W � � � � , � �ti N� � m w � +� � � � Z 1� � � i i � � • I I 7 � �=a��' ��A � 7 I 't-� �c ; i a:�z � � i � � i � � ,� � i i � �� . .�'t' I I (� �...�, ?e��"� .:.5,� I I I �� I aw'.� � �: o I � �� I � � .. , - I, — ------------------ --------- � _, x �, '4� N .� m _. _ ---- - - lY �� A rf � �� }» O '�.'P"i'.. ui�C;.).§x=. ......., .. �' , W � N m n � <, � � � p _____ � � � ,��+ 1p � r u \ � �p ,''i� n, � �---� _ _ - . � "—_..__. . ..Y �! a T� � __- �—_ �v � i; G T rn = � � � _.. ' � v,' _ � � ;�' I m i o �, a ' �^ ( T •' � � . �� i � ; �"� ; � � � � � � � ^ r'" o t I a r f Z i � �,� w � ; o � � � ' , � �� 0° i z ��; � m � � � x w � e�i � � __ �, W CD N � —71��r--�! �O �� N �`I(�i--1 A � 1---11—.�, r�—+, �� :� �� a � - ,�� ',� � Cl�tl �- ��[-1 i � ------- � ,t � I��III �i �:,.: �Y�,� t' � � �.• � � � � + , 7 O �'�°,; lQ � i �;.4 � � T �-_______ � , ,� °- n , Z I �1 i I � �. � � I I �r � rn —_ rr� �' I � � v�i � ` ��,., � � � Z a' a � � ti �! � � rp � —, a � � � � o ,�` o I I� I f�� z i I Z I �' Q � �� C _ 0 1 n O � � � A � � �' 'p s �' � � ��', � � � -� I � � ,��-r w I � � � �,, � � �. " I I n �o � ^ � rr �� ,_o,.;. F �,_s,. , �I `� -- � � �� ' 4 9 1�" I I >9 1" �� s� �, 'f f I � t25 s � + � __�_ � � � � � � � --- O ' O I A � ;�� ° i ooa0000 � , � � � m � = � � � r o � � � y � � � o 0 a il i m II � � _ - � - � Z r � � xm = m � � � � � � I� RIDGE � � � � � D O �� N3 � ��I �� S r 3 n � � � 1/4":1'SLOPE � £ m � y � ,� o -n W � � + � �� , � � G� � o m � � � Im \ A Z — 3 1/4":1' L PE - .p S O � � � CI C1 cn � � � . r i fD � ; � � 7 i m f� � i . . I I __� _ __J�—�i � ��: , � � .. � . , � � / • �; � A � A \ � . . �• e. . o I � �� I � �. . I � "' ' m m/ �� rL� ; �� \ A . . .`. .. . . . n � � � ��,., � 1 � r-r :� m n � ; � <, `G 1 � � � 1, � _ � O ' T + � __ ' � � ��. � ( � _ , i ,' �r � F ( � ^` , �' � L� �� . iY ,.^��:: .. I :. � f�,' :� =,�.. ._ � � r '� i ,, T �'� il ._ },'. aJ � � T � r ;� 'F D � � a i { � '- _� � � . ;1 Q � —� � '. � �" �^ i' -� �' v,• ._.� z f � 0 I � _ � t � � � j �, �_ Z �� w ,.i � 1 , ,�' . �, I I _G _ _ �. r " � ' � -1 1+ r - � n � t `- _ _ { �r 1� " I �:; a ' , , r, � � Z A 3 ' -i�� ' N co �� W r " �� '" ` v m � � `' �ti ,c�oC� � = � f� � ' � � � o j�, p N � y I L ._ ._._ +�^.,. O �- �_ - _'�'�tt* A � � � � o �l— =� N � -- � �� r � ; ;. � � , �� r � ; , ,. ; � A ' —_ � . . ... . ..........,... _.�. � I }}1 b! �Y I � O t � � t i n 6'-$" � ' (Q � � T , � n �, f O IP I I � � O �v ' " z I I' I I � '*: T A 1, � I I I I , � �. r" . � � ` I l � � � � � ,. a � ' I I' � I , � in � N a Il � I Q o � I I I' � � r� z �., o I I � � _ � Z I � r* �' � � � ____ _ � - - � �, � � \a ; ff� I I ( n � ' !� a, � o � r � � � � w # � � t , I �, � e� � F � � � e < N O � a ` � � � � �•' � � � -----�___ Q f ��-s•� �. s�-�^ s�-i^ � � n _� , � �� t25'-6" �� - —— 7� --- 0 �� E � T I � �� r � ' a000a000 z I , , i omss � � � N � so y � s � � N � � I '� �' � � g T m � � � I N N $ � � H N � � g m � � �. � � � m � N � � z � °°- � � C� � n � ' A � N D � _ � N T W N f�D � � � � � � � � 0� f'! � 3 • -i 3 3• I __ _-.�� ---_� O� � _ �9` - i � m a:�2 `F�- G �--� � �r RIDGE � 8: � ...,§ ?�5E°�', P,R' � o '—_'----__ _ I.(7 I� � .. . . . . .,. ,' � ^' 4:12 �a�' A m ��/1 �� i _ �,�^^ N I .-. A r n �� '� � a��:: ;x;. . . ' 1 �, .�� __ � __ _ � _ ry. -----_------ � Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Qpen Spa�e and �.andsca�ing The Orange-Olive Specific Plan would incorporate the usable open space standard for the R-3 Zone, which requires a minimum of 250 square feet of usable open space per unit (Orange Municipal Code [OMC] Section 17.14.070). The Specific Plan does not carry forward the R-3 zone's requirement for minimum open space dimensions, or the requirement for common open space or amenities. The Proposed Project would be required to provide a total of 6,250 square feet of usable open space under the Specific Plan. A total of 15,223 square feet (approximately 609 square feet per unit) of private open space (Figure 4) is provided in the form of private yards for each unit. As shown on Figure 7 Conceptual Landscape Plan, the Proposed Project would feature enhanced vehicular paving at the project entry. The frontage along Orange-Olive Road would be landscaped with drought tolerant trees and plants. Landscaping and walkways would also be provided along both sides of the main drive aisle al6s arad Fencing Figure 8 Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan shows that the Proposed Project would be surrounded by a six-foot high stucco perimeter wall. Vinyl privacy fencing would be constructed between each residential unit. Vinyl gates would also be installed to provide access to private yards. Parkrng The Orange-Olive Specific Plan parking requirements goes beyond the multiple family residential zones parking requirements (condominiums) as specified in OMC Section 17.34.060. Per Table 17.34.060A of the OMC, residential units with three or more bedrooms would be required to provide 2.4 parking spaces per unit. Of the 2.4 spaces, two spaces per unit shall be enclosed garage spaces. A minimum of 0.2 spaces per unit is required to be easily accessible and distinguishable guest parking in addition to the required parking per unit. Under the Specific Plan, the Proposed Project would be required to provide 60 total parking spaces, of which 50 must be enclosed garage spaces and five must be easily accessible guest parking spaces. Under the Specific Plan, a total of 2.88 parking spaces shall be provided per unit, of which two spaces per unit must be enclosed garage spaces and 0.88 spaces unit shall be guest parking. The Proposed Project would provide two private garage spaces per unit for a total of 50 private garage spaces. The Proposed Project would also provide ten guest parking spaces located off of the common motor court areas and 12 guest parking spaces along interior streets for a total of 22 guest parking spaces. The Proposed Project would provide 72 total parking spaces, which goes beyond the parking requirements specified in the OMC. '"' 2-33 m r1 < '� r OO �'.� ' - ��pwN�o��a�ti� � � � � �� vvv�v�y>z<vvv�mv� O �Z � o a o �� y ��c � 'o 0 o N � O Z 3 , 00 �`8$, `° `° � '�� v � � aaa �� ni , > >� �,. �I --� � ;�f ^o �; aaa� � � � � '-- �� , 3oN�_„ �� a� , - = � � � " "� prti � T �v . � _�`��.zo� �a�� " m D � � q n M '2 n' 3� �' m y� n F o.v� a � 9 . � �vo 8 'c`^,°�mon`D�i � d�. Q ^ o a fi -a w m o � ?� ? �� '�./ p� �~ �`� - = S vCi y B'� < ^o ��a� . � o N , -..> �3 � � � F � � 3 =^ N ^ c � ��i'_.; ,:•� ��g�w g a� � a�-�m x O ' - - .: � y� D T N N �/ � � -' �.... � j)� j y C�1 � N d � � d � . . � � ^� . ._.... , 47'.1:.L 3' 'Z- � s� m � �" - : � �d � � � � ..� �� ,�+� �'� � �'i v o � T o m d r �� ` � i , ' � �y's s�_ <<$ a� � �m =¢n ��o 1 , � c �,.� � . . ..r�j�' ` .. . m�v o E . � �_ a o � a c�m 4 S m � $ 0 3 ! �� o a �+ 3 � _. y � ('1 + � � ORqNG n� =a � y� _ n^ ,� � iE, � � E - p V 3 � �� / N ° � ' E � _w , , , o _ � � - � � � d �� >.,., ! �-.,._ + .. R q � �' 3 . �, - u� D � . � � _- _ � m 3 -� w -ra +_ 8 " ' � + • �T, j d � £� � _. I . � d � �� - ---- - - ¢ � ,� �� # ; - — _y d� �' 1 , �� o� §� � y , _� 'n a �' m o � - m n � _ m�. �� . � �. �� :: _... • .'i' �' t,_.. � � �� ' � ,,, � � . < � �- 1� - a '�'' N . a , �:T� o� "• , �' PRIVATE Al��ti __ � �.� *i �, � � �� „ , � , � C7 ; � � ;=� ++ lQ � � �� N � O � � _ . ; � �. C� � I z ��. � � � ,.� � � W � ' 1�.. � � � � I O ,' __ �• C � p _.._� . . G� I }� _.. _... � V1 rr � � � � � � � � � 1 � . �i. (p (D . , � � . , � � � ; '�,� �e qb! � y � rr - , . .. ___.._ e-h � � ` �, _, � ,�"�°�� ' < � . m � - r� � _._.� � .` . + . o < � ,.� . �_ � r., � � ,` ' O c.> I � ,� .� _ . ... 1 /�� ti °�o- a�i .. , .. . .. � o' � � � � s. .. . . ; _ .. � � � � x , � + o ru . � CD � �- � , � � � � � � , ' �" , �� „ ` , � A � � �'�"" �`� N ` � � � � ti _ ; 0' - - �� .� �� rD -;,� �� , w � '� �I ;�� , ,, � �+ ,'��'�' , � _.�:+: � � ,. I � w � .il� � k _ j � , � � � � �''�''k �t%j'�j �� . t�"�` ._ O � � " � � ' ..� � � �� ,d .�,�� .. ,��;w,1 ,� y_ �. ,� . �, � � �� ''_ � � � � "� � +��r ,��` � ' �RIVATE AISLE �' _ � , - . � � , -� . � �L,1' � � � �; � � . � '.� � �� --- -• � �. , �� a + r m lQ � p. �� M� , C " , k � , r�`. ,,:�,. . V O �� ,_ 4 a� J • _ o r` ti � -`------�-----r n — ti _: , ; y� � : . o —- -. � . , t �r� �� . .�x; . � n / O . , o , -� . � � � � A �' _ � 3 � r I Z � � � � _ u , o � r � o o `�\`',,.,� d� d 3 c�'i � V , _a ,�1 i d� �3 D Q �° — —o "� �;:�+ �D �= m N � � � �� _ � l ; - � __ °� � m � �.. �m � - � �_ � � � � m � � _ _. _ ._ . �__ , Z � �: � v n' �.�`' � � m (1 � � � < � � O ':a � O � � � � � � � — � D � Q � . O• � ; � N r'r'1 � l \ R �� n �a � A ly ! �-� 0�lVE ROAD � —� ``� � � '-�• ' � �_. '___""""'� __ V�Pecke s9(hP1 � ,� I L'_""__"'_� ' ��.�.- . �,��. II 1 � \ _ `� .. � I �� 1 I � � � �€ � .`'r '� � •.��, \ o � \\ � � n I , ' > .._ I1 ' �-_ ' . � .. ' ' i_.. . . I` �` I ��. .. �. � � � �� o ' . r� -------'--� , � � � F=-+ . - -;�� L______' 1 ""'�l � �-�-�'� � 1 a,. N � ^ 1 1 o �,�,. r- _..�.'__'_.. Ls-�r_��Y?�.u�; . .. � � u_ . r I o ...___.�--'-__,,.- � i 6 � I � 1 0 ., I . .. . , i _— _ � 1 . _ �� ; �� \ O � ,--{ � w ; A '�'� �: �` / ! . � o o ; � � � _�__�-= �-�- - �-� N � �--� �-� ' � � � i � , � ' .., j /o np- � 8 0 � - . � ^___... _._._.. _. . _ .`- i � f I � � � � . '� /V � � . � y � � F �� l � � � � ^ N � � ; v _ , � � , e.-0. i � , -, A, � .+ �� 1 — - ' -- V � i � _ _ �; � O � �� i � i . � � i � j' � § �� i �r. � .�i, i i o Q,. o i��.. � � i � � � �� c � � T3 I � � ,� i ... � ." _ ' .. � � i i � � �'� � o i i �.�.. 1 O � s � � ' I rn � � � (p a � � � � � — � � o i .. ' �-�- i i � � �. � i rn � i c � �:� � � '�� d � fD � � � T ^. I__ .� � � � N �� O � i I ._� O Z'Ov tYv� . I � �/� � �� N � � �/'Y� � ^ � ; � I � 8,-0. � ...,. j Q L! � ` J � f. � � � � � i �/ I i ; .,,.. N � . . � o � � - i � --- � - �' � � � � � � � � � '; L I , , . .. . . : . ; � "--- - �--�—� � � � . . . � � � � � .� � i � -- i � i <. � � �. � � � �_ ? -. --� � -- o � � �} � v ' � '� � � y . , . ___" . � � � �- � , � � F � � � � � � 7 ��- - - - � �� i g —�-� w � � �� y_ - PA , ` �� { `" � � � � rp ' � ; _ e,-o° `, ; ; CD � � 7 ' $ (p � � � o � � '� � ; � � ,��- � ; � n — �- �� O N � I � �'[ � � � I � ( � � � � "'�S V 1 � � 1 � � � T � ( � � � V .m,�.,��..�.-..�.s ' • : 2'0"HP. m �. I u, e-h � o ` ` n ' � � � � i w Q � m i � � o_ � � i t . �� j �' � I"F � � __. . ___.-_ m � � . � u' t i � � d � �� i � � � � ` ' � o. a ; � n , � s� �• .,.9 n , ..., , �. � , ' �, � _. , , � � ° � n � � r-r � � . . � � � � � � ti � o � Rl � d 2 � o n �' � � i , ��f�, . J �.. N � _ . � r._ - ' i m „ � � j "' �S I ' 'P i y � � - . .. ...�. • m � � _ I. _.�. 8 0 �� . � ��_ i c�i . „�... � � � , � � � -.F 80 � .- �-- � � � m �. � _-_. ' �__... - ' I I .; �,,,�,�,K _;. _ .. e �. °� � ° o � . , �'�' 1 � � � � � �-� �/; - }-, � , � � � �� , o � �� : � ; � o k� . '' .. _�;,�� , I--K �� , � ; �' �,�+ . � PR '� � � . � � � � � �— � � � ... ��. � � 4 � ' � —�-1�i o ; � , � � ' � , �— -- � .. , ' � ,_-1 , d r � : '•' ' � � � o � - �i.i � __ _ � �� µ. � � � � a o o , , o � � .`� � > �, � ti � � � � � � � ' � 3 � „ � ' . .. .,. ... __ � m �r i i � .. 4 _. �"'_s � � - � N � ' i fi � � � � � i � � � ' �.,.m__.-__�_--�_______-----"__.,_""-'--"'-'---_-""'---------_"_"-------'� � O � �o � — o I n �- � C lo �� D��Q� � � � � � �, � � � � m � o �� i � W 3 I ` = o� �� o= m �, � � _ �� a� o= o � � � - � ` �� 3� o � � � �� T �� - ' � '{'�� 'g_ a� T � w � � � c��a. ) ' R a �� a a= � �„� N � £ N `� g w � � d a � � n = � d m � - o � � � � � Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND U�ilitie� anc� �ervices Existing off-site utility systems would be sufficient to meet the needs of the new residents of the proposed development. Current drainage flows to the southwest corner of the property and would not increase runoff into the storm drain system. Upgrades to the existing storm drain facilities would not be required. Water would be provided through a standard minimum eight- inch diameter pipeline. No new water delivery facilities would be required as the current water supply is adequate. Sewer would be provided through basic sewer collection pipeline. No new wastewater treatment or delivery facilities would be required as the current system is adequate to accommodate the Specific Plan. All applicable development impact fees required to fund fair- share costs associated with the provision of City utility services would be paid in accordance with Orange Municipal Code at the time of building permit issuance. The project includes installation of on-site water, sewer and drainage infrastructure (including water quality treatment BMPs), and connections to existing off-site utility lines in Orange-Olive Road. As indicated below in Table 2-3, the existing service providers in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area will provide domestic utility service to the site. Table 2-3 Utility and Public Service Providers Service Provider Water City of Orange Sewer City of Orange Solid Waste CR&R Gas Southern California Gas Company Electricity Southern California Edison Telecommunication AT&T Cable Television Time Warner Cable and Cox Communications Orange County Police Orange Police Department Fire Orange Fire Department School District Orange Unified School District Construction Construction activities are anticipated to start in early 2016 and take approximately a year to complete. Any project specific construction phasing will occur as appropriate levels of infrastructure and any required improvements are provided. The construction schedule is subject to change over time to respond to the various factors. Individual construction operations would be phased as described below and in Section 3.3 Air Quality. • Removal and Demolition of existing pavement and structures; ■ Installation of construction driveways and access points; � Construction of all drainage and utility improvements; • Construction of the residential units; ■ Construction of perimeter wall and /or fencing; and ," 2-38 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND ■ Installation of site improvements such as pedestrian walkways, tree wells, and interior landscaping and courtyards. According to the earthwork summary provided on Figure 9 Tentative Tract Map, Conceptual Grading and Utility Plan, the Project would require 18,437 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 18,802 CY of fill. Of the total amount of fill required, 365 CY will be imported. Construction would include grading and excavation to a depth of five feet as described in the projecYs geotechnical report. In addition, dust control measures including watering three times per day would be implementing during construction in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 2.� �iscretior�ary Act��ns Implementation of the Proposed Project would require approval of the following: ■ Change of Zone No. 1274-14 from C-1 to R-3 (SP) and establishment of the Orange- Olive Specific Plan ■ Major Site Plan Review No. 0778-14 f Tentative Tract Map No. 17758 (0033-14) ■ Design Review Committee No. 4749-14 ■ Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1837-14 '" 2-39 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Util�#ie� arrc� ��rvic�s Existing off-site utility systems would be sufficient to meet the needs of the new residents of the proposed development. Current drainage flows to the southwest corner of the property and would not increase runoff into the storm drain system. Upgrades to the existing storm drain facilities would not be required. Water would be provided through a standard minimum eight- inch diameter pipeline. No new water delivery facilities would be required as the current water supply is adequate. Sewer would be provided through basic sewer collection pipeline. No new wastewater treatment or delivery facilities would be required as the current system is adequate to accommodate the Specific Plan. All applicable development impact fees required to fund fair- share costs associated with the provision of City utility services would be paid in accordance with Orange Municipal Code at the time of building permit issuance. The project includes installation of on-site water, sewer and drainage infrastructure (including water quality treatment BMPs), and connections to existing off-site utility lines in Orange-Olive Road. As indicated below in Table 2-3, the existing service providers in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area will provide domestic utility service to the site. Table 2-3 Utility and Public Service Providers Service Provider Water City of Orange Sewer City of Orange Solid Waste CR&R Gas Southern California Gas Company Electricity Southern California Edison Telecommunication AT&T Cable Television Time Warner Cable and Cox Communications Orange County Police Orange Police Department Fire Orange Fire Department School District Orange Unified School District Con�truction Construction activities are anticipated to start in early 2016 and take approximately a year to complete. Any project specific construction phasing will occur as appropriate levels of infrastructure and any required improvements are provided. The construction schedule is subject to change over time to respond to the various factors. Individual construction operations would be phased as described below and in Section 3.3 Air Quality. • Removal and Demolition of existing pavement and structures; ■ Installation of construction driveways and access points; ■ Construction of all drainage and utility improvements; ■ Construction of the residential units; • Construction of perimeter wall and /or fencing; and ," 2-38 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND • Installation of site improvements such as pedestrian walkways, tree wells, and interior landscaping and courtyards. According to the earthwork summary provided on Figure 9 Tentative Tract Map, Conceptual Grading and Utility Plan, the Project would require 18,437 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 18,802 CY of fill. Of the total amount of fill required, 365 CY will be imported. Construction would include grading and excavation to a depth of five feet as described in the projecYs geotechnical report. In addition, dust control measures including watering three times per day would be implementing during construction in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 2.4 C}is�refiionary Aet�4n� Implementation of the Proposed Project would require approval of the following: ■ Change of Zone No. 1274-14 from C-1 to R-3 (SP) and establishment of the Orange- Olive Specific Plan • Major Site Plan Review No. 0778-14 ■ Tentative Tract Map No. 17758 (0033-14) ■ Design Review Committee No. 4749-14 ■ Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1837-14 ," 2-39 �r� r.i ➢ Fop-+onti o� V Om pZ zi mmi �oo?m IT�nrr�-n m r,� mD pm rhA �N �C�l Om Om Dr'm ;A�>CC'�Z OCmymO� ➢�➢ ? Cm'�OO A; n0� � Om D pZ mmr2Z NCl OO�A �� UO�n Sm. o tim yoA�c mOA�D-i ��N �G�m i..�. Sl�m xZ G�A Z� �O A�N O��n�D �t~iiDOmVnIO ZA A T � ��F OA rlO� �A I �A �A OA �m� m��" NOA��AO �AD � �1/"F v' (� - n mD y Z � G�(�xp iOti2 -�Z � \ ��A Z ��i � (Cl SO D m��0 O O �OZ � Ono Cm � m� �� OOc OOOA-i m0 Um 00 00 +�� Z C� � pOO�m �mAp � O II2 A m �C m �� CIA�N SmpOzrl'� AA O. mm� O � tiA o D u<� nr2�() �OS mm � �i.g ti �� A� � ��ui �'nm O - >rl p� /� � m Uo0 rO��oi �z�A�m �m �V � �� o `" � �C C -n��vm � � � � � om � �- mo n� � o i .z ii'n i �, om "'o� o�omo ruo�zi a� i � � m m _ � .. . . � x z -- m � �. . �� o rn o a � �x� n�-A � y o � z�A z Zrn F < Dr K OZr' �NAAx inzp➢o'� �in A�' " Z - r �lA m p D _ __ m �o m om m m, �>y�F� �,�, � ��N � o z� = o00 " `�s "oo�w� Q �o � � � o o x�-o �� y� � F O �N�- m � � . � �Q �y v'zN�� i�� - Z D c y �S onN AZN� A�n�nTZ Z � f y � J r n y O py � n o m n�F C� O➢ �Z O ',, 'I � i.'F Y'n� �n�� y� � '��$ C A A z p � �u, DC� ommm z7mn m � ``� ` u�'7'n� U� - $� 'N"��i UE9 00 0 " o o� � m`�'� ��o� nan�� o N . �.. ' �' ,q� �� `n� �m `"Am �� (� oo z `n m x� m A�� mocxz oA �o� . � y � "� � �7 n i� �o voi" "� inz��o 7 r tn �' �h o o - cz � �o i Am no�nz�n� r � o � B � � �� g `� - o�='mA � n i 7; a = '^ s � > � moo; � `n � _ � � p A= m� mW��N � � � m o � oo moo �goA�m a � > ~ s m < a om �o�o nm-��o m � z�m� '_ ,_ -__ � SO g ;`p�, UTHfRN PApFI� 0 N�s � $ _-�;_,;�1;:1 ; � � O� 7o3s f 6 RAICR AD � ?42.3 9 NCf. � 313.64'__--,�-"___----N162p•3Of,Vf R�AD �n , - ---_ `_____� 8q5.90• � p -- '-N1670'3s f_2425p, V� � _- `�` D ` � m y 2as.a3•(2as.s��R� �-��_, � , � � 7 � , � -�" � �3$ �.� _'=a,.__ � � � � 21'��35.23�R7 ,_ � � � O � c� %� � T — �D � II � N \ � ' �- Z ' D � orn rr O � u � z � �' � NN A "' � � �D W� m ��.� N o � ° � � �`�� "'o � � TI � - D� � � � � z � � � A � /� � �� C � �� £ . �j z `� '��' � r (� C ^ YL � � �a o�� , � � tJ � ��nm `� ' > � � � � z � cn fD � C� o z zo � � � �O � � r � m D O � z � rh � � � � � � O � �• � � � �• � � � � � m � � � � < , - � � � _. , ; �, ; c : ----------- ----- - 'n ru m ,AEGI� - 0�21�16°E 23 .94' -� V' n ■V '� �,v I N�4�'� -i I ' I �, W O � C� xu £.ri � . m � � o"€ D ^ �, D ,�L � ^ ��i,� W Ilyd�+� T p � o N ^ • n73N`� C o � C r* ,� O � m m r-h I^' ��c, � � � � w v N �,�_ — __ m �% E's° � 5.59`-, u 516 59' (516.48')R2 A o: ,� p g 212 ,� o ,,, ;,- 282.41' , . ., ; . 234.18' � _ \ � a� o a o � -. .,,\, . ` � -. . ��- ..N00'21'i6"E 2642.18' .. .. � f � �.. � � '0 3,'o '„ � O � SHAFfER STREEf `� N 4 '^ � O � ^ _ �� W _ � _ n oi � io�k � cnA � `� � (n (n �ia>s O 1 1 a a m N Z C � oo-< Z �o y Aoo I'TI � izy fTi .. - � " TJ O imn G7 Am -i `�o� � fTl x G � � -`m > v' \ ; � - o Fm� z �,� m m o'"^z m ..,�a�ae��c , ��i �o D nonv� r � � �� r,�., o z - o ��m� m �ia � ��' � o i>�� . '°'yvPo,,,�Rd s w x m D m � a� m x A o O ;o� O o :L m ,ZrT7j .. ' r* ol�l __m� U� � � o �as Z `o m - m ` (mn �m "' � i } � � ' �y/ 0 3 , i g N Gzi o � �� ° - � �o � '� ! . � � ' � m� D �m �A o � . �,��.��„� � 9 �m � ms�, ' � v ,�j� ?� �m � �� - D�, - D ��NW M� " uw,. P o _• � - _ � � _ � � �g � �� _ af n p .,..� '� � � � � �o, - �,.�� . . . 3.... �.L -_ � o m7 � �co��..�s�➢ �� a � D � �� .� ��a.,��w.v � � O � _ � m �A ��F� _�� ..,..�t, 4 � , � � "� -, �3 ,...,..,.� o �7" y = D o; � m�� $ � =�� s n n � � � A �� g O . .,�,H,� s, � ii � y�r� _ � � � .�.. ti�.,,��,v�. � � � � ti C �� .� G 8 � � o z ao xJ � � � i ,��.��,v� '�J k �� A ., � . o D ' � O o �ly� y " A . _ N tustm st ..�'.. . . � `y X � � � > tn _ m � � z _ _ _ � �� i � �, � _ , — � � �� y ,s, `�� `�--�-— � � �,� � x - � �, „ � � � m - n i � � � _ � „ _ .,>„m��os e o �� S�m� ti. � � T a�s �� F � W � �;< .,�?A d� rn r'1 <, � � O O � � � __ i� � � � �� , ,� � � � ' I%� ��- - _ ��° _ � � ✓ �__ -- r� � Q �n �°��B` ,?, � ___ �a�.'� � s m �. cx °�''°°�'s�S� 0• .� rn � 19' J1• �'f(�oGiit'Oec!x4 t0�8E -_ '�'! ♦ R _ "•�� /�/� N r I 0.�,�z I9,� ��'D p�_.___ ,_ _ '�C 9� qCC�S/0�.� � '� _ � � "� '� D r � s ��• '��` ��,�ro�H� A n ,�j � �.R ,� �,99.�p,�, �� 'M;�y�:�� _, � � /W N �2p36• � ` �Q'.µ.�,_ F ��T...f_.__ z E ., � ,I@au��, p �p B �. ,_ 0 I . �, �� 99.gB� � ��1fp� � � � : '__ G s I y ��.+. ' � � ` y (10p�� N �� Y g� � � � � � �'� �.. �.��'Yl9 s `n � � � m 4 N , . � 9�' CF=201.11 g _ � . I I ' �,FpRy 0 I. a y s _'_.J I� � ' S10�zj ° � j I�. sx � I f ex R�, cF=2oo.si �( I , _ �. '�.. ' N� � �m�.W rs mas FS � �'�. � � i _ T � o zx N � — � . i � � ' r u 0. % � p GF=20T.39 � �' / u g PROP.SS ' � . � 2x��. � N � 1oD.eJ tC � i �, � � ; p,' IS'i . GF=102.42 � S2 0 c. � 1 R - R f . _ � . � � �o�.z,rs aaov.n« _ - � � � � � � = i.s �� o� O o sz m � - — � PRIVATE AISLE fu ' � � - � N � .. CF-202.02 . £. W -- - � � �^ GF=200.91 � �� - - _�.� � - = m ' YI11.J9 R /\ � �. . �N � $ PROP.SS mi.se ft �o � f� � , A ' � �_ ' PRNATE AISLE " -. N � _ _ � Z c� � � CF=20L41 2S 2E zo�.oz n P�.� ta2.n n � � I',I� � � �D , � _� � 2% GF=202.10 CF=202.19 � � � � N�---- :� � � n � R � fN � '� � � _ ; — . .� a� v . . '. . jw ir M � � G �� ; . . .. _ . ' ' Gf=201.50 ' � GF=202J9 Z � �• � _ � pC � � o N N � `� n, , � �� m � � � v� � � � -� o m ,rt � � � � I' � i� x �i ._ � � Z � � T � � � � � n m � � � Q N — ,-, p a . � A T � �� i �' • GF=201.97 � � �'� � __._� i O D O /_ L.L � � � � � � n � �iz � z , + � �� n � 1 + �� a �Zx � � Y D G� Z � � ��,oz sv=zo,.s� ; � a=soaas � ^ m C � � � +a �,�� 301.N iS � � � F � n � � �Q � e � -- - a N , � � � � zz � m �� 1� i � � � � � � _ u . . � � � � o o cF=zozss � � � � � � � �. PROP CW '� ' s�� f " � PRIVATE AISLE "- _,�° m �'�"� �� " z � � • � � _ � I �, w N zz � —y � 07 � 0 � � L � � MATCH LJNE SEE SHEET 3 � � O � � G .AECIST rn � �j O � � v V/NCy�� / � � �� g� �+�� I �n � � '�'i� "�iltld c �/� � � ` tlJl'A'�' m I�zH __ � O � � � � �-r � _ m_ . - � � � A9xm � = x �� m � � Em � � � '� °" u - . A .� ams< 3� �• .a � n� o a o i �� m . . ._.._ �R'K 3m 2 �N �. , � p 0o u �_ � � a �= � .,a a s o T �� m .� a � F � _� ,� n n � m� �' ,.. � . A� n� �_ � � �N �om o �F9 �� m . � � m � � I _ = � � Q � �� € o � �' - �, � �u S N �� £ � � m '3 � z � �'i � m 1 � � � � � y f"h � n � � ti� � � C O m � � -- �''� �a � n2 �,n � �m i. �m �� ~ � . � �3 u � Z �^�j �„ �A tn� L m 'n� � . . �Q _ � �J �. o � 9� � - � o o � z - a � U 1 2 ?` g � � � � D �; � � 5H E y p � � n � � � � � ' � �1 � � o � � � m � � z _ � I� �� Z o � e i.! I � - � �°° � � �� _��°' _ � > ,� �m � � o � � �m ,� �� N � ��{ � �z y l g � r z d� y � Q ro `. �3`3�"� C �] o n-��."� �'; ��iSi �•� � ��y rh z 2 � � K ��A � r-r � � � '� � � � `G `" � �� s� � � � � , __ ��=�� ,--�- � _ ��: � � � � _. a K N � �\ - N � � w .;:""��`,. .,;�a� m �'1 <, � � O z � O I � fD � � � ' � _ � D a. < N� 0 � � � N � r v� n o � 7 MATCH LINE SEE SHEEf 2 A � � �ni � �' .— . ' �O.�Ox � K'i N 2% ^ m1.c2 rs PROG.55 _ N 52 N _ � " � " PRNAPTE AISLE " � u = . �� N v = _ �' _ o sm.9s re vkov.uw � �� ,�'� GF=201.53 � ��'+ Q , I� '� � � 2oz.ei rs to�.oi� 2% � � u: ;-.. � s J J � � pt � = 1.93 . � � GF=202.69 , m � q i a � � � � � u p � �qi }SY � � , a ' � _I_ _.g. • , , .- ' � :� - I.. �, CF=203.09 �. � �` � � � . . ._... . ... � u� .' � — — __- - �U 2z I 8 � � � . . .._ 'd', � � � � 1x i -� .. .. � � (� � � 1` � i Gf=202.95 � i � O �" � ___'_ '� q I�.,,m� A rn CF=20.1.40 . '+�I � ..� o ; � j� � _ �� A � � � m �.. � � � Q GF=202.55 �. 3 . � �a�'i ,„----- ` �„ � � a � � n,,� 1os.n fs > , � ' - �� n > � �x �' � ' o-' /� ^ — � . _ � \ �-' pa.se rs � � � �V u � ...O.- � "�}R U �'�, _;-' � 2x �� 7 J . ^? § � �' mzsi re --�a.SOI._ - � � � Q (7 � �. g PROP.SS PROP. 5 O � � O U � — PR AISLE m � o= PRIVATE AISLE= c y T - - N ��- " px �N �� PROP.DW lozmiC. .._- .�xwtelC. _ .oP.��YI � � r Z o �T �• P+ N2.94 iS Zx � N < �• < 102.6fi iS Q � 20.5.03 R 70].17 f5 � A� Do � m � . m m , � �� ; �� GF=202.66 CF=202.98 GF'203.1fi � O � ' � � N �a�� ` � ----� � a ; �'° a ; 1� 1�------ ' a rn � � � � T �� GF=203.06 � cv-zoa.�e � � . � � � �� r� � � GF=203.56 pt O Z � � N �� q� � Q � � ' N � — � — � � � � �� iD � � (� G� Z u ,! - � � �� N;._._ � ; � m � z � � � z __ - - - - -- - -- -- -n n (7 � �D � � � � � ti _ , � � � - � --- - - --_-.- - _ �_ �_ �' o � � � IX WALL TO N 00'21'I6'E ...233.94' � � � /11 =� • • I � � � REAIOVED i 202.5 EG IXISTING SEWER E%WALL TO � Z Q � i�F � � � .,. k WAIER ESMT BE REMOVED � � — � � � I D � � � �• � � I I I Z � I I I c� • � � r'�' � ! I I m ,� n �D <• .RECIS f i I � O � ,�'y�,V 1 ry� FDg , /1� f� \\� � � i�n a� X � E $ �� J � \I • � � � '�/,� P I1Vd�� ' !3)M� � f�' � O � �' � - . . �oo �� s� � m_ P a�� m� � V � A 3� 3� 1 �' m. �N O \ -n= _ �• rl �, - £ n O A�� - � r* r�i - ��o � _ � � o;3 _ '\ � _ ��- _ ,,,.. ,,\_ � v 3° ;n N �� N>�'s ti n T "�� .,�r� � g O �� `� m o " m m r J � I, � � �` �� C ' �� a a � t �X„ ��, 2 � � W q O � � ._ '��,' \�y _/�S� � o � " � n k � z iL - o m --.��, � � Z Z z � _ n r`�'Y � m i m � , , A m ^'' m o -a �• � i`'';�`i'�I 'n a ? D `�' n��.. � � .f � � � m �m � n y , f� c m � � � �p = ' ; m m� � ,� z z �,�� -�� m z -- �n � < e� a t+] y _ /� "C �-y Li y y y�,,,,c� ^ � C S A �t"`�•a > y cn r-h ,� < �-C�� O d �� H . \ � � � � v � C�r! s � - ._—�—�� c=— m � � � � m � o � ' - m K W � �� VN � > WW � Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND �� .� � �� E �T � �'�'` {� ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or a "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics � Agriculture and Forestry � Air Quality Resources ❑ Biological Resources o Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous p HydrologyNVater Quality Materials ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources o Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems � Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impacY' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Project Planner Date '� 3-1 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The information contained in this section is based, in part, on the following documents that have been incorporated by reference in the environmental impact analysis for the Proposed Project: • 2010 Orange General Plan The Orange General Plan is a "blueprint" that documents the City's vision for the future and provides goals, policies, and implementation measures that can be utilized by City staff and decision makers to proactively influence physical growth and change in a manner consistent with this vision. The General Plan provides the City with a multi- disciplinary strategy for achieving the vision in the context of the land use, circulation & mobility, housing, open space, conservation, public safety, noise, cultural resources & historic preservation, growth management, economic development, infrastructure and urban design elements. The 2010 General Plan enables the City to better define its image and position within the region, allow its commercial districts to better compete in the local and regional marketplace, maintain and reinforce existing neighborhood values, address local and regional environmental issues, and thus provide a better quality of life for the citizens of Orange. http:�fwww.citvc�foranqe.c�rqideptsfcommdev/planninq/qeneral p(an.�sp • Orange Municipal Code. The Orange Municipal Code is a compilation of all ordinances goveming activities and development within the City. The City's Zoning Code is contained in Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code and represents the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public safety, health, convenience, comfort, prosperity or general welfare. httpsJ/library.municode.comlindex.aspx?clientld=16539 • Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the 2010 Orange General Plan The PEIR prepared for the 2010 Orange General Plan provides a first-tier evaluation of the potential environmental effects associated with adoption and the implementation of the updated General Plan. http�/fwww citvoforanqe orqlcivica/fiiebank/blobdload asp�BlobID=8417 '" 3-3 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND �,� �f��t��1�S Less Than ' Significan# Potentialty ' with Cess Than ' S�gnificant Mitig�tion < Sigs�ificant Would the project: Impac# `lncorporated Impact ' No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visuai character or quality of the site and its surroundings? � � � � d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ in the area? �} �ul�t�xe Rt��ject hav� a sut�stara�iat ac��a�se effect on a �ceni� vis�a? A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. According to the PEIR prepared for the 2010 Orange General Plan, scenic vistas occur in the largely undeveloped Santiago Hills II and East Orange portions of the City, including Irvine Lake, grassy valleys, rugged hillsides, and winding canyons. These viewsheds are illustrated in Figure 5.1-1 of the 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR and contribute to the City's identity and high quality of life. The Proposed Project is located in the northwestern portion of the City in an urbanized area within a commercial corridor. The project site is not located within or near a scenic vista as defined by the 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR. Therefore, no impacts to scenic vistas would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable b) ould the pro,�ect subsfanfiatiy damage scenic resources, includ'ing, 6ut nat limited fo, frees, rock outcropprngs, and histc�ric 6uifdings within a s�ate sc�nic highway? Scenic resources are defined as those landscape patterns and features that are visually or aesthetically pleasing and therefore, contribute affirmatively to the definition of a distinct community or region including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. Scenic resources within the City include natural open spaces, rivers, riparian areas, rock outcroppings, and naturally vegetated hillsides that contribute to the City's sense of place. Among these are Santiago Creek, Santa Ana River, and Santiago Oaks Regional Park. Additional scenic resources include the architecture of historic structures within the Old Towne Orange Historic District, which contains over 1,400 structures built before 1940 and is the largest historic district in the State of California. ," 3-4 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND The Proposed Project is located in an urbanized area in the western portion of the City surrounded by a mix of residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The project site does not contain any scenic resources as defined by the 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR, as the site is paved and is used for RV storage. Furthermore, according to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Scenic Highway Mapping System, the project site is not located near a designated or eligible California Scenic Highway.' The closest scenic highway to the project site is the four-mile segment of SR-91 between SR-55 and the eastern limit of the City of Anaheim, which is located approximately two miles northeast of the project site and is outside of the viewshed for the site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. No project impacts would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable c} au1r1 the p�raject su�start�°ia�ly r�egrad� the exis�i�g visual character ar quality of i°he sit� artd its surrouradir�gs� The project site is currently occupied by Shannon's Storage, a vehicle storage facility far trailers, motorhomes, boats, campers, and other autos. The project site is relatively flat and is predominately covered with asphalt pavement. A modular office with an attached carport is located on the west side of the property. Access to the project site is provided through a gate located on the west property line. A concrete masonry block wall topped with chain link fencing and barbed wire runs around the perimeter of the project site. Photos of the project site are provided above in Section 2.2, Photo A through Photo E. The Proposed Project is located within a residential/commercial/industrial corridor along North Orange-Olive Road between Meats Avenue to the north and Taft Avenue to the south. Photos of adjacent land uses and surrounding area are provided above in Section 2.2, Photo F through Photo L. Single family and multi-family residential uses are located immediately north of the project site. Further north at the northeast corner of Meats Avenue and Orange-Olive Road is a gas station. A retail plaza containing thrift stores and a restaurant is located immediately south of the project site, followed by Shaffer Park, multi-family residential uses, and a church. Single- family residential uses are located immediately east of the project site along both sides of Shaffer Street. Further east of Shaffer Street is a single-family residential neighborhood. North Orange-Olive Road runs north-south adjacent to the west property line of the project site, followed by railroad tracks and various commercial and industrial uses. The project site is located in a highly urbanized area adjacent to established residential developments. As seen in the Photo F through Photo L, the visual character of the project site is commercial/industrial and of low aesthetic value. Visual elements such as the block wall and chain link fence, as well as utility lines and poles degrade the visual quality of the project site. The Proposed Project would change the visual nature of the project site from a paved ' California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Officially Designated State Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/(accessed May 1, 2015). '" 3-5 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND commercial lot used for RV storage to a residential use. Development of the Proposed Project would include entry treatments and landscape improvements, and the removal of overhead utility lines and poles and the chainlink fencing and barbed wire on the project site that would improve the aesthetic quality of the project site and the Orange-Olive streetscape. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with development standards and guidelines of the proposed Specific Plan and in the R-3 zone, which would ensure high-quality architectural design and a site design that integrates with the existing surrounding uses. Further, the project would be reviewed by the City's Design Review Committee which further ensures the project will uphold community aesthetics and design compatibility. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not degrade the visual character or quality of the project site and surrounding area. Rather, the Proposed Project would improve the visual quality by introducing more compatible site and building design that would improve the Orange-Olive streetscape and integrate with the adjacent residential uses. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable d} ve�id �h� �roj�ct ca��aP� a t�e� s�urce �f su��tar�fiaC ligrhf ar glare which wo��ld adversely af#ect c3ay z�r�rtigf�ttr"m� vie�� in t#�e �re�? The Proposed Project would construct 25 new single-family detached homes on the project site that is currently utilized as a vehicle storage facility. The project site is located adjacent to existing residential uses to the north and east and has existing lighting onsite. Construction of the new homes would produce nighttime lighting that is more than what is currently produced on the project site. However, the amount of lighting would be minimal and consist mostly of internal street lights and outdoor residential security lighting similar to what already exists in the area. Given the urban nature of the project area and the existing amount of light and glare generated by the surrounding residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation uses, light and glare from the Proposed Project would not be substantially noticeable over the existing conditions. Compliance with Chapter 17.12.030 of the City's Municipal Code would further ensure that light and glare from the new light sources would be directed away from adjacent properties. Second story windows are proposed in locations that are offset from that of an adjacent unit or are directed over the motor court, so there would be no clear line of sight between two different units. Lighting for each unit would be placed near the main entrance at the motor court, and would not be directly in front of any windows. The Proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Thus, impacts would be considered less than significant. OMC 17.12 directs that lighting shall be directed, controlled, screened, or shaded in such a manner as not to shine directly on the surrounding premises, and shall be controlled to prevent glare or direct illumination on any public sidewalk or thoroughfares. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable TM 3-6 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND ?.2 �c�ri�c��s�r� �r��! F�ar�str� f�e��a�r�� Less Than Significant Patentialty with ' l.ess'Than ' Signif�cant ' Mitigatian ' Significant ' YUould the proaect: lmpact 'tnao�porated ' Impact ' No Impact ' a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the � � � � California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a � � � 0 Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),timberland (as defined by Public � � � � Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production(as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of � � � � forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in � � � 0 conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? a� aufc� the praject conv�rf Prime Farm/�r�d, tlnique �armCanc�, or Farmland af Statewie�e Imporfance (�'armfana+), as shown an the maps prepared �ursuant te� the ,��rmtanc� M��pin� anc� lt��nitaring Pro�ram of the Caiifc�rnia R�sc�urces Ag�ncy, fo �r�n-agricultural use? According to Figure 5.2-1 of the PEIR for the 2010 Orange General Plan, the project site is located in an area designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. The project site is predominately covered with asphalt pavement and is currently occupied by a Shannon's Storage, a vehicle storage facility. Since the project site is already developed and is located on land designated by the California Department of Conservation as Urban and Built-Up Land, the Proposed Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, no project impacts would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable b) Wauld the project canftict with e�e�sting zQnit�g far agricuCtural use, or a VSCrlliamson Act contra�t? The project site is a developed site located within an urbanized area and is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. According to the PEIR for the 2010 Orange General Plan, the City does not have any Williamson Act contracted land. The project site is designated LMDR and ," 3-7 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND zoned C-1 for commercial use. The Proposed Project would include a request to change the zone designation from C-1 to R-3 (SP), Orange-Olive Specific Plan, which would allow for residential uses. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract, and no impact would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable c� ou1�f the prcaje�f cr�rrfli�f witla existing zor3ing �c�r, or cause rszorrin� c�f, fores# lar�d (as d�t�nec� in Pu6tic ��staurc�s G��+e s��ti�n 1222��c�}}, firrrberl�nc� (as d�fine� b�y �'ubfic Resources Ga€�e SectEon 4526), �r tfmberfane� zoned 7`imberlan� PraducPian (as c�ef�ned by�Gr��°nme�rt Coc�e seetion ��1�4{g)}:� As previously stated, the project site is a developed site located within an urbanized area. The project site is not zoned for forest land or timberland uses. The current zoning for the project site is C-1. The Proposed Project would include a request to change the Zone designation from C-1 to R-3 (SP), Orange-Olive Specific Plan, which would allow for residential uses. As such, the Proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production and no impacts to forest or timberland would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable c�� I�tould the praject resul�in the loss c�f for��t land or conuersion af forest farad to rrc�n- forest use? As previously stated, the project site is not zoned for forest land. The project site is developed and located in an urbanized area. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impacts to forest land would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable e} ould the projecf rnvo{v� other changes in the existfng envir�nment whlch, due fo their lacafion or nature, cc�ufaf resuft in canversion of Farmland, to non-agr►culturaf use or canversran af forest land to n�sn-foresf us�? The project site is developed and is located within an urban environment. There are no farmlands or agricultural uses located on or near the project site. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in changes to the environment due to location, or nature that would result in converting farmland to non-agricultural use. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact "' 3-8 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable �.3 /�ir Q��lity l.ess'Than ' Significant ' ' P+otenti�lly ' Hrith �ess Than' '' S�gnif�cant ' Mitigativn ' Signiftcant Would the project: lmpact ''Incorparated , Impact " No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the � � 0 � applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state � � 0 � ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant � � 0 � concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial � � � � number of people? The information presented below is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis — MBK Homes Orange-Olive Residential Project, City of Orange prepared by Vista Environmental in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and with the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The air quality analysis is provided as Appendix B of this document. The Proposed Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which includes all of Orange County as well as the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The Basin has been designated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a federal nonattainment area for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and partial non-attainment for lead. The Basin has been designated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as a non-attainment area for ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), respirable particulate matter (PM,o), PM2.5 and lead. SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control within the Basin. SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and state agencies. Many air quality impacts that derive from dispersed mobile sources, which are the dominate pollution generators in the Basin, often occurs hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have converted primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally very small and difficult to measure. Therefore, SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. The SCAQMD CEQA TM 3-9 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Handbook states that any project in the Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. A regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds identified in Table 3-1 below: Table 3-1 SCAQMD Regional Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance P�Ilutant Emissic�ns�pauncislday} VOC NOx CC) St'iz ' PMjo PM�� , Lead Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55 3 Operation 55 55 550 150 150 55 3 Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2 Project-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the state and federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Basin. In order to assess local air quality impacts the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project-related air emissions in the project vicinity. SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), July 2008, which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The LST Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, carbon monoxide (CO), PM,o, and PMZ_5. The LST Methodology provides Look-Up Tables with different thresholds based on the location and size of the project site and distance to the nearest sensitive receptors. The LST Methodology provides screening tables for one-acre, two-acre, and five-acre project sites. Since the Project Site is 2.33-acres, the two-acre project site screening tables were utilized (the LST Methodology project sites with smaller acreage have the stricter thresholds). The source receptor area utilized in this analysis was based on Air Monitoring Area 17, which covers central Orange County. The nearest off-site sensitive receptors to the Proposed Project is a single- family home, located as near as five feet southeast of the Project Site. According to LST Methodology, any receptor located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) shall be based on the 25 meter thresholds. Table 3-2 below shows the LSTs for NOz, PM,o and PM2.5 for both construction and operational activities. Table 3-2 SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance Atlowab�l� �missions �r�r�tisld� ' '�C�iYlt ' �d , ' �.'� ' P��p '�M2,5 ' Construction 115 715 6 4 Operation 115 715 2 1 Notes: ' The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family homes located as near as 5 feet southeast of the project site. According to SCAQMD methodology, all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25 meter threshold. Source: Calculated from SCAQMD's Mass Rate Look-up Tables for two acres in Central Orange County. a) ouCaC the project eonf8ict with or obsfruct impf�mentation vf the applicable air qualii�y plan� The applicable air quality plan for the Proposed Project is the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended "" 3-10 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND General Plan Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: 1. Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. 2. Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? An air quality modeling analysis was conducted for the Proposed Project. The results of the modeling are discussed under Section 3.3.b) below, which show that short-term regional construction air emissions would not result in significant impacts. Short-term construction local concentrations of criteria pollutants would not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD local thresholds of significance presented in Table 3-2. Additionally, the long-term operation of the Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts. The ongoing operation of the Proposed Project would generate air pollutant emissions that are inconsequential and less than significant on a regional basis. The analysis for long-term local air quality impacts showed that local pollutant concentrations would not exceed the localized air quality standards. Therefore, no long-term impact would occur and no mitigation would be required. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the first criterion. Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP? Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the Proposed Project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to insure that the analyses conducted for the Proposed Project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The 2012-2035 Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategy consists of three sections: Core Chapters, Ancillary Chapters, and Bridge Chapters. The Growth Management, Regional Mobility, Air Quality, Water Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management chapters constitute the Core Chapters of the document. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For the Proposed Project, the 2010 Orange General Plan Land Use Element defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP. The 2.33 acre project site is currently designated as LMDR (6 — 15 dwelling units per acre), which allows for a maximum of 35 homes on the project site. The project site is zoned C-1, which is currently inconsistent with the existing General Plan Land Use designation. The Proposed Project would include the adoption of the Orange-Olive Specific Plan, which would allow for a single-family residential condominium on the project site and would establish development standards similar to the standards specified for the R-3 Zone. The Proposed Project would require a zone change from C-1 to the proposed Orange-Olive Specific Plan. The proposed single-family residential uses on the project site would be consistent with the City's LMDR General Plan land use designation and the development of 25 residential units would not exceed the allowable density range under the LMDR designation. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would support the land use goals and policies contained in the City's General Plan by providing additional housing in an area of Southern California where there are more jobs than '"' 3-11 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND housing, which would most likely result in a reduction of commute distances and overall vehicle miles travelled for the occupants of the proposed homes. The General Plan consistency analysis contained in the Orange-Olive Specific Plan concluded that the Proposed Project would be consistent with the City's adopted General Plan and its goals and policies. Therefore, the Proposed Project would also be consistent with and would not exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site. In summary, the Proposed Project would not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. Impacts would be less than significant impact. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable t�} oc�ld th� �at�o�e�f vfalat� any air c�cralit}� �t�nc�ard ar cor�trt6crfe substa�f�af1� t€� an exisiirr� c��°�roj�ct�c�ai�qc�al6�y �rialatiot�? An air quality modeling analysis was conducted for the Proposed Project to calculate the potential air emissions associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed Project and compare the emissions to the SCAQMD standards. The construction and operations- related air emissions were analyzed for both regional and local air quality impacts. Construction activities are anticipated to start in early 2016 and take approximately a year to complete. The anticipated opening year for the Proposed Project is 2016. Construction Emissions— Reqional Impacts Typical emission rates from construction activities were obtained from CaIEEMod Version 2013.2.2. CaIEEMod is a computer model published by the SCAQMD for estimating air pollutant emissions. The phases of construction activities that were analyzed for the Proposed Project include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and the application of architectural coatings. The following parameters and assumptions were utilized for each phase of construction: • Demolition: The demolition phase would consist of the removal of the existing pavement and structures on the project site prior to grading. The demolition activities would require 13 worker trips per day and a total of 332 haul truck trips. The demolition phase was modeled as occurring over two weeks and is anticipated to start in early 2016. In order to account for the air emissions from water trucks, six vendor truck trips per day were added to the demolition phase. In order to account for the air emissions from water trucks, six vendor truck trips per day were added to the demolition phase. The onsite equipment would consist of the simultaneous operation of one concrete saw, one rubber tired dozer and three of either a tractor, loader or backhoe, which is based on the CaIEEMod default equipment mix. Watering all exposed areas three times per day was chosen in order to account for the fugitive dust reduction that would occur through adhering to SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires that the Best Available Control Measures be utilized to reduce fugitive dust emissions. • Grading: The grading phase is anticipated to start after the completion of the demolition phase and is anticipated to take approximately two weeks to complete. The grading TM 3-12 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND activities would require up to 10 worker trips per day. In order to account for the air emissions from water trucks, six vendor truck trips per day were added to the grading phase. The onsite equipment would consist of the simultaneous operation of one grader, one rubber tired dozer, and two of either a tractor, loader or backhoe, which is based on the CaIEEMod default equipment mix. Watering all exposed areas three times per day was chosen in order to account for the fugitive dust reduction that would occur through adhering to SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires that the Best Available Control Measures be utilized to reduce fugitive dust emissions. ■ Building Construction: The building construction would occur after the completion of the grading phase. The building construction phase was modeled based on the construction of 25 single-family homes. Building construction was modeled as occurring over a ten month period. The building construction would require up to nine worker trips and four vendor trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of the simultaneous operation of one crane, two forklifts, one generator set, three welders, and one of either a tractor, loader, or backhoe, which is based on the CaIEEMod default equipment mix. • Paving: The paving would occur after the completion of the building construction phase. The paving phase was modeled based on the paving of the onsite roads and 22 open parking spaces that would require paving approximately 0.54 acres of the project site. The paving activities would occur over two weeks and would require up to 15 worker trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of the simultaneous operation of one cement mixer, one paver, one paving equipment, two rollers, and one of either a tractor, loader, or backhoe, which is based on the CaIEEMod default equipment mix. • Architectural Coating: The application of architectural coatings would occur after the completion of the paving phase. The architectural coating phase was modeled based on covering 125,479 square feet of residential interior area, 41,826 square feet of residential exterior area, and 2,000 square feet of non-residential area. The non- residential area includes road and parking lot striping as well as architectural coatings applied to fences, signs and any structures built in common areas. The architectural coating phase would occur over three weeks and would require up to two worker trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of one air compressor, which is based on the CaIEEMod default equipment mix. The construction-related criteria pollutant emissions for each phase are shown below in Table 3-3. Table 3-3 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from construction of the Proposed Project. Table 3-3 Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions ' Pc�llutant Emissieans(poun+dslcta ' Activit VOG NC3 ' C�'!' S0� PM�� P� ,� Demolition On-Site` 2.91 28.26 21.50 0.02 3.14 1.84 Off-Site� 0.43 5.33 5.22 0.02 0.55 0.20 Total 3.34 33.59 26.72 0.04 3.69 2.04 Grading On-Site 2.85 29.95 19.63 0.02 4.22 2.85 Off-Site 0.09 0.58 1.25 0.00 0.16 0.05 Total 2.94 30.53 20.88 0.02 4.38 2.90 Building Construction On-Site 3.70 24.63 16.72 0.02 1.63 1.56 '"' 3-13 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Pc�tlutanE Emissions aundslda Activity VOC NOx < CO' SO� PMia PMz.s Off-Site 0.06 0.31 0.83 0.00 0.12 0.04 Total 3.76 24.94 17.55 0.02 1.75 1.60 Paving On-Site 1.92 17.93 12.14 0.02 1.13 1.04 Off-Site 0.05 0.07 0.78 0.00 0.17 0.05 Total 1.97 18.00 12.92 0.02 1.30 1.09 Architectural Coatings On-Site 3422 2.37 1.88 0.00 0.20 0.20 Off-Site 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.01 Total 34.23 2.38 1.99 0.00 0.22 0.21 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: ' Demolition and Grading based on adherence to fugitive dust suppression requirements from SCAQMD Rule 403. z Onsite emissions from equipment not operated on public roads. 3 Offsite emissions from vehicles operating on public roads. Source: CaIEEMod Version 2013.22. Construction Emissions - Local Impacts Local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed using SCAQMD's LST Methodology to determine potential local air quality impacts created from construction-related fugitive dust and diesel emissions, and toxic air contaminants (TACs). The LST Methodology found the primary emissions of concern are NOX, CO, PM�o, and PM2.5. In order to determine if any of these pollutants require a detailed analysis of the local air quality impacts, each phase of construction was screened using the SCAQMD's Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables. The Look-up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily onsite emissions of CO, NOX, PM�o, and PM2.5 from the Proposed Project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. Table 3-4 shows the onsite emissions from the CaIEEMod model for the different construction phases and the calculated emissions thresholds. Table 3-4 Local Construction Emissions at Nearest Receptors Prior to Mitigation ;, �otlutar�t Emissi�ns poun�Is/d� j Phase ' NC�,� CG1 PM�,� PMz.s Demolition 28.26 21.50 3.14 1.84 Grading' 29.95 19.63 4.22 2.85 Building Construction 24.63 16.72 1.63 1.56 Paving 17.93 12.14 1.13 1.04 Architectural Coatings 2.37 1.88 0.20 0.20 SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet) or less 115 715 6 4 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Notes: ' Demolition and Grading based on adherence to fugitive dust suppression requirements from SCAQMD Rule 403. 2 The nearest sensitive receptor is a single-family home located as near as 5 feet southeast of the project site. According to LST methodology any receptor closer than 25 meters should be based on the 25-meter threshold. Source:Vista Environmental, calculated from CaIEEMod and SCAQMD's Mass Rate Look-up Tables for two acres in Central Orange County. "' 3-14 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Table 3-4 shows none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local emissions thresholds for any phase of construction. Therefore, a less than significant localized air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed project. Toxic Air Contaminant The greatest potential for TAC emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the Proposed Project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of "individual cancer risk". "Individual Cancer Risk" is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of TACs over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment and the short-term construction schedule, the Proposed Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of TAC emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. Therefore, significant short-term TAC impacts would not occur during construction of the Proposed Project. Operations Emissions — Reqional Impacts The Proposed Project would result in a long-term increase in air quality emissions due to project-generated vehicle trips and on-going operation of the Proposed Project. Operations- related criteria air quality impacts created by the Proposed Project were analyzed through use of the CaIEEMod model and based on 25 single-family homes and 0.54 acres of other paved surfaces. The operating emissions were based on the year 2016, which is the anticipated opening year for the Proposed Project. The CaIEEMod analyzes operational emissions from area sources, energy usage, and mobile sources. The worst-case summer or winter volatile organic compound (VOC), NOX, CO, SOZ, PM,o, and PM2.5 emissions created from the Proposed ProjecYs long-term operations have been calculated and are summarized in Table 3-5. The data provided in Table 3-5 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from operation of the Proposed Project. Table 3-5 Operational Air Pollution Emissions P�ollu#�nt E�nissi+�ns undslda A�tFwi ` 1/OC 1�1C� ' C� ' ��3 ' PM PMZ.s ' Area Sources 1.50 0.02 2.09 0.00 0.04 0.04 Energy Usage` 0.02 0.18 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.01 Mobile Sources' 0.88 2.17 9.94 0.03 1.85 0.51 Total Emissions 2.40 2.37 12.11 0.03 1.90 0.56 SCQAMD Operational Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: 'Area sources consist of emissions from hearths,consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 2 Energy usage consists of emissions from natural gas usage(excluding hearths). 3 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. Source: Vista Environmental, calculated from CaIEEMod Version 2013.2.2. Operations Emissions — Local Impacts '" 3-15 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND The Proposed Project was analyzed for the potential local CO emission impacts from the project-generated vehicular trips, local air quality impacts from on-site operations, and TAC impacts from on-site diesel trucks. CO Emissions CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. A sensitivity analysis is typically conducted to determine the potential for CO "hot spots" at a number of intersections in the general project vicinity. Because of reduced speeds and vehicle queuing, "hot spots" typically occur at intersections with level of service (LOS) E or worse. When an intersection operates at LOS E or F, SCAQMD recommends performing a CO hotspot analysis if the volume to capacity ratio increases by two percent or more. The traffic analysis conducted for the Proposed Project found that no analyzed intersection would operate at LOS E or worse as a result of the Proposed Project. Therefore no CO "hotspoY' modeling was performed. Significant impacts due to CO emissions would not occur as a result of the Proposed Project. Local Air Quality Project-related air emissions from on-site sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and onsite usage of natural gas appliances may have the potential to create emissions areas that exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Basin. The local air quality emissions from on-site operations were analyzed using the methodology and Look-Up Tables provided in SCAQMD's LST Methodology. The Look-up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOX, PM,o, and PM2,5 from the Proposed Project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. Table 3-6 shows the on-site emissions from the CaIEEMod model that includes area sources, energy usage, and vehicles operating on-site and the calculated emissions thresholds. Table 3-6 Local Operations Criteria Pollutant Emission Levels at the Nearest Homes : P+�ilcrtar�t Emissi�ns aun+dsl�ia ' On-Sit�Emissic�n'Saur+ce ldt�►X CO PM�o R1M .� Area Sources 0.02 2.09 0.04 0.04 Energy Usage 0.18 0.08 0.01 0.01 On-Site Vehicle Emissions' 0.27 1.24 0.23 0.07 Total Emissions 0.47 3.41 0.28 0.12 SCAQMD Thresholds for 25 meters (82 feet)or less 115 715 2 1 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Notes: ' On-site vehicle emissions based on 1/8 of the gross vehicular emissions,which is the estimated portion of vehicle emissions occurring within a quarter mile of the project site. Z The nearest sensitive receptor is a single-family home located as near as 5 feet southeast of the project site. According to LST methodology any receptor closer than 25 meters should be based on the 25-meter threshold. Source: Calculated from CaIEEMod2013 and SCAQMD's Mass Rate Look-up Tables for two acres in Central Orange County. '" 3-16 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND The data provided in Table 3-6 shows that the on-going operations of the Proposed Project would not exceed the local NOX, CO, PM�o and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. Therefore, the on-going operations of the proposed project would create a less than significant operations- related impact to local air quality due to on-site emissions and no mitigation would be required. Toxic Air Contaminant Particulate matter (PM) from diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in most areas and according to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, prepared by CARB, about 80 percent of the outdoor TAC cancer risk is from diesel exhaust. Some chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde have been listed as carcinogens by State Proposition 65 and the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program. Due to the nominal number of diesel truck trips generated by the Proposed Project during operations, a less than significant TAC impact would occur during on-going operations and no mitigation would be required. Summary Construction of the Proposed Project would not result in significant regional or local air quality impacts. The on-going operation of the Proposed Project would not result in regional or local air quality impacts due to emissions and TACs generated on-site. Therefore, no mitigation measures would be required. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable c} ouid th� �araj�ct rescrlt in a CUF11L1I��%V'E.'I�d �C3f1S%��A'��}I@ I?�P` l'I1CPC�'r'33@ O� r?tlY C!'t�'E.'i'Ic? pe�fltit�nt for whict� tfre praject regian fs naa�-a�fainr»enf t�nder an applicable federat or st�te ambient air quaCity standard {incfudin� releasing emissions whieh exceed quamatitateve thr�.�l�ral�� for c��one pr�cursor°s)? Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the project area. However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources, which travel throughout the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered would cover an even larger area. Accordingly, the cumulative analysis for the Proposed Project's air quality must be generic by nature. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), this analysis of cumulative impacts incorporates a three-tiered approach to assess cumulative air quality impacts. • Consistency with the SCAQMD project specific thresholds for construction and operations; • Project consistency with existing air quality plans; and ■ Assessment of the cumulative health effects of the pollutants. Proiect Specific Thresholds Construction-Related Impacts '" 3-17 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND The Basin is currently designated by the EPA as a non-attainment area for ozone and PM2.5. Ozone and PM2.5 emissions associated with the Proposed Project were calculated and discussed above in Section 3.3.b). The above analysis found that development of the Proposed Project would result in less than significant regional emissions of the precursors to ozone and PMZ 5 during construction of the Proposed Project. Therefore, a less than significant cumulative impact would occur from construction of the Proposed Project. Operational-Related Impacts The greatest cumulative operational impact on the air quality to the Basin would be the incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic from residential, commercial, and industrial development. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add a considerable contribution to the overall cumulative impact. The data provided in the discussion for Section 3.3.b) above shows that for the on-going operations activities, VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, PM,o, and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance. With respect to long-term emissions, the Proposed Project would create a less than significant cumulative impact and no mitigation would be required. Air Qualitv Plans As previously discussed under Section 3.3.a), the 2.33-acre project site is currently designated LMDR (6 to 15 dwelling units per acre), which allows for a maximum of 35 homes on the project site. The project site is zoned C-1, which is currently inconsistent with the existing General Plan Land Use designation. The Proposed Project would include the adoption of the Orange-Olive Specific Plan, which would allow for single-family residential condominium uses on the project site and would establish development standards similar to the standards specified for the R-3 Zone. The Proposed Project would require a zone change from C-1 to the proposed R-3 (SP), Orange-Olive Specific Plan. The proposed single-family residential uses on the project site would be consistent with the City's LMDR General Plan land use designation and the development of 25 residential units would not exceed the allowable density range under the LMDR designation. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would support the land use goals and policies contained in the City's General Plan by providing additional housing in an area of Southern California where there are more jobs than housing, which would most likely result in a reduction of commute distances and overall vehicle miles travelled for the occupants of the proposed homes. The General Plan consistency analysis contained in the Orange-Olive Specific Plan concluded that the Proposed Project would be consistent the City's adopted General Plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with the applicable AQMPs for the Basin. Cumulative Health Impacts The Basin is designated as nonattainment for ozone, PM�o, and PM2.5 by CARB, which means that the background levels of those pollutants are at times higher than the ambient air quality standards. The air quality standards were set to protect public health, including the health of sensitive individuals (elderly, children, and the sick). Therefore, when the concentrations of those pollutants exceed the standard, it is likely that some sensitive individuals in the population would experience health effects. The regional analysis detailed above in Section 3.3.b) found that the Proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for VOC and NOX (ozone precursors), PM�o or PM2.5. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant cumulative health impact. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant �` 3-18 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable d) �ut€� t��presj��t ex�c�� s�ns�tive rece�afcars fo subsfaa�tia!pollutat�t cc�rrcentra�ia�as? The on-going operations of the Proposed Project may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the project site from on-site operations, or near intersections where the Proposed Project would substantially increase the vehicular traffic and resultant CO concentrations. The local air quality impacts from the operation of the Proposed Project would occur from on- site sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and onsite usage of natural gas appliances. The analysis provided above in Section 3.3.b) found that the operation of the Proposed Project would not exceed the local NOX, CO, PM,o and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. Therefore, the on-going operations of the proposed project would create a less than significant operations-related impact to local air quality due to on-site emissions and no mitigation would be required. CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential impacts to sensitive receptors. The analysis provided above in Section 3.3.b) shows that the Proposed Project would not decrease the LOS at any analyzed intersection to LOS E or worse. Therefore, the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant during operational activities. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable e) Wacrld the project create o�rjectionable odors atfecting a substantiaf ncrmber of pe�pte? An odor impact would occur if the Proposed Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, which states: "A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals." '� 3-19 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of materials such as asphalt pavement, paints and solvents and from emissions from diesel equipment. The SCAQMD's threshold of significance for odors is based on SCAQMD's Rule 402, which limits the discharge of any material in such quantities as to create a nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site's boundaries. Odor emissions during construction would be short-term in nature and limited to the operational time of diesel equipment and the amounts of odor producing materials being utilized, which would result in transitory odor impacts at the nearby residences and are unlikely to create a nuisance or annoyance to a considerable number of persons. Therefore, a less than significant odor impact would occur during construction and no mitigation would be required. The Proposed Project would result in the on-going operation of 25 single-family homes. The type of facilities that are considered by the SCAQMD to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatment plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. Residential developments typically are not associated with foul odors that constitute a public nuisance. Therefore, a less than significant odor impact would occur from the on-going operation of the Proposed Project and no mitigation would be required. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable 3.4 Bic��c�ic�l Resourc�s ' Less'TE3an ' ' SSgt��c��t ': Potentially ' witt� Less Tha�n ' 5i�ni�rcar�t i Mi�igation �tgnifican# Would the prc�j�,�t; Crnpaci Inc+�rpc�raxed �mpact Np Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status � � � � species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including, but not limited to, marsh, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 vernal pool, coastal, etc.)through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? '" 3-20 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Less'Than : 5ignific�n# ' Patentialty with : Less Than ' significant ' Miti�ation Significar�t Would the project: Impact Incarporat�+d' Impact . No Impact d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife ❑ ❑ ❑ � corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation � � � � Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? a) �laulc� ths pra�e�t f�ave ,� sut�s�an�ia/��verse ef�ec�, either dire�tly or �hrocrgi� habita� v�ra�dificafir�ns, on any specie� i�entified as a cana►i�f�te, ser�s�five, ar sp��ia/ sta�us �pecies in icaca{ c�r regrcanat ,�/ans, �o1►ei��, or re�ul�fians, or by fhe GaCiforr�ia Departrrt�nf af�ista an�Game or�J,S. Fish anc� �lt�life �ervi�e? According to the 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR, most of the City's urbanized areas provide low habitat value for sensitive species. The City's biological resources are located predominately within the undeveloped areas of East Orange. Sensitive species may also be present where suitable habitat exists within the two County Regional Parks, the Santiago Creek corridor, the northeastern open space areas, and preserved hillsides and ridgelines in the southeastern portion of the City. The Proposed Project is an infill residential development project located within a highly urbanized area in the western portion of the City. The project site is currently occupied by a vehicle storage facility and is mostly paved with asphalt. The project site does not contain habitat that would support sensitive species, nor does the project involve vegetation removal (with the exception of the ornamental plantings in the Orange-Olive setback). The project site is not located within any areas of the City that have been identified to contain sensitive species or suitable habitat to support sensitive species. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any identified candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable b} auld the project have a subsfantfal advers� effect an any riparian habitat or ofher S�'f7S1t}1l� I1e�I'C1Ce9I CC}R1I°)7t111J�J!f(�L'f?t%�l@d l'R ICYC�I Ot't"�glQtle?I�3Ic'3t?5, palicies, regulat�ans or E�y the Califaarnia L7epartment of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? According to the 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR, riparian habitat and wetlands are located primarily in the undeveloped eastern portion of the City. Within the urbanized area of the City, riparian habitat and wetlands are known to occur along Santiago Creek. The project site is located in the urbanized western portion of the City and is not adjacent to Santiago Creek. ," 3-21 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND There is no riparian habitat on the project site. Therefore, the Propose Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable c) a�rCai the pr+�ject have a substan��al ar�ver�e effecf an federally protectec� wei�land`s as c�e�ined�y Secfion 4D4 of the C1ean Water�ct{including, but not Iimited to, marsh, v�rnai pao1, cc�astal, etc,� thr�ugt� r�irect remr�val, fil/ft�g, h,yc�ro/agrical interruptic�», or at��r rr��an�? As previously stated, wetlands are located primarily in the undeveloped eastern portion of the City. Within the urbanized area of the City, wetlands are known to occur along Santiago Creek. The project paved, located in the urbanized western portion of the City and is not adjacent to Santiago Creek. There are no wetlands on the project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any federally protected wetlands. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable d) lrVauld the prajeet in�erfere substantially with the movemenf Qf any rrafive resldent or migratory fish or wrldlif� species or with estabtished native resident or migratory wildl►fe corridc�rs, rar impede tiae use of native wildlife nursery sites? According to the 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR, the City's primary functional wildlife corridors are Santiago Creek through the center of the City; the northeastern portion of the City and the SCE utility corridors, which link with Santiago Oaks Park; and preserved hillsides and ridgelines in the southeastern portion of the City that link with Peters Canyon Park. In addition, a significant portion of eastern Orange is currently undeveloped and has potential for wildlife corridors that are used by numerous species in the City. The project site is not located within or adjacent to an established wildlife corridor. Furthermore, the project site is paved and located in the western portion of the City in an urbanized, developed area with no physical connection to open space. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable e� o�,ra tne profect ca��rtct w�tn any �oc�i po�lc�es or ora;►�ran�es prorec�tr�� orog►car resaurces, sueh as a tree presenration�olicy or ordinance? ," 3-22 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND As previously discussed in Section 3.4.a) above, the City's biological resources are located predominately within the undeveloped areas of East Orange and may also be present where suitable habitat exists within the two County Regional Parks, the Santiago Creek corridor, the northeastern open space areas, and preserved hillsides and ridgelines in the southeastern portion of the City. The Proposed Project is located on a developed site in an urbanized area in the western portion of the City. The project site has been disturbed by development. The majority of the project site is paved with asphalt. The project site does not contain any trees or protected biological resources. The Proposed Project would require the removal of a street tree along Orange-Olive Road. The applicant would be required to obtain a Tree Removal Permit from the City of Orange pursuant to Orange Municipal Code Section 12.32 prior to removal of the tree. In addition, tree removal would be subject to the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which protects migratory birds and their nests. To comply with the MBTA, tree removal will not be scheduled during the nesting season (i.e., January 15—September 15) to the extent feasible. If tree removal must be conducted during the nesting season, a qualified Biologist will ensure there are no active nests in the tree prior to its removal. Compliance with existing regulations, including the MBTA, is a requirement of the City's tree removal permit. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable f� Wca�rlcf the prc�j�ct canfftct rraifh th� �rovisisarrs of ar� adopt�d ,�fabitaf Conser�r�fion P�an, Natura6 Communi�y �orasenra�ic�n Piart, or c�th�r apprvved lacal, regianal, or st�f� h,�bitaf cor�s�r�vatior��Iart�' As shown in Figure 5.4-2 of the 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR, portions of eastern Orange are located within the habitat reserve established by the Orange County Central/Coastal Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The project site is located in western Orange and is not within or adjacent to the NCCP/HCP Habitat Reserve. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable 3.5 Cc�ltura! Resources t»es��Than� '. Si�tr�fi�r� �� -�at�ri#�..:� �#h� � „"� t�as�;Than �� i�ini��c�� M�if�ar�'"; �i�n�f�cant �crutd�he�r+�j�c�: I�pia+c� 'I�cor�rat�+ti': Im�rac# ' No Im��ct TM 3-23 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND t.ess Than Signif�r.arst Potentially with ' Less Than ' �vigni�icant Mitigation Signifcant ' Wauld the project: 1mpa�t incarparated ' impact I�o Impaat a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in§ ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ to§ 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological � � � � resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred � � � � outside of formal cemeteries? �} ocrlcf the pro�ec� cau�e a substanfial �c�verse ch�n�� ►r� fh� sic�r�ffi�arrce a� a hisforicaf resaurce as c�efirred rrr § ?50&4.�? The City contains a variety of historical resources including residences, commercial buildings, industrial buildings, districts, and landscapes. Thirteen of these resources are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Known historic resources are located primarily in the Old Towne Orange Historic District. The Figure 5.5-3 of the 2010 Orange General Plan also identifies several other individual resources and historical districts intended for designation within the City. The Proposed Project would construct 25 residential units on developed land in an urbanized area of the City. The project site does not contain any permanent buildings. There is only one modular office building located on the project site, and it is not a historic resource. There are no historical resources on the project site. Although the project site is located less than half a mile northwest of the Eichler Fairmeadow Tract (recognized in the City's General Plan as an area of the City with unique architectural character), the Proposed Project does not include features or construction activities that would result in direct impacts to historic resources, and is not visible from the Eichler neighborhood. Therefore, impacts to the significant of historical resources would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable b) Would fhe project cause a subsfarttiaf ��verse change in the Stt,�t?l�ICa!'1C@' of an archaeofogieal resource pursuant fo § 15064.5? According to the 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR, approximately 28 prehistoric archaeological sites have been recorded as a result of numerous studies and surveys conducted in the City. The majority of archaeological resources have been found east of Orange in upland, hill, and valley locations. However, there is potential for archaeological resources to be found within the developed area of the City. The distribution of prehistoric remains within the developed lowland area in City is poorly understood. Such resources may have been buried or destroyed TM 3-24 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND prehistorically as the alluvial plain of Orange was developing, or concealed during the process of development and redevelopment of existing urban areas. Figure 5.5-2 of the 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR identifies the numerous areas of archaeological sensitivity within the City. The project site is located near areas of historical sensitivity for Early American Development (1860-1875) and Farmstead Development (1870s- 1920). There is potential for unknown and previously undisturbed archaeological resources to be found on the project site during ground-disturbing activities. Review of historic topographic maps and aerial photographs indicate that the project site was undeveloped land from approximately 1898 to 1935 and agricultural farm land from approximately 1938 to 1963. The current vehicle storage facility was listed in City Directories searched in 1970 and was visible in aerial photos in 1972. Therefore, there appears to have been at least some site disturbance in the past to accommodate past agricultural uses and paving the site for the use that exists today. The proposed project would disturb onsite soils to a depth of approximately five feet below ground surface for grading and utilities. Therefore, although unlikely, there is a possibility of unearthing unknown and undocumented cultural resources during site work. Implementation of mitigation measure MM-CR-1 would ensure that any potential impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant. Significance Determination: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures: MM-CR-1: In the event a previously unrecorded archaeological deposit is encountered during construction, all activity onsite shall cease and the City shall be immediately notified. An archeologist meeting the Secretary of Interior's Professional Qualifications for Archaeology as defined at 36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A (Professional Archaeologist) shall be retained by the developer to flag the area in the field and determine if the archaeological deposits meet the CEQA definition of historical (State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(a)) and/or unique archaeological resource (Public Resources Code 21083.2(g)). If the find is considered a "resource" the Qualified Professional shall prepare a plan and pursue either protection in place or recovery, salvage and treatment of the deposits. Recovery, salvage and treatment protocols shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4.. If unique archaeological resources cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, recovery, salvage and treatment shall be required at the ApplicanYs expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the Qualified Professional. Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The Qualified Professional shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource. Excavation as a treatment option will be restricted to those parts of the unique archaeological resource that would be damaged or destroyed by the project. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of human remains, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or nearby area reasonably suspected to overly adjacent remains until the coroner is contacted. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Native American Commission will be contacted within 24 hours and the most likely descendent contacted. Any further actions will be determined at that point. The applicant shall implement all TN 3-25 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND recommendations made by the archaeologist. Onsite activity may continue at the direction of the Qualified Professional and the City. Following recovery, a final report containing site forms, a summary of resource significance, and recovery and treatment documentation shall be submitted immediately to the City Community Development Department and SCCIC. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects shall be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure. The final written report shall be submitted to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center prior to Building Permit Final. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated c) auld fh� proj�ct directty ar irrdir�ctly c�estroy a ur�rqer� �a/eor�te�fca�icaf resauree ar sit� or uniqu��evloc�i� feafFir�� According to the 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR, the County of Orange General Plan has designated most of area generally east of SR-55 as an area of paleontological resource sensitivity. Sensitivity levels are predicated primarily on the underlying geological formations. The project site is located west of SR-55 in an urban area and has been previously disturbed by development. No paleontological resources have been discovered or recorded on the project site. However, ground-disturbing activities associated with the Proposed Project could have the potential to unearth previously unidentified paleontological resources. The proposed project would disturb onsite soils to a depth of approximately five feet below ground surface for grading and utilities. Therefore, although unlikely, there is a possibility of unearthing unknown and undocumented resources during site work. Implementation of mitigation measure MM-CR-2 would ensure that potential impacts to paleontological resources are reduced to less than significant. Significance Determination: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures: MM-CR-2: In the event paleontological resources are encountered during construction, ground-disturbing activity shall cease. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer to examine the materials encountered, assess the nature and extent of the find, and recommend a course of action to further investigate and protect or recover and salvage those resources that have been encountered. Criteria for discard of specific fossil specimens will be made explicit. If a qualified paleontologist determines that impacts to a sample containing significant paleontological resources cannot be avoided by project planning, then recovery may be applied. Actions may include recovering a sample of the fossiliferous material prior to construction, monitoring work and halting construction if an important fossil needs to be recovered, and/or cleaning, identifying, and cataloging specimens for curation and research purposes. Recovery, salvage and treatment shall be done at the ApplicanYs expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the Qualified Professional. Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The Qualified Professional shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource. '" 3-26 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated �} oceto' the projec� disturb any hurrrars rerr�air�s, �r�eludr�c� those ir��erred auts��e c�f f€�rr�tat c�met�rie�� Based on a Project Design Feature listed in the letter report prepared by Associated Soils Engineering, Inc. (ASE), dated February 27, 2014, which presents the preliminary findings of the geotechnical investigation the project would have a max excavation depth of five feet. Due to the level of disturbance on the project site, it is not anticipated that human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities. However, in the unexpected event that human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. Procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains on non-federal lands have been mandated by California Health and Safety Code §7050.5, PRC §5097.98 and the California Code of Regulations (CCR) §15064.5(e). According to the provisions in CEQA, should human remains be encountered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the burial must cease, and any necessary steps to insure the integrity of the immediate area must be taken. The Orange County Coroner will be immediately notified. The Coroner must then determine whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who will, in turn, notify the person they identify as the most likely descendent (MLD) of any human remains. Further actions will be determined, in part, by the desires of the MLD. The MLD has 48 hours to make recommendations regarding the disposition of the remains following notification from the NAHC of the discovery. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the owner shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. Alternatively, if the owner does not accept the MLD's recommendations, the owner or the descendent may request mediation by the NAHC. Impacts are less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable 3.6 Geofogy and Sc�iis ' 1 ess'Tttan ' ' Signi�ant ' ' Pc�tenti�lly ' wi#t� L+�ss'7t��a ' SYg�it�car�t ' Mi#igat�+nta ' Signifi�nt Would#he prpJ�ct: tmpac� 'Incorporated': lmpaa� t+lc�impac# a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the ❑ ❑ � ❑ State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ � ❑ ," 3-27 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Less 3han ' � � � '' S[gni�cant � ' Potentialty with Less Than ' Significant Mitig�tion Signi#icant Wauld the project: Impact Incorporated impact No Impact iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including � � � � liquefaction? iv. Landslides? ❑ ❑ � � b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of � � 0 � topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site ❑ ❑ � ❑ landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water � � � 0 disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The following discussions are based in part on the letter report prepared by ASE, dated February 27, 2014, which presents the preliminary findings of the geotechnical investigation conducted for the Proposed Project. The letter report is provided as Appendix C of this document. a,} Would the project expose people or structures to potenfiai su�bstantial adverse ef�ec�s, incfuding the risk af fa�ss, injury, ar dea#h lnvolving: i. Ru�fure of a knovvn earthquake fault, as defrneated on the mast recent Afqufst- Priolo Earthquake �auCt Zoning Map issc�ed by the State Gealcagist for the area or bas�d on ather subsfantiaf evio'ence of a krrve�rn fauf�? According to the results of the geotechnical investigation conducted for the Proposed Project, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no active faults are known to have been mapped on the project site. The nearest known active fault is the Whittier Fault, located approximately 6.8 miles northeast of the project site. Although the probability of primary surface rupture is considered to be very low for the project site, strong ground shaking caused by earthquakes must be taken into account in the design and construction of any structures since the project site is located in an active seismic region. Adherence to the California Building Code Design Parameters contained in the letter report prepared by ASE would ensure that impacts due to rupture of an earthquake fault would be less than significant. The City Building Official confirms compliance with the CBC through the issuance of a building permit. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable TM 3-28 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND ii. ��r°errtg seismie �rczcrncf shaking? Although the probability of primary surface rupture is considered to be very low for the project site, the Proposed Project is located in an active seismic region and is within proximity of several active faults. Thus, strong ground shaking caused by earthquakes must be taken into account in the design and construction of any structures on the project site. According to the letter report prepared by ASE, the project site is located approximately eight miles from the Puente Hills Blind Thrust Fault, which has the potential to generate the most severe ground- shaking at the project site. Adherence to the California Building Code Design Parameters contained in the letter report prepared by ASE would ensure that potential impacts due strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. The City Building Official confirms compliance with the CBC through the issuance of a building permit. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable tii. S�i.smxc-refat�d graclnc�faiture, ir�cluc�►ng /iquefacfiara7 According to the letter report prepared by ASE, the project site is not located within a Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction. Liquefaction generally occurs within 50 feet of the surface during strong ground shaking within loose granular soils located below the groundwater table. Since the depth to groundwater for the project site is more than 50 feet below the surface, the potential for liquefaction and seismically induced settlement is considered to be negligible. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable iv. Lartdslides� The project site is relatively flat and is not located in a Landslide Hazard Area as identified in Figure 5.6-2 of the 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR. Therefore, impacts due to landslides would not occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable b} W�uld the project result in substantial scrii erasion c�r the lass of tapsaXt? The project site could be susceptible to erosion and storm water runoff due to grading and construction activities. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the City's ,"' 3-29 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND grading ordinance and to implement erosion control measures during construction to ensure that impacts due to soil erosion are less than significant. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, which include the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion. Typical construction BMP's include the use of soil binders, fiber rolls at the site perimeter, sand bags and storm drain inlet protection such as sediment filters or their equivalent. The project site is currently paved with asphalt and approximately 95 percent of the project site is impervious. The Proposed Project would decrease the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site by incorporating landscaping and open space areas. Additionally, the use of appropriate drought-tolerant landscaping, inclusion of reduced or "zero discharge" areas, and minimizing impervious areas/maximizing permeability reduces the potential for erosion long term. Upon implementation of the Proposed Project, the project site would be approximately 71% impervious.. Therefore, impacts due to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil as a result of the Proposed Project would be a less than significant impact. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable c) oufd the project be locafec� �n a �er�fvgic unit �r sai! that is unstable, or fhat would becorr�e unsta�ble as a r�suff af the pr�,�ect, and paterrtially resulf in �n- or c�ft=site l�n�fisli€��, /ateral sp�eading, subsr�ence, tiquefactfQn or coll�pse? As previously stated, the project site has low potential for liquefaction and is not located in a Landslide Hazard Area. The depth of groundwater is more than 50 feet below the ground surface; an ASEz search on water level data for nearby wells through the State of California water data library website3 estimated historic groundwater levels to be more than 100 feet below the lowest existing site surface. The potential for lateral spreading is also low due to the low potential for liquefaction and depth of groundwater. According to the results of the geotechnical investigation conducted for the Proposed Project by ASE, alluvial fan deposits consisting of silty clays, sands, and gravel underlie the asphalt pavement on the project site, which have the potential for collapse under the proposed structural loads required to implement the Proposed Project. However, the soils below five feet of the existing grades are dense and considered suitable for foundation support. As mentioned previously, a Project Design Feature will include the removal of the top five feet of soil below the ground surface or the three feet below the bottom of the foundations, whichever is deeper. This will reduce the potential for collapse. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant 2 Associated Soils Engineering, Inc. (ASE). Storm Water Infiltration Rate for Proposed Dry Well, Olive 25 Residential Development, 2025 North Orange Olive Road, Tentative Tract Map 17758, J u ly 10, 2015. 3 http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/groundwater/hydrographs TM 3-30 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable �} rau/c� td�� prc�jeet b� fr�c�t��f c�rr expansive sail, as d�f�r�ec� ie� Tab1e �f8-1- eaf the Clraifcs�rrz Buifc��ng �r�� '19�4�, �reatirr� su6st�nt��1 risks tc� lif� or pr�perty? Expansive soils are those soils with a significant amount of clay particles that have the ability to give up water (shrink) or take on water (swell). When these soils shrink or swell, the change in volume exerts significant pressures on loads, such as a building, that are placed on them. According to the geotechnical investigation conducted for the Proposed Project by ASE, and based on the proportion of clay that is present in onsite soils, the expansion potential of the soils on the project site is expected to be low. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable �} WouCd the project have soiis incapable of �t�equatefy suppvrt�ng fhe use of s�pt►c fanks +�r atternative wasfe wafer dis,pc�s�1 systems wJ�ere sewers are nat avail�bfe for fhe disposat of wa,�te snr�ter? The project site is served by a public sewer system and the Proposed Project would be required to connect to the sewer system. The Proposed Project would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Therefore, no impacts due to the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable 3,7 Gre�nhous� Gas �missions ' Less'1'han. ; ' Si�ni��a�k : �� Pot�srttialt�M,` �►iti� �� t��s�'har�:.' 3ignC�cat� Miti�a#it�r� S�gr��fic;�t�t Wfluld the proj�ct: impact lncerporat�d' lmpact No Impact . a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of ❑ ❑ � ❑ greenhouse gases? �M 3-31 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND The information presented below is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis — MBK Homes Orange-Olive Residential Project, City of Orange prepared by Vista Environmental in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and with the SCAQMD CEQA Air Qualify Handbook. This air quality analysis is provided in Appendix B of the document. Constituent gases of the Earth's atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in the Earth's radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation from the Earth's surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (03), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N20), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a. trend of unnatural warming of the Earth's natural climate, known as global warming or climate change. Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses. Transportation is responsible for 41 percent of the state's greenhouse gas emissions, followed by electricity generation. Emissions of COZ and N20 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of COZ, where COZ is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean. Local jurisdictions have the authority and responsibility to reduce GHG emissions through their police power and decision-making authority. Specifically, the City is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of GHG emissions resulting from its land use decisions. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the global climate change potential of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant global climate change impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such mitigation. The 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR used an interim GHG mission significance threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO2e (MTCOZe) per year. Currently, SCAQMD has only adopted a GHG emission threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e for industrial projects where SCAQMD is the lead agency. However, SCAQMD has initiated a Working Group to develop a detailed methodology for evaluating GHG emissions significance under CEQA. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use projects. Although the SCAQMD provided substantial evidence supporting the use of the above threshold, they have not been formally adopted. The City uses SCAQMD thresholds for projects located in the South Coast Air Basin. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be considered to create a significant cumulative GHG impact if the Proposed project would exceed the annual threshold of 3,000 MTCOZe. a) ould fhe prc�jeet ge»erate g�-eenhause gas emissians, eifh�r dlrectly or fndirecfly, that may have a significanf irnpacf an fhe environment? The Proposed Project would consist of development of 25 single-family homes and 0.54 acres of other paved surfaces on the approximately 2.33-acre project site. The Proposed Project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, mobile sources, waste disposal, water usage, and construction equipment. TM 3-32 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND The CaIEEMod Version 2013.2.2 was used to calculate the GHG emissions from the Proposed Project. A summary of the results is shown below in Table 3-7. Table 3-7 Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions Greenhouse Gas:Emissions Metric Tans er Y�ar 'NonBio- `Total `' Cate ory Bio-CDz , GO2 `COZ ` CH4 N20 COZe '' Area Sources 0.00 6.42 6.42 0.00 0.00 6.47 Energy Usagez 0.00 89.25 89.25 0.00 0.00 89.69 Mobile Sources'� 0.00 330.87 330.87 0.01 0.00 331.15 Solid Waste4 5.99 0.00 5.99 0.35 0.00 13.43 Water and Wastewater� 0.52 9.33 9.85 0.05 0.00 11.39 Construction 0.00 10.25 10.25 0.00 0.00 10.30 Total Emissions 6.51 446.12 452.63 0.41 0.00 462.43 Threshold 3,000 Notes: ' Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 2 Energy usage consist of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. 3 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. 4 Waste includes the COZ and CHa emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 5 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. Source: CaIEEMod Version 20132.2 for year 2016. The data provided in Table 3-7 above shows that the Proposed Project would generate 462.43 MTCOze per year of GHG emissions. This is well below the City's 3,000 MTCO2e per year significance threshold. Therefore, development and operation of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact due to GHG emissions. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable b) t�t`ould the prt�jeet conflict�ith an applicable pfan, paltcy or re�ulatian advpted for the purpase af r�ducing fhe �rnissions of gree»house ,gas�s? The CARB, SCAG, Orange County Sustainable Community Strategy and General Plan are applicable to the Proposed Project. Consistency with the CARB, SCAG, Orange County Sustainable Community Strategy and General Plan are discussed below: CARB The California State Legislature adopted AB 32 in 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Pursuant to the requirements in AB 32, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (CARB Scoping Plan) in 2008, which outlines actions recommended to obtain that goal. The Scoping Plan calls for an "ambitious but achievable" reduction in California's greenhouse gas emissions, cutting approximately 30 percent from business-as-usual emission levels projected for 2020, or about 10 percent from today's levels. On a per-capita basis, that means reducing annual emissions of "" 3-33 Orange-Oiive Specific Plan Project MND 14 tons of carbon dioxide for every man, woman and child in California down to about 10 tons ' per person by 2020. In May 2014, CARB adopted the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which creates a framework for ongoing climate action that can be built upon to maintain and continue reductions beyond year 2020 as required by AB 32. The Proposed Project is required to adhere to the following programs and regulations identified by the Scoping Plan and implemented by State, regional, and local agencies to achieve the statewide GHG reduction goals of AB 32. • Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) ■ California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations; ■ California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard; • Changes in the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE); ! 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards; and ■ California Green Building Code (CALGreen). The Proposed ProjecYs GHG emissions would be reduced through compliance with these statewide measures that have been adopted to meet the goals in AB 32. SCAG SCAG adopted the 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) on April 2012. The RTP/SCS is a regional growth management strategy that incorporates local land use projection and circulation networks in the cities and counties general plans. The RTP/SCS has also incorporated the goals developed in the Orange County Sustainable Community Strategy, prepared by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and transmitted to SCAG on June 30, 2011. The RTP/SCS was developed in order to meet the requirements of SB 375, which requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that demonstrates how the region will meet its GHG reduction targets as set forth by CARB. Pursuant to SB 375, CARB set the per capita GHG emission reduction targets from passenger vehicles at 8 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2020 and 13 percent below 2005 per capita emission levels by 2035. SB 375 also requires that the SCS must (1) identify the general location of uses, residential densities, and building intensities within the region; (2) identify areas within the region sufficient to house all the population of the region over the course of the RTP planning period; (3) identify areas within the region sufficient to house an eight-year projection of the regional housing need for the region; (4) identify a transportation network to service the transportation needs of the region; (5) gather information on the resource areas and farmland in the regions; (6) consider the statutory housing goals; (7) set forth a forecasted development pattern for the region which when integrated with the transportation network, and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce GHG emissions from autos and light trucks to achieve the GHG reduction targets; and (8) allow the RTP to comply with the air quality conformity requirements under the federal Clean Air Act. The Proposed Project complies with the following Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategies (OCSCS) land use strategies, which were incorporated into the 2012 RTP/SCS. �N 3-34 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND • Support infill housing development and redevelopment: The proposed project consists of an infill residential development E Promote land use patterns that encourage the use of alternatives to single-occupant automobile use: The proposed project would be near existing OCTA Bus Route 59 that travels on Glassell Street west of the project site. Project residents would also be within a short drive of the Orange County Metrolink Station on Chapman Avenue as well as ARTIC Train Station off of Katella Avenue. City of Orange General Plan The Proposed Project would also be consistent with the climate change-related policies outlined in Table NR-1 (Climate Change Related Policies) of the City's General Plan Natural Resources Element, including but not limited to: ■ Land Use Element Policy 6.9: Maximize landscaping along streetscapes and within development projects; • Urban Design Element Policy 2.4: Building design and orientation to promote active street life; • Urban Design Policy 4.6: Pedestrian linkages between commercial districts and neighborhoods; • Economic Development Element Policy 5.4: Redevelop and rehabilitate underutilized and vacant lands and public right-of-way; • Growth Management Element Policy 2.4: Infill development and mixed-use opportunities wherever possible as developable space becomes more limited; ■ Natural Resources Element Policy 2.2: Alternative transportation modes, alternative technologies, and bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. • Natural Resources Element Policy 2.3: Native and drought-tolerant plants, proper soil preparation, and efficient irrigation systems for landscaping. ■ Natural Resources Element Policy 2.5: Local and regional waste-reduction and diversion goals. • Natural Resources Element Policy 2.6: Sustainable building and site designs for new construction and renovation projects. • Natural Resources Element Policy 2.15: Minimize impervious surfaces and associated urban runoff pollutants in new development and redevelopment. � Through implementation of the above programs, regulations, and policies, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Furthermore, as previously discussed above, the Proposed Project would generate 462.43 MTCOze per year, which is within the City's 3,000 MTCO2e significance threshold. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts would be considered less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant TM 3-3�J Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable 3.8 H��r�s and �i�zardcau� �i�t�ri�� Less Than Sign�cant ' ' Potentialty , w�th ' Lsss 7han ' ° Significant ' Mitigation ' Significant Would the project: Irnpact '[ncorporated Impact ' No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset � � � � and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste � � � � within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, � ❑ ❑ x❑ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people ❑ ❑ ❑ O residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including � � � � where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The following discussions are based in part on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and the soil sampling report for the project site. Both reports were prepared by Ecobility Corporation and dated December 19, 2013. The Phase I ESA and soil sampling report are included in this document as Appendix D and E, respectively. a) auld the project create a significant hazard fo the public or the et�vi�onment thraugh the rautine transpart, use, or dispasal af hazarataus materials? The Proposed Project would include the development of 25 new detached single-family residential homes on the project site. During construction of the Proposed Project, fuels, oils, mechanical fluids, and other chemicals may be used. The transport of hazardous materials associated with construction activities, as well as construction waste for disposal, could result in '" 3-36 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND accidental release of hazardous materials. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations pertaining to the transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous waste to reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during transit. At the local level these include providing education for property owners/tenants/occupants, including information on what can and cannot be safely disposed in landfills and regarding the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program; BMP maintenance; and creating a spill contingency plan. Federal and state regulations include the use of qualified drivers and proper labeling of identified hazardous waste. Operation of the Proposed Project would not involve the transport, use, or disposal of large quantities of hazardous materials. The use of hazardous materials on the project site post-construction would consist of those commonly used in a residential setting for routine maintenance and cleaning. Work is sufficiently minor such that typical handling of hazardous materials would reduce the potential for exposure. A Phase I ESA for the project site was prepared by Ecobility in general accordance with ASTM Standard E 1527-05 in order evaluate the current and historical conditions of the project site and to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) present on the project site. RECs are defined as "the presence of or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws." The Proposed Project is located on land that is currently zoned for commercial use. The project site is currently utilized as a vehicle storage facility (Shannon's Storage) and was developed as a vehicle storage facility in the 1960s. Review of historic topographic maps and aerial photographs indicate that the project site was undeveloped land from approximately 1898 to 1935 and agricultural farm land from approximately 1938 to 1963. The current vehicle storage facility was listed in City Directories searched in 1970 and was visible in aerial photos in 1972. Residential development on land previously used for agricultural or commercial purposes could lead to increased potential for residential exposure to hazardous materials. However, the results of the Phase I ESA did not reveal the presence or likely presence of any hazardous materials on the project site. Hazardous substances, petroleum products, underground storage tanks (USTs), and above ground storage tanks (ASTs) were not observed or identified on the project site or on adjacent properties during the site reconnaissance conducted for the Phase I ESA. The Phase I ESA concluded that project site does not contain any evidence of RECs and no further investigation is warranted. Soil sampling was also conducted by Ecobility to evaluate for the presence of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and arsenic from the historic use of for agricultural activities. The results of the sampling concluded that the OCP concentrations detected did not exceed the California Human Health screening levels for residential properties. Arsenic concentrations were also below the Department of Toxic Substance Control screening levels. No further assessments of OCPs or arsenic were recommended. Therefore, a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials would not be created during construction or operation of the Proposed Project. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None ,M 3-37 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable �,} r�u6c�fhe preaj�ct cre��e a .�i�rri�i�arrt hazard to t�t��c��fic ar ttze envir�nrner��thrnugh r�asc�r�ab�y f�reseeabf� u�.��t ane� aceit��nt �or�t�it�cans irsvatvin� �he release �f ;h��rdous rt�r��erfat� i�atc� t�ae envire�rart�ent? As previously discussed, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations pertaining to the transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous waste during the construction phase to reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during transit. Proper handling of the use and disposal of hazardous materials associated with residential uses would reduce the potential for exposure to less than significant.. The project site is currently utilized as a vehicle storage facility (Shannon's Storage) and was developed as a vehicle storage facility in the 1960s. Review of historic topographic maps and aerial photographs indicate that the project site was undeveloped land from approximately 1898 to 1935 and agricultural farm land from approximately 1938 to 1963. The current vehicle storage facility was listed in City Directories searched in 1970 and was visible in aerial photos in 1972. Residential development on land previously used for agricultural or commercial purposes could lead to increased potential for residential exposure to hazardous materials. However, the results of the Phase I ESA did not reveal the presence of any hazardous materials on the project site. In addition, the soil sampling conducted for the project site concluded that the OCP and arsenic concentrations detected did not exceed established residential screening levels. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable �} ouCct the praject �rrait haz�rdaus emissiar�s or handle hazardous or acutety hazardaus mater►als, substances, or vvast� within one-quarfer mi#e of an exisfing or propaseat school? There are no schools located within a quarter-mile of the project site. The closest schools to the Proposed Project are the Covenant Christian School, located approximately 0.3 miles south at 1885 North Orange-Olive Road, and Taft Elementary School, located approximately 0.7 miles southeast at 1840 N. Cambridge Street. Furthermore, as discussed under Section 3.8.a) and Section 3.8.b) above, the Proposed Project is a residential use and would not emit hazardous waste or materials involve the transport, use, or disposal of large quantities of hazardous materials. Thus, the Proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of a school. No impacts are anticipated. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None '" 3-38 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable c�} r�uld ti�e �rojeet �� icacatec6 e�� a site wrhich f� i��tu�e� on a ffst of hazar��ous materiaC.s sr'tes compif�d p��rsctar�t to �r�v�rrtmer�t Cod� Section 6�962.5 arrd, �� a result, wc�ulci i#create a signifr`cant haz�rc� fo thre�ublrc car the er�virr�nrr►er�t� According to the Phase I ESA prepared for the Proposed Project, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable e) �ca� � �ar�jecf tocat�c� �+ifhin an airport I�r�c� use plan ar, �here such � pCan has not be�n adopt�r�, u�ritl�a� two rrailes of a pu6tic airp�ar°� csr �ublic use atrpart, would the prc�ject r��u1t in a �afet�y hazart�f�r peop�e resic�in� or�orkirag in the�ro�ect area? The Proposed Project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. There are no airports within the boundaries of, or adjacent to the City. The closest public airports are the Fullerton Municipal Airport, located approximately eight miles west of the project site and the John Wayne Airport, located approximately 10 miles south of the project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Not impacts would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable f} �or a protect vsrithrr� th� tFtClfil�)t O1F c'� �t`IYc3f�' c�ll'S�P'If3, wnuld the pr�c�j�ct resvlt in a safefy hazard fnr,peaple r�siding ar working in the project area? The Proposed Project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. There are no airstrips within the boundaries of, or adjacent to the City. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impacts would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable g) outd the project impair implernentati�n of or physically inter�fere wifh an adopted �mergency response plan or emergency eva�uation plan? The City's Multi-Hazard Functional Plan (also referred to as the City's Emergency Operations Plan), prepared in accordance with the State Office of Emergency Services guidelines for ,^� 3-39 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND multihazard functional planning, establishes emergency preparedness and emergency response procedures for both peacetime and wartime disasters. Although the City does not have designated emergency evacuation routes since emergency egress may vary depending on the type and scale of emergencies, the 2010 Orange General Plan Safety Element does assume generalized evacuation routes. Emergency egress would likely occur on Chapman Avenue, Katella Avenue, Glassell Street, Lincoln Avenue, State College Boulevard, and Hewes Street since most of these streets are wide, arterial roads with capacity to efficiently move residents in and out of the City. The Proposed Project is not located along any of the generalized evacuation routes. Access to and within the project site has been designed to meet City standards. On-site vehicular circulation is proposed to be a single 26-foot main drive aisle with eight-foot wide parallel parking stalls and five-foot wide sidewalks on both sides. The main drive aisle would be adequate to accommodate emergency vehicles. A hammerhead is provided at the east end of the main drive aisle to allow turn-around access for emergency vehicles and trash/delivery trucks. Ladder access would be available at window locations shown on Figure 10 Fire Master Plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable h) ItS�c�cefa' the project expose peop6e or� stru�tures tsa a sigr�►fican� �isk of fmss, injury or deafh invotving wildlar�d �'iresr 111CIL1i�IlTC„� where wifdfan�s are ad�acenf ta urbanized areas or�rher� resid�nc�s are intermixed wifh w�f�dtanc�s? According to the 2010 Orange General Plan, the project site is not located in a wildland fire hazard area, which are generally east of Jamboree Road in the eastern portion of the City. The project site does not contain any naturally vegetated areas on or adjacent to the site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impacts associated with wildland fires would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable "" 3-40 m (1 < � � O 7 0 � -, � � � � � � � � � �-_,` o � c N � < z " � m � � r�-r lQ � ,, � � z � � a o � o z Sl (p A � � , ` '��, = c m � ^ o D ' �,'o �,u � s ```_� � ' �� ,_ (L a,,, � � - � � m � -vYr cn � g �� _ �_�4�►�C " o � z �, I� � _� � --� � � `n• ' '�' �. I I I I `'` �`�� `�� _ m � � � �{ _' �_� � � N � � �_ ' _ c� � � - i � � , , � ; � ��,,, � r � � �� ', (1 � � _ � s��, `� � '� o I x, �� " , _� � � � z �i� .. ��_, _ D C T> � � � o�y' ��, A Z � m i i�. � � �� ,� { --- - C:�: j D � � � '� �r � I - .-' I �. 1 b"i � � ' � �� ' .._, , . . io � Y- k i � r� � i � N �.'i 9m � I� ��_ a i, � � �X. i � � � PRIVATE DWY � l � �z -- ��, � � J� - � �� '� L� = I --� � � � � PRIVATE DWY � � � ------, ; . --- , � . � ,, � ^ �; r ��; Y�, ,}� � �� , '�x r �- I� m C�; �' '_ c� i � m �� o ' 'G� �., _ � — � , ; � ; , � � rK�� , ; �� x � �=�, �� m o � ��x: � ;�X �} _ — Z �, � �'" j � � � 1p � -----: ' , ,- U � � ? x 9 � x ?� � c� � fD � � ' � „ ; ° 0 = � � _L � ` z ;r �,, �,...�, a . -- — — — �, � - - C ,� m � � " � cQ �. A��Zx� i � � I p�29n0 � x pp ��/y � I�. � � .._ � �, D O � � �/� a rl7N.Q��II I � � . 1.... ~ O ^ ,�/✓� A �lm�lU�2(�/1 %,i � ` ` pp�� 7� ��/y X i� V� �� qC � � imxmmm r.s .__ �:� , rIl1YA1G�111 ___.. --- � � T J /1 z c r� y,r_ F N � �"�� c�� @ puo�F�� rq rx �y `V D �T7 ,\ (Q � , _ z l l J _ C7 J� � T..�7" � � �iom`�'o ��, � .._ � � j�, �� r � � r'h � � . , �� 1 _ n �, 7 � � -----,n � T� — � � � � n >'/� �?; � i � � � C SL �X � � LL!' Q � C � -y1 D � fD n � A -- g� o-_,� v, , I •---- — �t " °° I ` � �; �`� � i-=, �=� k' � > ozo < � � � � � � � � � -� _ ! � !G�; �] n D � Y � O � �D . x — n — � — � � � � ;�'� �' `"� -- �� z a� T . N . _ �. , , � . 4 �, m x �� r. � ,;, I 1 � � ,..* X� �.rt .ucarE ,.;�� ` �X Q (� ,�y� VIN�f'Of' . u y��l �� R� �� I � ' � � ��v L � frt . �N £�, � �� n � i ___'' �� oo �,� IH o�� '� $fi' "'iivad�,� •y��m :� `- - , V' � • tl37M�" ��C m�n� �� X �,. i� I �� , 1 � � r"i�z�A �,,� r"� I �`�i Om• !~�1� � � y kx~ / \ ' -'� ,✓ _ A F a m� PRIVATE DWY -fi--� � ��%� � n . �. . p��`^�m �I,�f , ' �t _ m � rr'I y V — ` ert z c� vr, .m i m. �� m �. m o a mO��m� S<^�� ' � PRIVATE DWY p 3e �a m ^ rAi�Ds�m ...... . a,o oaa j �Omzoz � ,�f...... � 3m - m ."zoc�zo :��, - 0 � � >> �« z — n o T o � i �; � �o ,, . _._._.._ m„ �t m g o n -_ � U � i � � o A , ��{ I�� ' �x x^ X � m r 1 I�J ` � �� y P� . , ° � m . � .fe v � -- f - a � ' � a m _ ., m - • : N �a 3 r li o �,,.x I..�iX�� .i '_"'_ � Y \--- I ,D I� �� I . m r m o v, �, � o � w = - ` �., $ °'o m - -:. �'-�� "'., �� '':� k� 'St r�K�[� � rx� a� .. o� — > �.�'� �� v. o a < '. �- C':-, ��.._.. __-� - _._._. . _ . � ��o .� ' __ '_ ," _ '-' _ ' — „ _ '_ - — — — I �I 7 - � � � � °� � oo �� no�m �� x � �� s _ �"I n ; z�. ;S �.� m � s � 'zc . , o � o ,-o � � � o . .-o D � r�z -c . ., sc > > �z� r z o�- (n _o z n - z � n - < c _a . � w �n - . n � G f T A o . . v . � �b . � . . T p C, c��, R f o ' nz . _ '1 Ao c- ,�^. a r� '� - - Z7 �.i m m � � z � z � ,. n � � � ►�!r '7i � � �'c' o s � s� � F V Z o $ o m � s f � . o � - � ��m s� p� o IT�i � � L"�+'J y g _g � � 5 � � - F � � M �� , �.� � :zm � o � � .-� r .O. � a V�� -..� _ fS " � - A�m ' .. - � ��y A � � � sm T � � ��a � c - z� �v r G �£ � � � K A � o � > n � o ;. . (� � e 'SI y �f .. c S� o -o � X � _ i � - n � � ^' S . O � S � " � p - r- /�� /� �� y �O Oj O � �/ My+ c Z , . � 9 yF Z� _ r �i T_ i l�J � ` .-�-- -�� ._<_�-""_ �J �O A 5+D� � f �i . � Z� y C� ��/ b] 9 n _ _ � - Vl m n m <� � N � � � � n o O-iu � �n V ,n r T � -y � - - . � - m �s C . v o = . - �. '^ .> i t tri V J Y x n .J i, i. /�� O YI/ '� � N Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND �.9 Hydr�lag� �r�r� ��r C�u�lr�y Less Than Significant Patentially ' with Less�'han Sign�cant `Mitigatian Sic�niflcant Would the project: Irr►pa�t Incorporated " lmpact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? � � � � b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing � � � � nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially � � � � increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned � � � � stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary � � � � or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood ❑ ❑ ❑ O flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including � � � � flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ � ❑x k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from � � 0 � construction activities? I) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post- � � 0 � construction activities? m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling,vehicle or equipment maintenance(including washing),waste handling, ❑ ❑ x❑ ❑ hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? TM 3-43 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND �ess Tlti�ri Significant Patentiaily witfi ' Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Woutd the praJect: ' Impact Incarporated ' Impact No Impact n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving ❑ ❑ O ❑ waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of the � � � � project site or surrounding areas? The following discussions are based in part on Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), dated March 2015, revised July 2015 and the Hydrology and Hydraulics Study, dated March 2014, revised July 2015, for the project site. Both reports were prepared by C & V Consulting, Inc. The WQMP and the Hydrology and Hydraulics Study are included in this document as Appendix F and G, respectively. a,� oa�dd the project vic�i�t� ara}� wat�r quaii�y s�ancfat�€�s or wasfe �ischarge r�t�t�irements? The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In order to meet the requirements of Sections 401 and 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the NPDES program, the Santa Ana RWQCB has issued the following permits: E State Water Quality Order No. 99-08-DWQ regulates discharge of storm water runoff associated with construction activities. • Orange County Order No. R8-2009-0030 as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062 and State Permit CAS618030 regulate waste discharge requirements. The Proposed Project would disturb one or more acres of soil and would be required to obtain coverage under the State Water Quality Order No. 2009-0009 (Construction General Permit 2009-0009-DWQ). The Construction General Permit requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, which would include a site plan showing existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project site. The SWPPP must list BMPs to minimize the impact of stormwater runoff. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a construction monitoring program including a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for "nonvisible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment or turbidity. Processing of the permit requires a complete Notice of Intent package (Notice of Intent, site map, and fee) and Notice of Termination (upon completion of each section), filed with the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB). In addition, Orange County R8-2009-0030 as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062 and State Permit CAS618030 require the Proposed Project to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that contains BMPs that will be implemented to control pollutants post-construction. Construction pollutant sources include soil erosion and dust debris from landscape and construction activities, as well as soil compaction during and due to construction activities. The Proposed Project is expected to produce suspended soils, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens, pesticides, '" 3-44 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, and trash and debris. Typical BMPs to address construction-related pollutants include the use of silt fencing, sand bags and storm drain inlet protection to ensure that all construction debris is kept away from the street, gutter, and storm drain; ensuring that materials are stored under temporary roofs or plastic sheets to eliminate or reduce the possibility that rainfall, runoff, or wind will carry materials from the project site into the street, storm drain, or adjacent properties; ensuring that materials are never hosed down into the street or storm drain; ensuring that exposed piles of construction materials are not stored out on the street or sidewalk; requiring concrete mixers and equipment to be washed in a designated washout area where the water can flow into a containment area or onto dirt; and ensuring that soil must be piled in a contained, covered area where it cannot spill into the street during removal. The Proposed Project would also be required to comply with City Water Quality requirements, which require compliance with the County Model Water Quality Management Plan (MWQMP) and Technical Guidance Document (TGD), and identify pollutants of concern for each of the City's watersheds and provide standards and procedures to improve water quality associated with runoff from existing and developed areas in the City. The Proposed Project is a residential development of more than ten units and would be classified under the Orange County MWQMP as a priority project. The Orange County MWQMP requires priority projects to prepare a WQMP that would identify pollutants of concern and BMPs to remove pollutants from post-construction site runoff prior to its discharge to the storm drain system. The Proposed Project is expected to produce suspended soils, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens, pesticides, oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, and trash and debris. Dry wells have been incorporated into the design plans as a means of infiltrating and removing pollutants from project site runoff. Other typical BMPs for the project include minimizing impervious areas/maximize permeability; creating reduced or "zero discharge" areas; providing education for property owners/tenants/occupants; restricting activities such as car washing; providing common area landscape management and BMP maintenance; providing a spill contingency plan; requiring common area litter control and common area catch basin inspection; street sweeping for private streets and parking lots; providing storm drain stenciling and signage; using efficient irrigation systems and landscape design; and utilizing trash racks/catch basin filter inserts. Compliance with the NPDES program through implementation of the SWPPP during construction and the Orange County MWQMP requiring implementation of BMPs for post- construction pollutants would ensure that the Proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable b) outd tf�e prrsject substantially deplefe groundwater supplies or interfere subsfantially wifh grr�ur�dwafer recharge sucla that there would be a net o'�ficrt in aquifer valume or� fowering of the focal�ro�n�wat�r table Ieve! (e.g., the pro�uction rafe ra# pre-existfng nearby wells wa�Id drop fo a leve! which wocrf�l rrof suppart exisfing Iand uses or planned uses for which�ermrfs have been granfed}? The City's primary source of domestic water is from groundwater resources supplied by City- owned wells, which provide approximately 70 percent of the City's water supply. The City is a '" 3-45 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND member of the Orange County Water District (OCWD) manages the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is the main source of the City's water supply. Groundwater conditions in the Orange County Groundwater Basin are influenced by the natural hydrologic conditions of rainfall, groundwater seepage, and stream flow. Groundwater extraction and injection through wells, the use of imported water for groundwater replenishment, and water use efficiency practices also influence the groundwater conditions in the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Groundwater recharge facilities within or adjacent to the City include the Santa Ana River, which performs groundwater recharge areas along its entire route, and Santiago Creek. The upper portions of Santiago Creek are characterized by large, abandoned mining pits. In particular, the pits near Bond Street serve valuable groundwater recharge purposes. The Proposed Project would construct 25 new residential units and generate approximately 77 new residents, which would increase water demand. Water supply and demand are discussed in detail under Section 3.17.b) below. The City would have sufficient water supply to service the Proposed Project without substantially depleting groundwater supplies. The project site is not an identified groundwater recharge facility. Development of the Proposed Project would not interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable c} oulc� fhe� pr°r�,�eet sa�bsfantjally alter the existing drainage pattern e�f the sif� ar area, fflCfldC�lt7C� ��'Jf`AU�I7 �`I1� c�It�l"�ft0T7 CT��I?L �C?(1CS� t3�t? S�'C�aCCt 07`P"1V6't"r ►n a rraanner which would resuit fn substa�tfia!erc�sion ar sittafion on- c�r of�fi-site? The project site is mostly paved with asphalt and approximately 95 percent of the project site is currently impervious. The Proposed Project would decrease the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site by incorporating landscaping and open space areas. Upon implementation of the Proposed Project, the project site would be approximately 71% impervious. The current drainage for the project site surface flows to the southwest through a parkway culvert into the public storm drain system at Orange-Olive Road. Post-development, the drainage would sheet flow over impenrious pavement and into onsite catch basins connected to subsurface storage chambers and drywells, which would capture and infiltrate runoff. In addition, post-development flows would be less than the current flows on the project site. Post- development flows would be reduced to 7.69 cfs from the pre-development flow rate of 9.88 cfs for a 100-year event. Post-construction, stormwater would first be directed through a drywell and detention system. During larger storm events once the drywell and detention systems are at capacity, runoff would surface flow over the main drive aisle to the public right-of-way to the west edge of the project site. This pathway matches historic drainage conditions. The drainage would continue in the southerly direction to an existing catch basin on Orange-Olive Road that converges with the Collins Channel, ultimately converging with the Santa Ana River which outlets to the Pacific Ocean. The proposed development would increasing pervious coverage (5% pre-project to 29% post-project), thus reducing the susceptibility of downstream systems. TM 3-46 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND The Proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns on the project site such that substantial erosion or siltation would occur. The project would increase the amount of pervious surface area from 5% to 29%, and reduce the amount of impervious surface from 95% to 71%. Post-construction, vegetation would be established, specific landscaping practices would be followed, and ongoing maintenance would be conducted to minimize erosion and siltation onsite. Offsite, siltation and erosion would be minimized by the reduction in offsite flows resulting from reduced impervious surfaces. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable c�) ould fhe ,�rc�j�ct substantiat�� atter the existfng dra�r�a�e �atterr� of t1�e site or ar�a, including fhrough �h� alt�r�f�an af tf�e ec�c�rse of � strearr� t�r river, or su�sEantiat/y ►ra�r�ase the rat� ot� amgunt �� sa�rf�� r��ff irt a manner which vvc�uld' r��utt fn flor�c�rra� an- c�r caffi=.�i��? As discussed under Section 3.9.c) above, development of the Proposed Project would result in decreased flows on the project site. Post-development flows would be reduced to 7.69 cfs from the pre-development flow rate of 9.88 cfs for a 100-year event. The Proposed Project would increase the amount of pervious surfaces on the project site by incorporating landscaping and open space. No public storm drain exists in the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site. All proposed flows would enter the water quality storage and dry well system. In the event of a large storm, all water would bypass the catch basin and flow into the right-of-way. Because the proposed land use is more pervious and travels over a flatter slope, the time of concentration has been reduced and the development would outlet less storm water than previously. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff to cause flooding. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable e� guicf the praject creafe ar contrrbufe runat'f water which wauld exeeecf the eapacity c�f existing o�-planrred stormvuater drairrage systems t�r pravfde substantial additior�a! sources o�'pall�ted runaff? The project site is served by the City's storm drain system located on Orange-Olive Road. As discussed under Section 3.9.c) above, the current drainage for the project site flows to the southwest corner of the property into a parkway culvert, then to the City's storm drain system at Orange-Olive Road. The Proposed Project would increase the amount of pervious surfaces on the project site and decrease the amount of runoff draining into the storm drain system. In addition, post-development flows would be less than the current flows on the project site. For the 10-year storm event, the pre-development flow rate is 6.04 cfs and the post-development rate is 4.99 cfs. For the 100-year storm event, the pre-development flow rate is 9.88 cfs, and the ," 3-47 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND post-development rate is 7.69 cfs. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, as the post-development rate is less than the pre-development flow rate for both the 10-year and the 100-year storm event. The project would also not create additional sources of polluted runoff that cannot be treated by the BMPs listed in Section 3.9a). Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable � oudcd the praject c�ttr� �se substanti�If� r�egra�� w�ter quality? As discussed under Section 3.9.a), the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the NPDES Program and the City of Orange water quality requirements. A WQMP has been prepared, which includes BMPs to reduce the potential for the Proposed Project to impact water quality. SWPPP construction BMPs include ensuring that all construction debris is kept away from the street, gutter, and storm drain; ensuring that materials are stored under temporary roofs or plastic sheets to eliminate or reduce the possibility that rainfall, runoff, or wind will carry materials from the project site into the street, storm drain, or adjacent properties; ensuring that materials are never hosed down into the street or storm drain; ensuring that exposed piles of construction materials are not stored out on the street or sidewalk; requiring concrete mixers and equipment to be washed in a designated washout area where the water can flow into a containment area or onto dirt; and ensuring that soil must be piled in a contained, covered area where it cannot spill into the street during removal. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on water quality. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable ,g) We�ufd the praject place housirrg withln a 1 t�0-year ffood hazard area as mapped an a federal Fls�oa� Hazard aundary ar Floo� fnsurance Rate Map ar other ftoad hazard delineatitzr7 map?' According to the 2010 Orange General Plan, the Proposed Project is not located within a 100- year flood hazard area. Therefore, the Propose Project would not place housing within a 100- year flood hazard area. Not impacts would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable h) ould the pr�►ject place r��thin a 900-year flood hazard at°ea structures which �aulot impede ar redirect flood flows? TM 3-48 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND According to the 2010 Orange General Plan, the Proposed Project is not located within a 100- year flood hazard area. Therefore, the Propose Project would not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. No impacts would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable ►� outr� the project exp�se people o� structures �a a si�nific�nt risk �f ir�ss, injury or cfeath involving ftoocfin�, irrctct�in� flcaa�rn� as � resu/t caf fhe faflure of a Ievee c�r dan�? The Proposed Project is located approximately 13 miles northeast of the Prado Dam. The project site is adjacent to a 100-year flood area, and the west edge falls within the Prado Dam Inundation Area.' Although the site is adjacent to the 100-year flood area and the west edge of the site falls within the Prado Dam Inundation area, over 80 percent of the project site is outside the range of the inundation area. According to the City's Areas Subject to Dam Inundation, the time to inundation for the project site is approximately four hours providing sufficient time to notify and evacuate residents if needed. However, in response to increased population and the need for risk reduction, the United States Army Corp of Engineers developed a plan for improvement for Prado Dam, which includes raising the embankment, constructing new outlet works increasing the maximum discharge capacity from 9,000 cfs to 30,000 cfs, constructing new levees and dikes, and Increasing the reservoir area from 6,695 acres to 10,256 acres.5 None of these recent improvements to the Prado Dam to address dam safety are reflected in the Prado Damn Inundation Area Map. Therefore, although a small portion of the project site is within the Prado Dam Inundation Area, significant impacts are not anticipated given the distance of the dam to the project site and the recent improvements to the Prado Dam. Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable I) (7Ll'ICI�°�Yf,'pfOf�Gt t"�SLIIf it7 ff?ttt?C�c�f(C)fl b�°��.'iCIIB', tsunami, ar mudflc�w? The City is located approximately 12 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and would not be affected by tsunamis. According to the 2010 Orange General Plan, although seiches have not historically occurred within the City, it is possible that a seiche could occur within areas that are adjacent to water bodies. The project site is not adjacent to any large water bodies and would 4 See City of Orange—Areas Subject to Dam Inundation �http://www.cityoforange.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BIobID=15540) See OC Public Works Flood Division —Prado Dam (http://ocflood.com/sarp/prado) '" 3-49 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND not be impacted by seiches. The potential for mudflows would occur in and adjacent to hillsides in the eastern portion of the City due to removal of natural vegetation and creation of steep graded slopes. The project site is located in the northwestern portion of the City in an urban area that is relatively flat. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not be subjected to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impacts would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable k} ould i°he prm��ct prateratiall� irnpact sf€�rrr�water runoft fr�rrz ca�rrstruct►an activiti�s? As previously discussed under Section 3.9.a) above, the Proposed Project would be required to obtain coverage under Construction General Permit 2009-0009. The Construction General Permit requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, which must list BMPs to minimize the impact of stormwater runoff. Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable 1) INau1d t�r� prc�,�ec� �catenttaCly im�act stc�rmv�ater rur�off from post-e€anstruction act�vi�ies� As discussed previously under Section 3.9.c), post-construction runoff would drain into subsurface storage chambers and drywells, which would capture and infiltrate runoff from smaller storm events that tend to carry project pollutants. In addition, post-construction flows would be less than the current flows on the project site. Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable m) auld the pr��ect result in a potentiaf far discharge af sformuvater paltutar�ts from arreas of materxal storage, vehlcfe e�r equipment fuelfng, vehicle ar equipmen� mairrtenance {inc/ud�ng washing}, waste handli»g, hazardaus materials handling or stora�e� CI�.'IIVG'l"�t3CGt3'Sy Ic�ading aic�cks r�r o�her outd�or work areas? The Proposed Project is a residential development and would not include areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance, waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas that are commonly associated with commercial uses. As discussed under Section 3.8.a) above, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations pertaining to the transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage of '"' 3-50 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND hazardous waste to reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during transport of construction waste for disposal. The use of hazardous materials on the project site post- construction would consist of those commonly used in a residential setting for routine maintenance and cleaning. Proper handling of the use and disposal of hazardous materials would reduce the potential for exposure, and would be enforced through information materials provided to owners/occupants/employees regarding proper use and disposal of household chemicals, activity restrictions (e.g., car washing, washing of any hard pavement), fertilizer and pesticide use that is compliant with City of Orange Guidelines for use of Fertilizers and Pesticides, and the use of trash racks/catch basin filter inserts to pre-treat stormwater runoff. BMPs related to construction include using silt fencing, sand bags and inlet protection to ensure that all construction debris is kept away from the street, gutter, and storm drain; ensuring that materials are stored under temporary roofs or plastic sheets to eliminate or reduce the possibility that rainfall, runoff, or wind will carry materials from the project site into the street, storm drain, or adjacent properties; ensuring that materials are never hosed down into the street or storm drain; ensuring that exposed piles of construction materials are not stored out on the street or sidewalk; requiring concrete mixers and equipment to be washed in a designated washout area where the water can flow into a containment area or onto dirt; and ensuring that soil it must be piled in a contained, covered area where it cannot spill into the street during removal. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable n} ouCo' the prcaject result in th� �otentlal fc�r c�fscft�rge of st�rmwater fo affect the benefi�ia! uses r�t the r�ceivingr wafers? The site drains in a southerly direction to an existing catch basin that converges with the Collins Channel, ultimately converging with the Santa Ana River which outlets to the Pacific Ocean. Santa Ana River beneficial uses include Water Contact Recreation (Rec 1), Non-Contact Water Recreation (Rec 2), Commercial and Sportfishing (COMM), Wildlife Habitat (WILD), Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species (RARE), and Marine Habitat (MAR).6 As discussed previously under Section 3.9.a), the Proposed Project would be required to prepare a SWPPP and a WQMP, both of which would contain BMPs to minimize the impacts of stormwater runoff. Compliance with the NPDES program and the City of Orange water quality requirements would ensure that the Proposed Project would not result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable 6 See Attachment B-3 Santa Ana RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses (http�l/www usbr qov(Ic/socal/reporfs/bnnecancentrate/3Reqs qart4.pdf) ��TM 3-51 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND c�} V�l�s�l� £he pr�j�ct cr��t� the potenti�{ fs�� s��rrifica�t char�g�s ir� t�� Ic��r✓ v�le�c►�y or �ra�un�� r�f stc�rrr��rater rur��aff fa� c�r�se �ravrror�rrzet�i��l harrrr� The Hydrology Study prepared for the Proposed Project indicated that the post-development flow rates would be less than the pre-development condition on the project site. For the 10-year storm event, the pre-development flow rate is 6.04 cfs and the post-development rate is 4.99 cfs. For the 100-year storm event, the pre-development flow rate is 9.88 cfs, and the post- development rate is 7.69 cfs. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable p) out�' ttae �r�ajecf cre�t� sic�t��f��ar�f ir�cr°�a�� r� erc�s�on c�f the proj�ct sif� or surrr�t�r�t�ir�� as� The project site could be susceptible to erosion during grading and construction activities. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the City's grading ordinance and to implement erosion control measures during construction to ensure that impacts due to soil erosion are less than significant. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the NPDES requirements, which include the preparation of a SWPPP and the implementation of BMPs to reduce erosion. Post-construction erosion would be addressed through the establishment of vegetation on-site, adherence to specific landscaping practices, and ongoing maintenance to minimize erosion and over-irrigation. Therefore, impacts due to erosion as a result of the Proposed Project would be less than significant impact. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable 3.10 ��nd U�e a�d f'lar�raing Less''Than '' : S�gnif�cant ' �'ot+an#i�li�t ' �viktt . '' .t.��Than �igniflca�t ' Mitigati+�t� �S�r�ificant . Wauld the pro�ect: Impact `lncorparated impact ' #+1+o Impact ' a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ � b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, � � � � specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan � � � � or natural community conservation plan? '" 3-52 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND a) ��ufc� the pro�pect��t��i�afty� �°iari�le �� stabfrst�ec�ec�r�ar�rr�n�t�? The Proposed Project wouid construct 25 new single-family residential units on a site that is designated for residential development in the City's General Plan, and adjacent to existing single-family and multi-family dwellings to the north and east. The project site is a developed site currently occupied by a vehicle storage facility surrounded on all sides by urban development.. The Proposed Project is an infill residential development project that would be compatible with the existing residential communities adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community and no impacts would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable �) a�ld the �rr�j�ct eonflict v�ai�°h arry* a�plicabl� tan�' crse �#an, poficy, or r�,gulafion af �rr ag�n�y w�if�juri�cl�ctivt� aver th� �rca�ect (�rrcJudfng, but not fimitecf to tb�� gerreral pf�r�, specif�c pl�r�, locaf caastaf pr�gram, or �oning arc�inarrce) adoptec� for the pttrp�se r�f auoidin� car miti��tirtg an envi�°onrrtentaf��fect? The project site is currently designated LMDR under the 2010 Orange General Plan. The LMDR allows a density of 6.1 to 15 dwelling units per acre, which equates to 14 to 35 dwelling units on the project site. According to the 2010 Orange General Plan, the LMDR designation provides for both detached and attached single-family homes on smaller lots, as well as duplexes and some mobile homes, multi-family townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. LMDR land uses are typically found adjacent to commercial or mixed-use activity centers, The Proposed Project would construct 25 single-family dwelling units along a residential/commercial/industrial corridor along Orange-Olive Road and is within the allowable density of the LMDR designation. The project site is currently zoned C-1. According to Table LU-1 of the 2010 Orange General Plan Land Use Element, the C-1 zone is not consistent with the LMDR land use designation. Furthermore, the C-1 zone does not allow residential uses. The current commercial use of the project site is non-conforming with the 2010 Orange General Plan, which designated the project site for residential uses. (Note: the LMDR General Plan designation on the project site was not established in 2010. Rather, the inconsistency between the General Plan and zoning is a longstanding inconsistency.) The Orange-Olive Specific Plan is proposed to regulate the development of the project site. If adopted, the Orange-Olive Specific Plan would allow for the proposed single-family residential uses on the project site. Development standards established under the Specific Plan include the building specifications such as heights, setbacks, and design standards similar to the standards specified under the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone. Implementation of the Proposed Project would require the adoption of the proposed Orange-Olive Specific Plan and a zone change from the current C-1 zone to the proposed R-3 (SP), Orange-Olive Specific Plan. The proposed zone change would change the project site from a commercial usage to a single- family residential use that is consistent with the LMDR land use designation established for the TM 3-53 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND project site by the Orange General Plan. The project site would be developed at density of 10.73 dwelling units per acre, which is within the allowable density range of 6.1 to 15 dwelling units per acre under the LMDR land use designation. The General Plan consistency analysis in the Orange-Olive Specific Plan concluded that the Proposed Project would be consistent with the goals and policies established in the City's adopted General Plan. Relevant consistency areas include the Land Use Element, Noise Element, Infrastructure Element, and Urban Design Element. The most relevant Land Use policies address the need to preserve the character of the existing neighborhood by ensuring that the new development reflects existing design standards and remains in context, thus minimizing the effects of the new development on the character of the surrounding neighborhood. They also stress the need for development activity that is beneficial to the environment and the community. The most relevant Noise policies address the need for design features to shield residents from excessive noise. The most relevant Infrastructure policies require that the development shoulder its fair share of costs associated with providing water, sewer, and storm drain services. The most relevant Urban Design policies encourage high quality design that ensure the site is well integrated and will contribute positively to the surrounding neighborhood. A copy of the proposed Orange-Olive Specific Plan is included in this document as Appendix A. Therefore the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable c) ould the praject cc�nfli�t� with any a�plic�ble �r�bitat canservafiot� ptan c�r nat�ural c€�rnrn[rnrfy con�errrati�n plart? As previously stated, the project site is located in western Orange in a developed portion of the City and is not within or adjacent to the NCCP/HCP Habitat Reserve. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impacts would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable 3.11 in�ral ��sar�rces Le��'�'han ' ' Si,�r�if�art�t ' ' Pdt�srrtE�llat ', `�aritf� �ss�Th�n S�ign��[t�snt M�i.�lon 5i�gnifir�nt �►oultl the proje�t: trttp�+c� in�+�rperratet!'; Irrrpac� N�tmpact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the ❑ ❑ ❑ � residents of the state? Ta 3-54 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Les5 Than � �� Signifiicant �� Potentialty ' with ' Less Than Signiftcant Mitigation Significant ' Would the praject: lmpact l�corporated ' Impact Nc Impact b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local � ❑ ❑ � general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a} ould fhe prajecf resuft irx t�re lass o� a��i/abiEity t�f a known rr�irrera! resaurce thaf waul�be €�f�alue tc� fhe rec�iar� ar�d�he resicf��r�.� af the state? According to the City's General Plan, mineral resource deposits in the City are primarily limited to the sand and gravel resources contained in and along the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. Although the City had numerous state-designated Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs), which identify the location of regionally significant mineral deposits, the MRZs have since been declassified due to the exhaustion of mineral resources or to urban development. The Proposed Project is not located adjacent to the Santa Ana River or the Santiago Creek. The project site is designated LMDR and is not within an MRZ. Development of the project site would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the state. Therefore, no impact would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable �,i ould tf�e praject resul� r`n fhe loss c�t` availabiti�y o� a lacalfy-in�por�anf mineral resource recovery �ite detineate� c�s� a locat �er�era!plar�, specific plan or ather land use p/an? The City's General Plan Land Use Element designates resource areas for the purpose of conserving mineral resources and allowing mining activities. These resource areas include area comprising and surrounding the two groundwater recharge pits (Bond Pits) on Santiago Canyon Road and the approximately 18-acre site of the R.J. Noble Company. These areas are designated Resource Area on the City's General Plan Land Use Policy Map. The project site designated LMDR, is developed with a commercial use, and is not located within a designated Resource Area on the City's General Plan Land Use Policy Map. According to the letter report prepared by ASE, dated February 27, 2014, there are no mineral resources located on the project site. Development of the project site would not result in the loss of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no impact would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable T°' 3-�J�J Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND �.�� i�� Less Than ' Significant Pdten#ially ` with ' L.ess Than ' ,Signi�icatrt Mit�ga#ion ' Slgnificant < Would the project result in:' Innpact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local � 0 � � general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? � � � � c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ❑ ❑ � ❑ without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, ❑ ❑ ❑ � would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working ❑ ❑ ❑ � in the project area to excessive noise levels? The following information is based on the Noise Impact Analysis — MBK Homes Orange-Olive 35 Project, City of Orange prepared by Vista Environmental for the Proposed Project, which has been included in this document as Appendix H. Noise within the project area is generally characterized by vehicular traffic on Orange-Olive Road, noise from the industrial uses west of the site, and railroad activity on the BNSF railroad. To determine the existing noise level environment noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project site using two Extech Model 407780 Type 2 integrating sound level meters programmed in "slow" mode to record the sound pressure level at 3-second intervals for approximately 24 hours in "A" weighted (dBA) form. In addition, the equivalent sound level (Leq) averaged over the entire measuring time and maximum level (Lmax) were recorded. The sound level meters and microphones were mounted on chain link fences approximately seven feet above the ground and were equipped with a windscreen. The sound level meters were calibrated before and after the monitoring using an Extech calibrator, Model 407766. The noise level measurement equipment used meets American National Standards Institute specifications for sound level meters (S1.4-1983 identified in Chapter 19.68.020.AA). The noise monitoring locations were selected in order to obtain noise measurements of the current noise levels in the noise study area and to provide a baseline for any potential noise impacts that may be created by development of the Proposed Project. The noise measurement sites selected for the Proposed Project provide a representative sampling of the noise levels created by nearby noise sources. The noise measurements were recorded between 2:47 p.m. on Monday May 5, 2014 and 2:44 p.m. on Tuesday, May 6, 2014. Table 3-8 below presents the results of the noise level measurements and provide descriptions of each noise measure site. '" 3-56 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND The measured sound pressure levels in dBA have been used to calculate the minimum and maximum L�, averaged over one-hour intervals. Table 3-8 also shows the Leq, LmaX, and community noise equivalent level (CNEL), based on the entire measurement time. Table 3-8 Existing (Ambient) Noise Level Measurements Maximum Min.1-Hour Max. l-Hour Site' Average (tlBA In#erval ' tnterval No. Site L#escri tion dBA Le Lmax dBA E.e ime dBA Le /'�"ime CNEL Located near the northeast corner of the project site on a chain link fence on A top of the perimeter wall 62.5 88�7 3:13 AM 6:03 PM 68.3 approximately 60 feet east of Orange-Olive Road centerline. Located on the central portion of the southern property line on a chain B link fence on top of the 54.3 83.5 41.0 62.5 57.5 perimeter wall 1:39 AM 1:22 PM approximately 300 feet east of Orange-Olive Road centerline. Source: Noise measurements taken with two Extech Model 407780 Type 2 integrating sound level meters between Monday May 5, 2014 and Tuesday May 6, 2014. Table 3-8 shows that Site A, located at the approximate distance from Orange Olive Road as the nearest proposed homes to Orange Olive Road, currently exceeds the City's exterior residential noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL and Site B, located at the closest proximity of the project site to the commercial activities to the south, is currently within this noise standard. a) ould the proje�t resuft in exposure of p�rs�ns �f3 Ot" ��.'t7E't'c'��IOt7 i3� !1C}l'5£' IE."VElIS %►7 excess of stan�+ar�ds e�tablished in the Ic�caf gener�l plan or naise o�dinance, or appticalade stan�arr�s of afher agerac►es? Construction-Related Noise The construction activities for the Proposed Project are anticipated to include demolition of the pavement on the project site, grading of the 2.33 acre lot, building construction of the 25 single- family homes, paving of the onsite roads and 22 guest parking spaces, and application of architectural coatings. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, vehicles, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. The nearest sensitive receptor is a single-family residential structure located as near as five feet from the southeast corner of the project site. Chapter 8.24.070 of the City's Municipal Code exempts construction activities from the City's noise standards provided construction activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. Adherence to the limitation of allowable construction times provided in Chapter 8.24.070 would ensure that construction-related noise levels would be relegated to the least noise sensitive hours of the day and would not exceed any standards. Impacts would be less than significant. "' 3-57 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Operations-Related Noise The Proposed Project would result in increases in traffic noise to the nearby roadways as well as introduce new sensitive receptors to the project site. Noise sources in the project area are primarily from transportation noise, vehicles on Orange-Olive Road and train noise. Project traffic noise was modeled and added to the existing ambient noise levels to project with-project noise levels at the closest residential receptors. Detailed modeling parameters used to calculate noise impacts are contained in Appendix H. The Proposed Project would consist of the development of 25 single-family homes that would be located next to residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Since the operation of single-family homes do not typically create noise levels that exceed the ambient noise conditions of residential neighborhoods, this analysis has been limited to the noise impacts to the proposed single-family homes. The proposed development would be adjacent to Orange Olive Road and the BNSF Railroad, which may create noise levels in excess of City standards at the proposed residential uses. Stationary noise sources associated with the nearby commercial and industrial uses were assessed during the noise measurements and were determined to create noise levels well below the City noise standards. Therefore, no further analysis of the offsite stationary noise impacts have been provided. Noise at the Exterior Private Backyard of Proposed Residentia/Units The Proposed Project would provide private outdoor backyard areas for each of the 25 units. In order to quantify the traffic noise impacts to the private backyards of the proposed single-family homes, noise measurements were taken from representative private backyards of homes located on the perimeter of the project site where the backyards would be ten feet deep or less and five feet above ground level. The calculated exterior noise levels at the representative private backyards are shown in Table 3-9. Figure 11 Project Noise Contours, shows the location of the homes and the project noise contours. Table 3-9 Exterior Private Backyard Noise Levels Prior to Mitigation ' Exterivr Backya�rd �I�aise�evel2 House Nurnber�: �'Ic�or A1a�n ' 4�tca�ion ' (dBA GNEL} ' 1 1X North Side 58.3 2 1X Northwest Corner 64.0 3 2 North Part of West Side 64.2 4 2 South Part of West Side 64.0 5 3 Southwest Corner 64.8 6 3 West Part of South Side 55.5 7 3 Middle of South Side 53.4 City of Orange Exterior Noise Standard 65 Notes: ' House number locations are shown in Figure 11. Z Exterior backyard noise level calculations based on construction of a 6-foot high block wall around perimeter of project site, as shown on the plans. Source: SoundPlan Version 7.3. '" 3-58 � � . • • ► � , , . • • • � � � ` • • �� , ► �� . � � � . � • � � � : . , � , � . . � ' � � � � � `� • ' � ► � � � • 1 � � • � • • � � � � • • • • • , � • � �`> � � �.�. ._�.; .:: ; � � ► � �:�. �. • . � � .,. , �� . 1�1 . ��Y�. -- �1 i ' � �� . ` ��s�� ., �r � .� �� • ' :� � '' � �� . � • �--- � � ..i��___ � � • � � ' �.��x: � .�._' '� �p,�� • .� ' � , � . .� , • � . ��r► �.,:�...x . , , � . . .� ■ � � r./ _ ■ , � `�{. • �. '�r �i ,/, .,� . . - ! 1 - . ,► ' �\_ _ �-�1 . � .�-. ,I� ,. �. / � �___ , __�- ii .- /// , . �� ! � - .,._/ ; __� . � � �� . � .,. , , � � /. � . • `,;' `' r ► . �. � _ ' .�. . „ � � �� -� I�1 __ J1, � ► _ ___ .� ►.t� � .-� �� . • �, �._ , II . , --- , _ ,. �� 1 ---. ---1 \ • �� i / � .,._ � � , , \ i �I \ � ,.,. � �� . %//. � �e . . � , � . � � , � . . , �� : , _ .F_ _ . /, i /. �\ . . �� v�� Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Table 3-9 shows that with construction of the proposed six-foot high sound wall around the perimeter of the project site, the exterior noise levels at the analyzed private backyards would range from 53.4 to 64.8 dBA CNEL. None of the private backyards would exceed the City exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL for single-family homes. Therefore, noise impacts at the exterior private backyards of the proposed homes would be less than significant. Interior Noise Policy 1.6 of the General Plan Noise Element requires that an acoustical analysis be prepared for proposed developments in areas where the existing and projected noise levels would exceed the maximum allowable levels identified in Table N-3 of the General Plan. According to the General Plan the City's interior noise standard for single-family homes from transportation noise sources is 45 dBA CNEL. Receivers were placed at the fa�ade of each floor of representative homes that are anticipated to experience the highest noise levels in order to calculate the anticipated interior noise levels. According to Table N-5 of the General Plan, a typical home would provide 15 dBA of attenuation with no additional noise mitigation, 20 dBA with a mechanical ventilation system so that windows and doors may remain closed, and 25 dBA with a mechanical ventilation system and all windows and exterior doors with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of at least 30 STC. The exterior noise level at the farade of the first and second floors of the representative homes are shown below in Table 3-10. See Figure 3 of the Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix H) for a graphical representation of noise measurement locations. � Table 3-10 Proposed Residential Interior Noise Levels lnterior Noise Levels dBA CNEL Ex#eri+�r Noise ' 3Q STC for ;' ' ' lev�l at�'��ade Window ' Wi�daws Vllindaws�nd Hous�Wumber3 Ftt�or ' dBA GNE�. s O en� +Clc�sed� t?aors� � 1 56.8 44.8 _ -- 2 59.0 47.0 39.0 -- 2 1 63.5 51.5 43.5 -- 2 66.5 54.5 46.5 41.5 3 1 63.6 51.6 43.6 -- 2 66.3 54.3 46.3 41.3 4 1 63.8 51.8 43.8 -- 2 66.6 54.6 46.6 41.6 5 1 63.2 51.2 43.2 -- 2 65.8 53.8 45.8 40.8 6 1 56.3 44.3 -- -- 2 58.1 46.1 38.1 -- � 1 53.2 41.2 -- -- 2 54.9 42.9 -- -- Notes: ' House number locations are shown in Figure 11. 2 A minimum 15 dBA noise reduction is assumed with windows open condition from Table N-5 of the General Plan. 3 A minimum 20 dBA noise reduction is assumed with a windows closed condition from Table N-5 of the General Plan. 4 A minimum 25 dBA noise reduction is assumed for windows and doors with a minimum 30 STC from Table N-5 of the General Plan. Exceedance of City 45 dBA CNEL noise standard showed in bold. Source: SoundPlan Model Version 7.3. '" 3-61 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Table 3-10 shows that the single-family homes on the lots on the western portion of the project site closest to Orange-Olive Road would exceed the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for the windows open condition. Table 3-10 also shows that the second floor of all homes adjacent to Orange-Olive Road would exceed the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for the windows closed condition. This would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation measure MM-NO-1 would require all proposed homes to be designed for a "windows closed" condition. A "windows closed" condition requires a means of inechanical ventilation per Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the Uniform Building Code. This shall be achieved with a standard forced air conditioning and heating system for each residential unit. Mitigation measure MM-NO- 2 would require all second floor windows on the single-family homes that are adjacent to Orange-Olive Road to have at least a 30 STC rating. Table 3-10 shows that with implementation of MM-NO-1 and MM-NO-2, noise impacts to the interior areas of all proposed homes would be mitigated to less than significant levels. As stated previously, this analysis has been limited to the noise impacts to the proposed 25 single-family homes since the operation of single-family homes do not typically create noise levels that exceed the ambient noise conditions of residential neighborhoods. Stationary noise sources associated with the nearby commercial and industrial uses were assessed during the noise measurements and were determined to create noise levels well below the City noise standards. Therefore, no further analysis of the offsite stationary noise impacts was conducted. Summary Construction-related noise levels for the Proposed Project would not exceed any standards and impacts would be less than significant. However, interior operations-related noise levels for the Proposed Project would exceed City standard of 45 dBA. Implementation of mitigation measures MM-NO-1 and MM-NO-2 would reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. Significance Determination: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures: MM-NO-1: The Applicant shall provide a "windows closed" condition for each proposed residential unit project. A "windows closed" condition requires a means of mechanical ventilation per Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the Uniform Building Code. This shall be achieved with a standard forced air conditioning and heating system with a filtered outside air intake vent for each residential unit, to be confirmed at the time of Building Plancheck. MM-NO-2: The Applicant shall provide windows with at least a 30 STC rating for all second floor windows in homes that are adjacent to Orange-Olive Road. These homes are labeled as 2, 3, 4, and 5 on Figure 11. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated b) c►uld tt�e praject resutt in expasu�e a�f p�ersons to or generafion of excesslve grounr�borrte vibrati�n or gr�ounc�b�arne »crise levels? Construction-Related Vibration Impacts ," 3-62 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Construction activities for the Proposed Project are anticipated to include demolition of the existing pavement on the project site, grading of the 2.33-acre lot, building construction of the 35 single-family homes, paving of the onsite roads and 22 open parking spaces, and application of architectural coatings. The nearest sensitive receptor is a residential structure located as near as five feet from the southeast corner of the project site. Section 5.10.3 of the 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR determined that a significant vibration impact would occur if vibration levels would exceed 02 inch per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at any nearby building. The primary source of vibration during construction of the Proposed Project would be from the operation of a bulldozer and a hoe ram (mounted jackhammer on backhoe). A large bulldozer and hoe ram would both create a vibration level of 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet. Based on typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest offsite receptor would be 0.52 inch per second PPV. The vibration level at the nearest offsite structure would exceed the City's 0.2 inch per second PPV threshold. This would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation measure MM-NO-3 would require the Applicant to restrict the use of large bulldozers and other large equipment (greater than 150 horsepower) from operating within 15 feet of any offsite structure. This mitigation is feasible as it is still possible to remove asphalt with smaller equipment such as skid steers (bobcats) and handheld jackhammers, which both produce much lower vibration levels. Implementation of MM-NO-3 would reduce vibration impacts to 0.16 inch per second PPV or less at the nearest offsite structures, which is within the 0.2 inch per second PPV threshold. Therefore, with implementation MM-NO-3, construction-related vibration impacts would be less than significant. Operations-Related Vibration Impacts The on-going operation of the Proposed Project would not include the operation of any known vibration sources other than normal vehicle operations onsite. Therefore, a less than significant vibration impact is anticipated from the operation of the Proposed Project. Significance Determination: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures: MM-NO-3: The Applicant shall require that all construction contractors restrict the operation of any construction equipment that is powered by a greater than 150 horsepower engine from operating within 15 feet of any off-site residential structure. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated c) C?Cflf� �f7E.' �3t"(?f£Ct Y�.'SCII� lC1 c'� S[1�5�'c°�t?�Fc"iI �E.'t'l�ic'�CT�'ttt lt7Ct'@r'JSG' (!? c'il?°tIF}%@f7� /7OIS£ I@VG'IS in ffae pr�aject v►cinity a�ove �eve�s exisfing withvut the prc�jecf? The ongoing operation of the Proposed Project may result in a potential substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels. Potential noise impacts associated with the operations of the Proposed Project would be from project- generated vehicular traffic on the project vicinity roadways. Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust and tires. The level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the speed of '" 3-63 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. The Proposed Project does not propose any uses that would require a substantial number of truck trips and would not alter the speed limit on any existing roadway. Thus, potential offsite noise impacts have been focused on the noise impacts associated with the change of volume of traffic that would occur with development of the Proposed Project. According to the 2010 Orange General Plan an increase in ambient noise levels is assumed to be a significant noise impact if a project causes ambient noise levels to exceed the following: ■ Where the existing ambient noise level is less than 60 dBA, a project related permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 5 dBA CNEL or greater. • Where the existing ambient noise level is greater than 65 dBA, a project related permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dBA CNEL or greater. The potential offsite traffic noise impacts created by the on-going operations of the proposed project have been analyzed through utilization of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) model and parameters, which are described in detail in Appendix H. The Proposed ProjecYs potential offsite noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the Existing scenario to the Existing With Project scenario. The results of this comparison are shown in Table 3-11. Table 3-11 Existing Project Traffic Noise Contributions dBA CNEL'at Neares#Receptor Exis#in+g Plus Pro�ect Increase Roadwa Se ment ExistEn Pro�ect' Cont�ibutian Threshold?' Orange-Olive Road North of Meats Avenue 69.3 69.3 0.0 +3 dBA Orange-Olive Road North of Project Driveway 74.5 74.6 0.1 +3 dBA Orange-Olive Road South of Project Driveway 71.1 71.2 0.1 +3 dBA Meats Avenue East of Oran e-Olive Road 67.4 67.4 0.0 +3 dBA Notes: ' Distance to nearest residential use does not take into account existing noise barriers. 2 Increase threshold based on the 3dB human perceptibility significance thresholds as defined in the Noise element of the General Plan, which is derived from the threshold of human perception (see: Noise Element Table N-1 Changes in Sound Pressure Levels, dB at http://www.cityoforange.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=9425). Source: FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA-RD-77-108. Table 3-11 shows that the Proposed Project's permanent noise increases to the nearby homes from the generation of additional vehicular traffic would not exceed the increase thresholds of +3 dBA. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels and impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable d) Qt1It1� �I3� pt"Of@Ct t"�Sf1If dl? c'd SLd�Stc�11If.�J t£lJ°t�I7CJ�°c'3!� Ql" jJ8'PIOdIC f!?CY�'c�.S�' f!7 2?t)'ljJB�lft rroise levefs in the prc�jec�vicinfty abave ievels existingr without the pro�ect? '" 3-64 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND The Proposed Project may create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above noise levels existing during construction. As discussed above in Section 3.12.a) the Proposed Project would conform to the City construction noise standards. However, the City construction noise standards do not provide any limits to the noise levels that may be created during construction activities at the nearby sensitive receptors. Thus, even with adherence to City standards, the resultant construction noise levels may create a significant substantial temporary noise increase at the nearby sensitive receptors. In order to determine if construction activities would create a significant substantial temporary noise increase, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard was use as the significance threshold for the Proposed Project. The OSHA standard limits noise exposure of workers to 90 dB or less over eight continuous hours or 105 dB or less over one continuous hour and this standard has been utilized to analyze the construction noise impacts to the sensitive receptors located at the nearby offsite residences. The demolition and grading activities that would occur near the homes would consist of the use of loaders and scrapers that would make several passes over each portion of the project site, which will limit demolition and grading activities near any particular home to less than one hour intervals. It should also be noted that once a dozer, loader or scrapper travels 15 or more feet away from the nearby homes, the noise level is reduced to 90 d6 or lower, so there would be very little time spent by the equipment in the locations where the equipment would exceed 90 dB at the nearby homes. However the building construction, paving and painting activities would have the potential to occur in the proximity of the same home for 8 continuous hours. Therefore, the one hour standard of 105 dB has been utilized as the threshold for demolition and grading activities and the eight hour standard of 90 dB has been utilized as the threshold for building construction, paving, and painting activities. Construction noise impacts to the nearby sensitive receptors were calculated through use of FHWA's Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). The parameters and assumptions for RCNM are detailed in Appendix H. The results are shown below in Table 3-12. Table 3-12 Worst-Case Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Homes Dis#ar��e t�+Nearest C+anstrt�ction Noise Thre�ht�ld Canstruction Rhas� ' Home{feet : �e�ret�dBA Leq �IBA Le � Demolition 5 98 105 Grading 5 96 105 Building Construction 15 80 90 Paving 20 78 90 Pa i nti n 15 79 90 Notes: ' Threshold for demolition and grading activities based on OSHA one hour standard of 105 d6 and threshold for building construction, paving, and painting activities based on OSHA eight hour standard of 90 dB. Source: RCNM, Federal Highway Administration, 2006 Table 3-12 shows that greatest noise impacts would occur during the demolition phase of construction, with a noise level as high as 98 dBA Leq at the nearest offsite residential use. Table N-6 also shows that none of the construction phases would exceed the OSHA noise standards for each particular use, which is based on the anticipated duration of each impact. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable '" 3-65 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND �} Far a pr�oj�ct foc�t�� uv��hir� �rr �ir�ar� larrcf use plan or, v�here such a p��n tx�s raeat �a�er� ��fcr�t��, w��1��rr f�rc� r�i�es of a ��rbli� �i��ort or public use airpc�rt, worrfc� the �r��ect �x�c��e �eople r��r�tng car �rc�rkit�� ir� th� ��j�ct area f€� ea�ce�sr`�� r�r�is� ��vels? There are no airports within the boundaries of, or adjacent to the City. The nearest public airports are the Fullerton Municipal Airport, located approximately eight miles west of the project site and the John Wayne Airport, located approximately 10 miles south of the project site. The project site is located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours of both these airports and the site observations during the noise measurements determined that aircraft create minimal noise impacts at the project site. The Proposed Project is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport and would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft. No impacts would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable f� Fc�r a �rc�je�t wiihir� tf7e v�cir�ify af a �Sri�ate air��frip, waufd the projecf expr�se peop6� resi�'ing �r wt�rkirtc� in tta�project area to e�c�ssive rroi.s� I�vels? As stated previously there are no airstrips within the boundaries of or adjacent to the City. The Proposed Project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No impacts would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable 3.�� F�c�pulat►on �nc� Ho�sing ' Less Tfian , ' ��g�nni�c��rk ' Pd�n�ially . wFth ' l.ess`�han ; ' Sigtlifcattt ' Mitigate+�n ; 5ign`at#'ic.�tt� 1N'�uid the prQj�ct: l�pact ' Incarpc�rated irnpact ' No lmpact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example, through � � � � extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x housing elsewhere? '" 3-66 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND a� �ouCc� t#��raj��t�nr�crce sr��astantial pc�pul�tic�r� �rflwt�a in an area, �zth�r r�Er�ctly (far �xarrr�l�, �� p��p�asln� rr�v� �rc�mes at�d �c�sines�es} ar incl�r�c�6y (t�or e�arrxple, tf�rouc�fr exfier�si�sra ofroaa�� c��e��1�et�ir�fra�tr�u��r�re�:� According to the California Department of Finance, the City had an estimated population of 139,279 residents and an average household size of 3.06 persons in 2014. The Proposed Project would include the development of 25 new detached single-family residences on the project site and would directly generate approximately 77 new residents (calculated using an average household size of 3.06 persons). The increase of 77 residents is anticipated as part of the population increase associated with the projected number of new housing units needed to satisfy the SCAG's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation identified in the City's adopted Housing Element. It is also consistent with the overall growth anticipated by the General Plan at buildout and has therefore been planned for from the standpoint of long-term infrastructure needs. Furthermore, the increase of 77 residents in the area is less than one percent of the City's population in 2014 and is not considered a substantial population growth. The Proposed Project would not construct roads or other infrastructure that may indirectly induce population growth. The Proposed Project would not include the development of commercial uses, which would induce job growth, and thereby population growth in the area. The Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the area. Therefore, the impact on population growth is considered less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable b) out�€ fh� prajecf dispface substanf�al numbers of exisfirtg housing, necessifating tl�ae canstruction of replacemenf housing eC�ewhere? The project site is currently used for vehicle storage and does not contain any housing units. The Proposed Project would not displace existing housing or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Rather, the Proposed Project would construction new housing in support of the City's housing needs in order to satisfy the City's RNHA allocation, as identified in the adopted Housing Element. Therefore, no impact would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable c} WQuid fhe project �'isplace sctbsfantiai nu bers �f peapte, necessitating ihe csansfa�rrc�i�n of'replacemertt hausirzg elsewh�r�? As stated above, the project site does not contain any housing units. The Proposed Project would not displace any people or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact ," 3-67 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable 3.14 P�bl�c ��rviees Less''T'han Sign�ficant Potentially _ with Less'Than Significan# Mi#i�ation Significant ' tmpact ' tncorpor�ted Impact �lo Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire protection? ❑ ❑ O ❑ ii. Police protection? � ❑ O ❑ iii. Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑O . ❑ iv. Parks? ❑ ❑ � ❑ v. Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ O ❑ a} oulc� the project result in substantiaf ad`vers� physical irnpaets associated with the provis�an �f new ar �Shysicaliy alfered governmenta� fac�fi�ies, need far new nr physicalfy aJtered governmental facitit��s, the constructian of wh►ch cauld cause �ignifican� envrron ental impacfs, in orcler tz� maintain acceptable service raflas, respc��,�� tir»es or ofher perforrr�ance objectrves far any af"th�pu�Ziic servic�s: �. Fir�pro#ec�iorr? The Orange Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency medical services (EMS) for the project site. The nearest fire station to the project site is located approximately a quarter- mile southeast at 1910 N. Shaffer Street (Fire Station Number 3). According to the City's General Plan PEIR, the Orange Fire Department operates eight fire stations and has a staff of 124 sworn firefighting personnel. The Orange Fire Department responds to fires, medical emergencies, hazardous materials, other emergencies, and services calls under a 24-hour a day operation. The Orange Fire Department also has automatic aid agreements with the cities of Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Garden Grove, and the Orange County Fire Authority. The City does not use a service ratio, response time, or other performance ratio to measure the adequacy of fire protection levels in the City. Adequacy of fire personnel and facilities is monitored on a consistent basis by the Fire Chief and management staff and service needs are budgeted for on an annual basis. The Proposed Project would construct 25 new residential units on the project site and generate approximately 77 new residents in an area that is developed and already served by City Fire '� 3-68 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Protection. The increase of 77 residents in the area is less than one percent of the City's population in 2014 and would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. The Proposed Project would contribute incrementally to the demand for additional fire protection services, which would be offset by the City's requirement for new developments to pay a Fire Protection Facility Fee of $1,200.00 per unit for each detached residential unit. Furthermore, the Proposed Project has been designed to comply with Fire Code including fire sprinklers, access, turnarounds, laddering and hydrants as shown on Figure 10 Fire Master Plan. Finally, the Orange Fire Department is actively involved with new development in the City and would ensure proper installation of fire protection systems and that construction conforms to approved plans through the Building Permit process. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not significantly increase the demand for fire protection services such that new or expanded facilities would be required to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Project impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable ii. Pcrtic�e profecticsr�? The Orange Police Department provides full law enforcement service to the project area. The Orange Police Department headquarters and main police station is located at 1107 North Batavia, Orange. The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the Orange Police Department headquarters. According to the 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR, the Orange Police Department has 167 sworn police officers. The response area of the Orange Police Department is approximately 27 square miles. The Orange Police Department employs reserve police officers to supplement regular police personnel. The Reserve Officer program currently employs 15 officers, with a goal of expanding to 50. The Orange Police Department does not use a standard officer-to- population or standard response time objective ratio to measure the adequacy of policing levels in the City. Instead the Orange Police Department analyzes demographics, service calls, population, crime trends, and other changing factors to determine the level of police protection services needed. The Orange Police Department also has a mutual aid agreement with all law enforcement agencies in Orange County in the event that supplementary assistance is needed. The Proposed Project would construct 25 new residential units on the project site and generate approximately 77 new residents in a developed area of the City already served by Orange Police Department. The increase of 77 residents in the area is less than one percent of the City's population in 2014 and would not result in the need for new or physically altered police facilities. The Proposed Project would contribute incrementally to the demand for additional police protection services, which would be offset by the City's requirement for new developments to pay a Police Facility Fee. Additionally, the Proposed Project has been designed to incorporate Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design techniques (such as high quality building design to encourage a sense of ownership and pride in the community, and investment in the adjacent pedestrian environment to promote "eyes on the streeY' and increase visibility and surveillance by community residents) to deter criminal activity and positively influence human behavior. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not significantly increase the "" 3-69 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND demand for police protection services such that new or expanded facilities would be required to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Project impacts to police protection services would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable �if, Sc�aools? The proposed project is located within the Orange Unified School District (OUSD), which provides K through 12 public school services to the City. OUSD serves over 31,300 students with 29 elementary schools; 5 middle schools, 2 of which are charter; 2 high schools; a continuation high school; a K through 8 math and science magnet school; and 2 special schools. The OUSD website (www.orangeusd.k12.ca.us) provides a link to SchoolSite Locator to determine the schools that service the project site. According to SchoolSite Locator, the schools of attendance for the project site are Fletcher Elementary School, Cerro Villa Middle School, and Villa Park High School. Fletcher Elementary School, located at 515 W. Fletcher Avenue, is less than a mile northwest of the project site. Cerro Villa Middle School, located at 17852 Serrano Avenue in the City of Villa Park, is approximately 1.8 miles east of the project site. Villa Park High School, located at 18042 Taft Avenue in the City of Villa Park, is approximately two miles southeast of the project site. Generation rates used by the OUSD to estimate the impact on district schools resulting from new residential development within its jurisdiction are provided in the 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR. The number of students that would be generated by the Proposed Project was calculated using the following student generation factors for single-family dwelling units contained in the 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR: ■ Elementary School— 0.325 • Middle School — 0.063 - High School—0.123 The development of 25 residential units would generate approximately eight elementary school students, two middle school students, and three high school students. The increase in students as a result of the Proposed Project would incrementally increase demand for school facilities. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would be required to pay school development fees established by OUSD in accordance with the provisions of Senate Bill 50. The current school development fee assessed for residential development is $2.63 per square foot. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on schools. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable �' 3-�� Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND tV, ��l"��? Development of the Proposed Project would generate approximately 77 new residents within the project area, which would increase the use of parks or other recreational facilities. Impacts to park facilities are discussed in detail under Section 3.15.a) below and would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable vd �fher�publi� fac�l�t�es? The Proposed Project is served by the Orange Public Library and History Center (Main Library) and two branch libraries, the EI Modena Branch Library and the Taft Branch Library. The Main Library, located at 407 E. Chapman Avenue, is approximately 2.5 miles south of the project site. The EI Modena Branch Library, located at 380 S. Hewes Street, is approximately five miles southeast of the project site; and the Taft Branch Library, located at 740 E. Taft Avenue, is less than one mile southeast of the project site. Based on the California State Library recommended standard of four volumes and 0.7 square feet of library space per capita, the addition of 77 new residents would require an additional 308 volumes and 53.9 square feet of library space. The increase in the demand for library materials and space would be offset by the payment of the City's Library Facilities Development Impact Fee. Payment of fees would ensure that impacts to libraries remain less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable 3.15 �ecreaticar� ' t ess'.T1ia�i ' S�gnifls�►# "'. : �t+�rt��ty ' wFkh ' Less"Ch�rt,; - �r��icant � Mitigatian �i�r�i�i�ant� , � !m{��t In�s�rporat+ad' #mpa�t �+lo Ilnpact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational � � 0 � facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? '� 3-71 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND a) t�.'c�ul� �h� p�ca��ct incr�ase th� c�s� �� is�i�� rr�ac�h�ac�rhocrat and r�g�c�na/ parks or r�ther r�creatEonat f�ciC��es such thaf sub�tanfia! �hy.�i�al det�r►oratiort c�f the faci/i�y v�caulc�caccc�r or�be acc�/�r��t�€�7 The City owns and has developed 24 parks, which consist of about 251 acres of parkland. Three types of park facilities are available for recreational use within the City: Neighborhood Parks (4 to 10 acres with a '/2- to 1-mile radius service area), Community Parks (15 to 40 acres with 1- to 2-mile radius service area), and Regional Parks (typically 200 acres or larger in size). The City also offers approximately 7,000 acres of open space for recreational activities to its residents. The nearest City park facility to the project site is Shaffer Park, a Neighborhood Park located at 1930 Shaffer Street, approximately 500 feet south of the project site. Shaffer Park is 7.32 acres in size and offers amenities such as barbecues, picnic tables, picnic pavilion, tot lots, activity facility, softball/baseball field, and overlay lighted soccer field. The nearest Community Park is Eisenhower Park, located less than two miles northeast of the project site at 2864 N. Tustin Avenue. Eisenhower Park is 16.46 acres in size and offers amenities such as barbecues, tot lots, reservable green space, picnic tables, lake for fishing, and passive walking trails. Residents in the project area also have access to three regional parks: Irvine Regional Park, Peters Canyon Regional Park, and Santiago Oaks Regional Park. Development of the Proposed Project would generate approximately 77 new residents within the project area, which would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. According to the 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR, the City does not currently meet the standard of three acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents. The Proposed Project would contribute to City's shortfall of parkland and would be required to pay the current assessed Park and Recreational Facilities Development Impact Fee in order to offset the Proposed Project's contribution to the City's existing park deficiency. With payment of the required fees, impacts to parks and recreational facilities would be considered less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable b) flae� fhe prc�jecf include recreatianal �acilities or require fhe construction ar expanstvn a�` recreat►onal faciCi#ies rnrhich might haue an ar�ver�se pt�ysical effec� on the environmenf? The Proposed Project would provide private rear yards for each unit, common motor court areas, and common landscaped areas. The Proposed Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable '� 3-72 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND 3,�6 Tr�r�s��ic�r�!`��a�Fi� Less'Than Significant ' ' Potentialty with Less Than ' Significant Mit�gation ; Signifiicant INould the proj�ct: tmpact tnc�rporated Impact ' No Impa�t a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant ❑ ❑ �x ❑ components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion � � � � management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm � � � � equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ � ❑ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian � � o � facilities, or otherwise decrease the perFormance or safety of such facilities? The following discussions are based on a technical memorandum, Traffic Analysis for 25 DUs of Single-Family Homes at 2025 N. Orange Olive Road, City of Orange, prepared for the Proposed Project by Arch Beach Consulting to analyze potential traffic impacts as a result of the proposed development. The technical memorandum has been included as Appendix I of this document. The Proposed Project would develop 25 single-family, detached homes on the 2.33-acre project site. The main drive aisle, with direct access to Orange-Olive Road, would provide access to six clusters of four homes sited around a shared motor court (24 total dwelling units). One unit, at the east end of the drive aisle, would have direct access to/from the drive aisle. Each unit would have an attached garage for two vehicles (for a total of 50 garage spaces). In addition, there would be 12 spaces of unassigned, guest parking along the main drive aisle and ten parking spaces within five of the motor courts, for a total of 22 open parking spaces. The Proposed Project would provide a total of 72 parking spaces. Existinq Conditions '" 3-73 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND The following roadway segments are within the transportation study area for the Proposed Project: Orange-Olive Road Orange-Olive Road is classified as a Secondary Arterial and extends from its intersection with Glassell Street, northeastward to its terminus at Riverdale Avenue. Land uses along Orange- Olive Road are primarily light industrial with the Metrolink tracks running on the west side of the road. A mix of residential, commercial, and park uses line the east side of Orange-Olive Road. Throughout its length, Orange-Olive Road is a four-lane roadway, with some undivided segments (i.e., no median separation), and some divided segments containing either a painted cross-hatched median, or a painted median that serves as a two-way left-turn lane. In the project vicinity, between Grove Avenue and Meats Avenue, Orange-Olive Road contains a two- way left-turn lane. On-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the street throughout the length of Orange-Olive Road, and the posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour (MPH). The current average daily traffic (ADT) volume for Orange-Olive Road is approximately 12,800 ADT between Glassell Street and Meats Avenue, and 12,700 ADT north of Meats Avenue. Meats Avenue Meats Avenue is also classified as a Secondary Arterial with a future interchange planned at SR 55. Meats Avenue extends from its intersection with Glassell Street, eastward to its terminus at Nohl Ranch Road. Land uses along Meats Avenue are primarily light industrial between Glassell Street and Orange-Olive Road. Land uses east of Orange-Olive Road are residential with retail/commercial uses. In the project vicinity, Meats Avenue is a four-lane roadway undivided roadway with on-street parking allowed on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 40 MPH. Meats Avenue currently has approximately 9,000 ADT between Glassell Street and Orange-Olive Road, and 11,400 ADT east of Orange-Olive Road. Taft Avenue Taft Avenue is classified as a Primary Arterial. East Taft Avenue extends from North Tustin Street and continues west until North Main Street when it becomes Ball Road. Land uses along Taft Avenue include industrial, residential, and commercial. In the project vicinity, Taft Avenue is a four-lane divided roadway with some on-street parking. The posted speed limit is 40 MPH. Taft Avenue currently has approximately 27,300 ADT between Batavia Street and Glassell Street, and 16,600 ADT befinreen Glassell Street and Cambridge Street. Trip Generation Trip rates from Trip Generation, 9th Edition (2012), published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) were applied to the Proposed Project to determine the trip generation. The existing vehicle storage facility is assumed to generate relatively low traffic volumes during the weekday peak hours. Therefore, to provide for a conservative analysis, no trip credits were applied for the existing use on the project site. The trip rates and resulting trip generation are summarized in Table 3-13. Table 3-13 Project Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hc�ur ' PM Ps��k Hou�, ' L�nd l�se ' ' S�zelUnits ' L�a[t : In ' Qut' T+atal ' ln ' �ut. Te�t�l TRIP RATES Single-Family Detached per DU 9.52 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.63 0.37 1.00 Home '" 3-74 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND TRIP GENERATION Single-Family Detached 25 DUs 238 5 14 19 16 9 25 Home Notes: Trip rates from Trip Generation, 9 Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012. As shown in Table 3-13, the Proposed Project would generate 238 daily trips, 19 a.m. peak hour trips (5 inbound and 14 outbound), and 25 p.m. peak hour trips (16 inbound and 9 outbound). a� ould th� prajec� cearxflicf wft�h an a�pticab/� p1�aa, c�rs�inance c�r° paficy establishin� meascrres r�f ef�ectic�enes� far tire perfrarmance caf the circulatian systern, takr`ng inta a�ccaun� att rr�e�des ca� transpartation inctcr�'i�a� �nas.� franstt ancf nor�-r�zot�r�zerl �ravel ar�� r�i�var�t ��rnpanents �f €h� eircufa�i€�n sys�em, r�cludEng but r7c�t Cimit�d ta ir��ersec�►or�s, s�reets, higt�w�a�rs �nd free�ays, pec�e�trian and �icycfe pattrs, ar�d n��ss tt°ansit? The City of Orange has established specific thresholds for project related increases in the volume to capacity (V/C) of study area roadway segments. The required LOS analysis methodology within the City is the volume-to-capacity method. The Proposed Project would cause a significant impact if it causes a roadway segment to have a capacity from LOS D or better, to LOS E or F with the addition of the traffic generated by the Proposed Project; or, if the Proposed Project adds 0.010 V/C to a roadway segment that is operating at LOS E, or F in the baseline condition. Based on the use of t�ip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the proposed project would generate approximately 238 daily trips, 19 a.m. peak hour trips (5 inbound and 14 outbound), and 25 p.m. peak hour trips (16 inbound and 9 outbound). The project trip distribution is estimated based on the following logical commute corridors to adjacent freeways (SR 91, SR 55 and SR 57): • Orange-Olive Street north = 15% ■ Glassell Street north = 20% • Glassell Street south = 5% • Meats Avenue east = 15% ■ Taft Avenue east = 20% • Taft Avenue west = 25% Table 3-14 presents the roadway segment LOS for the Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions. Specific roadway capacities were obtained from the City's Circulation Element. Table 3-14 Roadway Segment Levels of Service Project Trip Generation Estimates ��stit�g Plus ' # ' Eacistlrtg . Prajec� Prc�ject S� ment ' ' Lanes C� aci ' At?T ADT' AQT ' Yl� i.t�S tm` a�t Orange-Olive Road -Taft to Grove 4U 24,000 12,800 119 12,919 0.538 A no - Grove to Meats 4D 37,500 12,800 238 13,038 0.348 A no - Meats to Lincoln 4U 24,000 12,700 36 12,736 0.531 A no '" 3-75 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Glassell Street - south of Taft 5D 46,000 24,800 12 24,812 0.539 A no Meats Avenue - Glassell to Orange- 4U 24,000 9,000 48 9,048 0.378 A no Olive - Orange-Olive to 4U 24,000 11,400 36 11,436 0.477 A no Cambrid e Taft Avenue - Batavia to Glassell 4D 37,500 27,300 60 27,360 0.730 C no - Glassell to Cambridge 4D 37,500 16,600 48 16,648 0.444 A no As shown in Table 3-14, most of the roadway segments in the study area would continue to operate at LOS A even with the addition of traffic generated by the Proposed Project. The roadway segment of Taft Avenue, from Batavia Street to Glassell Street is forecast to continue to operate at LOS C with a V/C increase of 0.002. This would not be a significant impact. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have a significant impact to roadway capacity to the roadway segments in the project study area. The Proposed Project would not have an adverse impact on the effectiveness of the performance of the circulation system and no mitigation measures would be required. Impacts to the circulation system would be less than significant. Impacts to the performance of pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit systems would also be less than significant and are discussed in detail under Section 3.16.f) below. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable 1�} €�ulai fhe prQject conflicf with an applicable congestic�n mar�agement program, �neluding,, bctt r�c�t {imitec� ta {eve! of servic� star��ards anct travel demarrd m�asures, or other stane��r�s esfa�li�hec� by the county cr�rtges�ion manag�ment agency for desi�nateat raads s�r highways? According to the 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR, there is only one intersection, the SR-55 northbound and southbound ramps at Katella Avenue, in Orange County's Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadway system that is located in the City. This intersection is located more than finro miles east of the project site, would not receive substantial traffic from the Proposed Project and therefore is not within the transportation study area for the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with the CMP and no impacts would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable c) Wauld the prcaject resulf in a ePtange ir� air traffic pati�erns, %I?CIUC�ItIt� either an Increase in traffic fevels or a chan�e in lc�cation that resufts in subsfan�ial safety risks? �' 3-76 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND There are no airports or airstrips within the boundaries of or adjacent to the City. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in a change to air traffic patterns that would result in substantial safety risks. No impacts would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable d) au/d the proj�c� scr�sfantialfy� tncrease hazard� afue ta a d�se�n f�afure (e.g., sharp c�rrves sar dart�erous int�rsect�t�ns} �r in�ampatible uses (e.g., farm equfpmenf)? The project does not propose any changes to the existing street configuration. As shown in Figure 4, access to the project site would be provided by a new (re-located), single, full-access driveway on Orange-Olive Road, located towards the center of the site frontage on Orange- Olive Road. The relatively low volumes generated by the project (19 a.m. peak hour trips, and 25 p.m. peak hour trips) would not cause a significant impact in terms of peak hour levels of service (LOS) to Orange-Olive Road at the new driveway. A peak hour traffic analysis of the driveway intersection with Orange-Olive Road indicates that, with the addition of project traffic to the existing peak hour volumes, the unsignalized driveway intersection is forecast to operate with satisfactory levels of service (LOS) in both peak hours with LOS C in the a.m. peak hour, and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour (based on the higher delays of the westbound left turn movement). At the driveway entrance, there would be one inbound access lane and a single outbound access lane (with a shared left- and right turn lane) at Orange-Olive Road. Since gated access is not proposed at the entrance driveway, there would be no delays to inbound traffic coming from the north- or southbound directions of Orange-Olive Road. Based on a queuing analysis conducted using the Synchro 9 software consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies, the 95'h percentile queues for the southbound left tum lane (into the site) and the westbound left turn lane (out of site) would be one car or less. Therefore, based on the design of the project entrance, there would be no significant queuing impacts. Internal circulation would include a main drive aisle, with direct access to Orange-Olive Road. The main drive aisle would provide access to six clusters of four homes sited around a shared motor court (24 total dwelling units). One unit, at the east end of the drive aisle, would have direct access to/from the drive aisle. The drive aisles, ramps and turnarounds are designed to comply with City standards. Therefore, adequate access is provided and does not cause hazardous conditions. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable e} WQ[1�C�f�?£'�JCO,jeCf C@Sttl�%i? ft17C�@C�U7fE �d7I81'�@17C�c?CC@S8� '" 3-77 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND As discussed above under Section 3.16.d), the entrance driveway to the project site would have one inbound access lane and a single outbound access lane leading to two outbound lanes (one left turn lane and one right turn lane) at Orange-Olive Road. Gated access is not proposed at the entrance driveway. The entrance driveway and internal streets would be designed to meet City standards. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable � r�u�c� Ph� prc�ject contfict ►�r�th ac�c�ptec�policies, �/�ns, or�rograms re�arding pubfic trarz�rtg �Sicycl�, sar pe�+�strian facilifies, ar �fherr�rise s�ecrease ihe perfarrr�ance or s�f�ty c�f sucP� �acilities? The Metrolink Inland Empire — Orange County Line (800 Series) runs along, and parallel to the west side of Orange-Olive Road. The nearest Metrolink Stations are the Orange Metrolink Station approximately 2.6 miles to the south; and, the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station approximately 3.1 miles to the north. Bus service in the project vicinity is provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), which operates two bus routes in the area: Route 59 with a stop at Glassell Street/Meats Avenue approximately 0.25 miles from the site; and, Route 46 with a stop at Glassell Street/Taft Avenue approximately 0.45 miles from the site. In the project vicinity, there is a continuous sidewalk along the east side of Orange-Olive Road which connect to sidewalks on Meats Avenue to the north and Taft Avenue to the south. There are no sidewalks along the west side as iYs adjacent to the Metrolink (railroad) right-of-way. On Meats Avenue, there are continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street. The east side of Orange-Olive Road has a sidewalk that connects to East Grove Avenue and continues south to East Taft Avenue. East Grove has sidewalks on both the north and south sides of the street, making the nearby Shaffer Park completely accessible via sidewalk from the project site. Per the OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan and City's Master Plan of Bikeways referenced in the General Plan, there are no existing and/or planned bicycle facilities (i.e., Class I, II, or III bike lanes) along Orange-Olive Road and Meats Avenue in the project vicinity. The closest bike trail is a Class III Bikeway (on street with route signs only) on Taft Avenue. There is also a Class II Bikeway (striped lane on street) on Cambridge Street, which on the south end passes by several schools, a commercial center, and within five blocks of Chapman University.' The closest link to a regional trail is at the intersection of Taft Avenue and the east side of the Santa Ana River. The project is located on a constrained infill site to the east of Orange-Olive Road, and is well positioned with respect to regional transportation, parks, and commercial centers. OCTA operates two bus routes in the area: Route 59 with a stop at Glassell Street/Meats Avenue approximately 0.25 miles from the site, and Route 46 with a stop at Glassell Street/Taft Avenue approximately 0.45 miles from the site. There are existing continuous sidewalks connecting this project to those nearby bus stops for riders to use. The Anaheim ARTIC Metrolink Station is 2.7 miles away and connects to several stops on the regional Metrolink system, including Los 'See City of Orange Trails Map (http://www.cityoforange.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BIobID=10764) �" 3-78 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Angeles Union Station. The Orange Metrolink Station is also 2.7 miles away and connects to several stops on the Orange County and the Inland Empire-Orange County Lines. Shaffer Park is located just south of the project site, and is easily accessible by foot. Three other parks are located within 2.5 miles north of the site. Bike racks are located onsite. The project site is located on the east side of Orange-Olive, and has continuous sidewalk connections to East Meats Avenue, East Grove Avenue, and also continues down to East Taft Avenue. There are two commercial centers within two miles of the project site, with a larger retail center five miles away. These project characteristics encourage use of alternate modes of transportation, and do not conflict with policies, plans, or programs for the use of alternate transportation. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable �.'67 6J�il€�i�� and ��r�i�� y�� L�ss Than : SignIf9C2�nt Partentially wlth ' Less Than ' ' Significant Mitigati+�n ' SFgni�icant Wauld the project: Impact I�corporated' lmpact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the � � � � applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could � � � � cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing � � � � facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or ❑ ❑ O ❑ are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ projecYs projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste ❑ � ❑x ❑ disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and � � � � regulations related to solid waste? a} nuld the prc�ject exceerf wastewater treatment reguirements of the applfcable Regic�nat ater Qual�fy Cc�ntr�l Boar�t? The project site is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB. As discussed in detail below under Section 3.17.b), the City of Orange Department of Public Works (DPW) is responsible for installation and maintenance of local wastewater collection facilities, which convey wastewater to trunk sewers owned and operated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). OCSD TM 3-79 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND is responsible for the collection, treatment, and disposal of domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater generated in central and northwestern Orange County. OCSD operates two wastewater treatment facilities, which include Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley and Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach. OCSD has sufficient capacity to treat the wastewater flows generated by the Proposed Project. OCSD is required to comply with the NPDES permits issued for Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No. 2. This would ensure that the Proposed Project would not exceed the treatment requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable �7� (7Cf/C� ��'!G pJ"UfBC� t"�t�tttl"�' t'FY Cf.'Stf�'� If1 i�#£' Gi3►15�t"C1C�°tC?CJ €�� F?£3W W.��£'i' C3C itltc�S�`�Wr7t`C'f tre��n��nt facif�ties ar ex��r�sion crf exfsting fa�ilttis�, f�r� �onstruct�ora �f which caufd caus� significant�r�vi�canrrt�r�tal�tf�ct�? Water The City's primary source of domestic water is from groundwater resources supplied by City- owned wells, which provide approximately 70 percent of the City's water supply. The City also purchases approximately 25 percent of its domestic water supply from imported water sources. The City also receives five percent of its water supply from the Serrano Water District. In addition, the Irvine Ranch Water District serves new development areas in East Orange, and the Golden State Water Company and East Orange County Water District senre small portions of the southeast area of the City. The City is a member of OCWD manages the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is the main source of the City's water supply. Delivery of domestic water service in the City is provided by the DPW Water Division. The City's service area includes approximately 23.6 square miles and includes 16 wells, 8 imported water service connections, 18 storage tanks, 18 pump stations, 451 miles of pipelines, and 37,000 service connections. The 2010 Orange General Plan provides the total water supply and demand in 2005, and the estimated water supply and demand at General Plan Buildout. The City's total water supply in 2005 was 77,354 acre-feet per year (AFY) and water demand was reported at 32,900 AFY. At General Plan Buildout, the City's estimated total water supply would be approximately 82,062 AFY and estimated water demand would be approximately 46,800 AFY, resulting in a surplus water supply of 39,262 AFY.$ The Proposed Project would generate approximately 77 new residents that would require water services. Using a baseline daily per capita water use of 223.7 gallons per day (gpd) provided in the City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the projected water demand for the Proposed Project is approximately 19.31 AFY. Based on the existing water supply and demand in 2005, and the General Plan Buildout estimates, the City would have sufficient water supply to service the Proposed Project now and in the future. The Proposed Project is consistent with the existing residential land use a See Table 5.8-4 Water Supply and Demand Summary in Acre-feet per Year on Page 5.8-23 of the City of Orange General Plan Program EIR. 'N 3-80 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND designation under the 2010 Orange General Plan and would not require a General Plan Amendment. Thus, the Proposed ProjecYs water demand was included in the 2010 General Plan water demand projections at General Plan Buildout. Furthermore, based on the City's 2010 UWMP, the City's water demands for fiscal years ending 2020, 2025, 2030, and 2035 are 28,276 AFY, 29,802 AFY, 31,289 AFY, and 34,713 AFY, respectively.9 The forecast of regional water supply reliability of current programs out to 2035 indicates that the capability of current programs is greater than the demands, resulting in a yearly surplus. According the City's 2010 UWMP, the City is capable of ineeting the water demands of their customers with significant reserves in multiple dry years from 2015 through 2035 even if the demand projections were to be increased by a large margin. Projected multiple dry year supplies for 2020, 2025, 2030, and 2035 are estimated to be 35,805 AFY, 36,239 AFY, 36,583 AFY, and 36,500 AFY, respectively.10 Therefore, the no new water infrastructure (other than onsite improvements and connections) or entitlements are required to accommodate the Proposed Project. Wastewater OCSD is responsible for the collection, treatment, and disposal of domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater generated by over 2.5 million people living and working in central and northwestern Orange County. OCSD operates a comprehensive regional system of collection mains and treatment plants. Individual cities are responsible for the installation and maintenance of Iocal collection facilities. The City of Orange DPW is responsible for installation and maintenance of local wastewater collection facilities, which convey wastewater to OCSD trunk sewers. DPW is in charge of the daily operation and maintenance of the sewer collection system in the City. Approximately 352 miles of basic sewer collection pipeline is located within the City. An existing 10-inch sewer line is located within the right-of-way of Orange-Olive Road (Location 1612). According to the City's 2012 Sewer Master Plan, the existing design flow along the project frontage on Orange-Olive Road is 0.9111 cfs with a current flow of 0.0452 and a d/D (flow depth/pipe diameter) of 0.1085. Based on the Sewer Area Study completed for the Proposed Project, which has been included in this document as Appendix J, the 25 single-family homes would produce a total project flow output 0.029 cfs of wastewater. The increase of 0.029 cfs would be a nominal increase and would not exceed the design flow and capacity of the existing sewer line. Wastewater generated in the City is treated by OCSD. OCSD operates two wastewater treatment facilities, which include Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley and Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach, and numerous pump stations and sewer lines that cross its service area. Average flows for Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No. 2 are 92 million gallons per day (mgd) and 129 mgd, respectively. The combined average flow is 221 mgd. Reclamation Plant No.1 has a design capacity of 108 mgd with average daily flow of 92 mgd. Treatment Plant No. 2 has an average daily flow of 129 mgd with a design capacity of 168 mgd. 9 See Table 2-10: Current and Projected Water Demands (AFY)on Page 2-14 of the City of Orange 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. 10 See Table 3-16: Projected Multiple Dry Year Period Supply and Demand (AFY)on Page 3-22 of the City of Orange 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. '" 3-81 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND The Proposed Project would generate approximately 77 new residents and would require sewer services. Using the calculated flow rate per capita of approximately 75 gallons per person per day provided in the 2010 Orange Genera Plan", the Proposed Project would generate wastewater flows of approximately 13,475 gallons per day (or 0.01 mgd). OCSD's wastewater treatment facilities have sufficient capacity to service the Proposed Project. Summary Based on the information provided above, the City would have sufficient water supply to service the Proposed Project. OCSD's wastewater treatment facilities also have sufficient capacity to handle wastewater flows from the Proposed Project. Furthermore, new developments in the City would be required to pay Capital Facilities Capacity Charges to offset the increase in demand for City services. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable . c) auld the project re�uire c►r result in th� cor�sfruction c�f new starm water drainag� fa�iBities c�r �xpansic�n �f �xisting facifities, i�h� ccar�struction c�f which caudd eause signlficant�nvironrnenta!eff�cts? Storm and flood control facilities in the City are managed by the City and the County. The Resources and Development Management Department (RDMD) provides for the planning, development, operation and maintenance of major flood control facilities on behalf of the Orange County Flood Control District on a County-wide basis. The City provides drainage for developments and ensures that storm drains properly feed into the regional drainage system. The City is also responsible for the operation and maintenance of stormwater facilities throughout Orange. In addition, the City is served by several existing stormwater facilities that are operated by other jurisdictions. The Santa Ana River, which generally marks the western boundary of the City, is the location of the largest regional facility in Orange County, maintained by RDMD. Twelve flood control channels located throughout the City are maintained by RDMD on behalf of the Orange County Flood Control District and County of Orange. Within the City, DPW is responsible for developing and implementing the Master Plan of Drainage, which identifies the City's storm drain facilities and deficiencies. The project site is served by the City's storm drain system located on Orange-Olive Road. As discussed under Section 3.9.c) above, the current drainage for the project site flows to the southwest corner of the property into a narrow concrete channel, then to the City's storm drain system and outlets to the Santa Ana River at the Fletcher Street storm drain. The Proposed Project would increase the amount of pervious surfaces on the project site and decrease the amount of runoff draining into the storm drain system. Detention storm drain piping runs down the middle of the private drive aisle, and there is on-lot infiltration on site. Impervious areas are 11 See Page 5.12-12 of the 2010 Orange General Plan ," 3-82 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND dispersed throughout the site; drainage currently goes to the southwest, and the grading will not divert drainage from its natural downstream course. Roof drainage within side and rear yards will discharge onto landscaped areas to allow for maximum lot infiltration prior to entering into the private underground drainage system. The connection to Orange-Olive occurs just outside of the driveway. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable �) ��ufd the project have sufficient wat�r su�p/r�s avai�able f� serve fhe project frc�m exis�inc� en�itlerr�enfs ana�resnc�rces, or are r�e�r rar-expar�t�et�entitlesrtenis neec�ecf? A discussion of the City's water supply and demand is provided above under Section 3.17.b). The City would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Proposed Project from existing entitlements and resources. New or expanded entitlements are not needed and impacts are less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable e} ould fhe praject res�rlt ir� a �'eterminatio� �� the wastewat�r freatm�nt provider which serves ar may serve the prc�ject that it �mas adeqcrafe capacify �o .�erve fhe praject'.s proje�#e�der»and ira addifian to th�provider's existing cammrfm�nts? A discussion of the City's wastewater treatment facilities is provided above under 17.b). The City would have adequate capacity to serve the projected demand generated by the Proposed Project. Impacts are less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable f� auld fhe praject b� servea° by a CandfifC c�ith sufftcient permitfed capacity+ to accarnrnodate t�re p�ajeet`s saCid waste disp€�sal rreecls? Waste generated in the City is disposed of at one of three landfills in Orange County: Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea, Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine, and Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano. Orange County Waste & Recycling, a division of the County of Orange, owns and operates these three active landfills and administers solid waste collection, recycling, and planning within the City. Table 3-15 identifies the location and capacity of disposal landfills used by the City. ," 3-83 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND Table 3-15 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Used by the City of Orange Permitted ' Max ` Permitted Remaining Sc�lid Waste ' Oispasal ' Capacity Capacity #rom Orange Closure Faci(it Name tonslda cubic ards cuhic ards tonsf ear Date Frank R. Bowerman Landfill 8,500 127,000,000 59,411,872 18,826 12/31/2053 Olinda AI ha Landfill 8,000 74,900,000 38,578,383 190,984 12/31/2021 Prima Deshecha Landfill 4,000 172,900,000 87,384,799 381 12/31/2067 Source: California lntegrated Waste Management Board, 2009 According to Table 3-15, most of the solid waste from the City is disposed of at the Olinda Alpha Landfill. The 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR provides a solid waste generation factor of 12 pounds per dwelling unit per day for single-family residential land uses. The Proposed Project would construct 25 dwelling units on the project site, which would generate approximately 300 pounds per day, or 0.15 tons per day, of solid waste. The total amount of solid waste generated per day by the Proposed Project is nominal compared to Olinda Alpha Landfill's permitted capacity of 8,000 tons per day. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate solid waste disposal needs. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable g� �Vouta► the prv��ct com�(y with federal, stat�, and Iocal statutes �nd r��ulatiar7s rela#e�'to salid wasfie� The City's Solid Waste and Industrial Waste Ordinance (OMC Chapter 16.34) regulates where solid wastes may and may not be deposited or discharged. The City contracts with a private sector provider to collect solid waste, green waste, and recyclables. Most solid waste collected is taken to one of three landfills in Orange County: Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea, Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine, or Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano. In compliance with the California lntegrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which mandates local governments to develop a long-term strategy for the management and diversion of solid waste, the City diverts over 50 percent of its solid waste. The City operates a curbside recycling program and encourages residents and businesses to reduce the amount of solid wastes that enter the regional landfills, which counts toward the City's solid waste diversion rate. The City also collects curbside residential green waste, which counts toward the City's diversion rate. Solid waste generated by the Proposed Project would be disposed of in accordance to Solid Waste and Industrial Waste Ordinance, and with AB 939. The Proposed Project intends to utilize trash valet service with waste collection services provided by CR&R. Separate trash receptacles for solid waste, recyclables, and greenwaste would be placed in front of the residential units on a specified day and will be moved by the trash driver to the private road/paved area immediately adjacent to affected units and emptied by a trash vehicle. Once emptied, the trash receptacles would then be immediately returned to their designated units by TM 3-84 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND the trash driver. This service would be provided by CR&R for a fee, which would be the responsibility of the projecYs HOA. The Proposed Project would comply with federal, state, and locai regulations related to solid waste disposal. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable �.°�� It�a�dafia� Fira�i�c�s cs��i��if�car�ce Less';Than Significant Po#entiaily with Le�s'Than ' Si�nific�nt Mitig�tion Significaat lmp�ct In�orporated Irnpact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal ❑ � ❑ � community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable ❑ ❑ � ❑ when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human ❑ � ❑ ❑ beings, either directly or indirectly? a} Daes the praject have the pertential fo degrade the qual►ty of fhe envlranment, subst�ntially recfuce the habifat of a fish crr wrldlife species, eause a fish or wildlife J3f3�7C1Ir'Iftf3t'I �@ C�Ct7� �1eIC}W SBIf SUStc?It1dt1C,� I@YG'IS, threaten to elimina�e a plant ar arrlmal cc�mmunity, reduce the rrumber or restricf the ran�re af a rare or endangered plant or anim�d ar �{iminafe i portant examples nf the r�ajor peraads ot Caiifarnia histary or prehis#ar�r�' The Proposed Project is an infill development project located in an urbanized area of the City. The project site is currently occupied by a vehicle storage facility and is mostly paved with asphalt. The project site is not populated or used by any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status, and does not contain habitat that would support sensitive species. The project site is located in western Orange and is not within or adjacent to the NCCP/HCP Habitat Reserve. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, other approved ,M 3-85 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. As discussed under Section 3.5 above, there are no historical resources located with the project site. The records search for the Proposed Project confirmed that no cultural resources have been recorded on the project site. In addition, due to the development of the project site and previous disturbances associated with the construction and operation of the existing site use, the potential for encountering paleontological resources is considered low. However, in the event that cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, implementation of mitigation measures MM-CR-1 and MM-CR-2 would ensure that impacts to cultural and paleontological resources remain less than significant. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Significance Determination: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures: MM-CR-1: In the event a previously unrecorded archaeological deposit is encountered during construction, all activity onsite shall cease and the City shall be immediately notified. An archeologist meeting the Secretary of Interior's Professional Qualifications for Archaeology as defined at 36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A (Professional Archaeologist) shall be retained by the developer to flag the area in the field and determine if the archaeological deposits meet the CEQA definition of historical (State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(a)) and/or unique archaeological resource (Public Resources Code 21083.2(g)). If the find is considered a "resource" the Qualified Professional shall prepare a plan and pursue either protection in place or recovery, salvage and treatment of the deposits. Recovery, salvage and treatment protocols shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4.. If unique archaeological resources cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, recovery, salvage and treatment shall be required at the ApplicanYs expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the Qualified Professional. Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The Qualified Professional shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource. Excavation as a treatment option will be restricted to those parts of the unique archaeological resource that would be damaged or destroyed by the project. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of human remains, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or nearby area reasonably suspected to overly adjacent remains until the coroner is contacted. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Native American Commission will be contacted within 24 hours and the most likely descendent contacted. Any further actions will be determined at that point. The applicant shall implement all recommendations made by the archaeologist. Onsite activity may continue at the direction of the Qualified Professional and the City. Following recovery, a final report containing site forms, a summary of resource significance, and recovery and treatment documentation shall be submitted immediately to the City Community Development Department and SCCIC. All '" 3-86 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects shall be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure. The final written report shall be submitted to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center prior to Building Permit Final. MM-CR-2: In the event paleontological resources are encountered during construction, ground-disturbing activity shall cease. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer to examine the materials encountered, assess the nature and extent of the find, and recommend a course of action to further investigate and protect or recover and salvage those resources that have been encountered. Criteria for discard of specific fossil specimens will be made explicit. If a qualified paleontologist determines that impacts to a sample containing significant paleontological resources cannot be avoided by project planning, then recovery may be applied. Actions may include recovering a sample of the fossiliferous material prior to construction, monitoring work and halting construction if an important fossil needs to be recovered, and/or cleaning, identifying, and cataloging specimens for curation and research purposes. Recovery, salvage and treatment shall be done at the Applicant's expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the Qualified Professional. Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The Qualified Professional shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated b) Daes fhe pr��ect have rmpacts thaf ar� ►ra�fv�dually fi►nited, but cumulatively consic�erabl�? ("Currrulafively consic�e��l�le" means thaf fhe incremental effects af a proje�f are c+�nsiderable virrhen rriewed irt ��nnectic�n writh the effects of past projects, the e�t"�c�s vf otit�r c�rrenf projects, �r�d t�ae effects af probable futur�prajects)? The Proposed Project is designated LMDR under the 2010 Orange General Plan. The proposed development of 25 single-family residential units is consistent with the City's long-term vision for the project site. The impacts associated with the residential development of the project site was considered and analyzed under the 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR, which also considered the cumulative impacts of the development of the project site in conjunction with all other development permitted by General Plan. The Proposed Project would not result in a new impact nor increase the severity of an existing cumulative impact not previously identified by the 2010 Orange General Plan PEIR. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures: None Significance Determination After Mitigation: Not Applicable c) daes fhe project have envirc�nmental effecfs which wi11 cause substantia{ adverse effecfs on human beings, eifher directly or indirecfly? ," 3-87 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND All potential impacts of the Proposed Project have been identified, and mitigation measures have been provided, where applicable, to reduce all potential impacts to less than significant levels. Upon implementation of mitigation measures identified in this document, the Proposed Project would not have the potential to result in substantial adverse impacts on human beings either directly or indirectly. Significance Determination: Potentially Significant MM-CR-1: In the event a previously unrecorded archaeological deposit is encountered during construction, all activity onsite shall cease and the City shall be immediately notified. An archeologist meeting the Secretary of Interior's Professional Qualifications for Archaeology as defined at 36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A (Professional Archaeologist) shall be retained by the developer to flag the area in the field and determine if the archaeological deposits meet the CEQA definition of historical (State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(a)) and/or unique archaeological resource (Public Resources Code 21083.2(g)). If the find is considered a "resource" the Qualified Professional shall prepare a plan and pursue either protection in place or recovery, salvage and treatment of the deposits. Recovery, salvage and treatment protocols shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4.. If unique archaeological resources cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, recovery, salvage and treatment shall be required at the Applicant's expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the Qualified Professional. Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The Qualified Professional shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource. Excavation as a treatment option will be restricted to those parts of the unique archaeological resource that would be damaged or destroyed by the project. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of human remains, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or nearby area reasonably suspected to overly adjacent remains until the coroner is contacted. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Native American Commission will be contacted within 24 hours and the most likely descendent contacted. Any further actions will be determined at that point. The applicant shall implement all recommendations made by the archaeologist. Onsite activity may continue at the direction of the Qualified Professional and the City. Following recovery, a final report containing site forms, a summary of resource significance, and recovery and treatment documentation shall be submitted immediately to the City Community Development Department and SCCIC. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects shall be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure. The final written report shall be submitted to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center prior to Building Permit Final. MM-CR-2: In the event paleontological resources are encountered during construction, ground-disturbing activity shall cease. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer to examine the materials encountered, assess the nature and TM 3-88 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND extent of the find, and recommend a course of action to further investigate and protect or recover and salvage those resources that have been encountered. Criteria for discard of specific fossil specimens will be made explicit. If a qualified paleontologist determines that impacts to a sample containing significant paleontological resources cannot be avoided by project planning, then recovery may be applied. Actions may include recovering a sample of the fossiliferous material prior to construction, monitoring work and halting construction if an important fossil needs to be recovered, and/or cleaning, identifying, and cataloging specimens for curation and research purposes. Recovery, salvage and treatment shall be done at the ApplicanYs expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the Qualified Professional. Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The Qualified Professional shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource. MM-NO-1: The Applicant shall provide a "windows closed" condition for each proposed residential unit project. A "windows closed" condition requires a means of mechanical ventilation per Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the Uniform Building Code. This shall be achieved with a standard forced air conditioning and heating system with a filtered outside air intake vent for each residential unit, to be confirmed at the time of Building Plancheck. MM-NO-2: The Applicant shall provide windows with at least a 30 STC rating for all second floor windows in homes that are adjacent to Orange-Olive Road. These homes are labeled as 2, 3, 4, and 5 on Figure 11. MM-NO-3: The Applicant shall require that all construction contractors restrict the operation of any construction equipment that is powered by a greater than 150 horsepower engine from operating within 15 feet of any off-site residential structure. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ��'" 3-89 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND � �T� � �.� �� G Arch Beach Consulting. Traffic Analysis for 25 DUs of Single-Family Homes at 2025 N. Orange Olive Road, City of Orange. April 30, 2015. Associated Soils Engineering, Inc. (ASE). Due Diligence Geotechnical lnvestigation, 2025 North Orange Olive Road, Orange, California, February 27, 2014. Associated Soils Engineering, Inc. (ASE). Storm Water Infilfration Rate for Proposed Dry Well, Olive 25 Residential Development, 2025 North Orange Olive Road, Tentative Tract Map 17758, July 10, 2015. C&V Consulting. Hydrology and Hydraulics Study. March 2014, revised July 2015. C&V Consulting. Preliminary Wafer Qualify Management Plan (WQMP). March 2015, revised July 2015. California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit. Report E-5: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counfies, and State, January 1, 2011-2014, with 2010 Benchmark. May 1, 2014. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Last updated September 7, 2011. Accessed May 3, 2015. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/ scenic_highways/. City of Orange. 2006-2014 Housing Element (General Plan Amendment No. 2009-0005). February 2010. City of Orange. Orange General Plan. March 2010 City of Orange. Orange Municipal Code. Last updated April 25, 2014. Accessed May 3, 2015. https://www.municode.com/library/ca/orange/codes/code_of ordinances?nodeld=16539. City of Orange. Program Environmental Impact Report, City of Orange General Plan (State Clearing House #2006031117). March 2010. Ecobility. Phase 1 Environmental Assessment Report, Orange Olive Road Project, 2025 North Orange Olive Road, Orange, CA. December 19, 2013. Ecobility. Soil Sampling Report for 2025 North Orange Olive Road, Orange, California. December 19, 2013. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., City of Orange 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2011. Orange Unified School District. School Locator and Maps. Accessed May 3, 2015. http://www.orangeusd.k12.ca.us/facilities/boundaries.asp Orange County Public Works Flood Division. Prado Dam. Accessed July 20, 2015. httq:/lacflaad.com/sarp/prada '� 4-1 Orange-Olive Specific Plan Project MND US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Dam Safety Program: Prado Dam. Accessed July 20, 2015. http:flwww.spl.��sace.army.millMediai�act�heets/tabidl13211 Article/4773 49/dam-safety-program.aspx Vista Environmental. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis — MBK Homes Orange-Olive Residenfial Project, City of Orange. August 12, 2015 Vista Environmental. Noise Impact Analysis — MBK Homes Orange-Olive Residential Project, City of Orange. August 13, 2015. rr 4-2